Richmond City Council
September 26, 2023

PLEASE NOTE: HYBRID MEETING FORMAT

AGENDA(s)
-REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL

Tuesday, September 26, 2023, 4:30 p.m.

Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:

Eduardo Martinez, Mayor at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Cesar Zepeda, Councilmember District 2
Doria Robinson, Councilmember District 3
Soheila Bana, Councilmember District 4
Gayle McLaughlin, Vice Mayor, District 5
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
NOTICE: SEATING IN THE CHAMBERS WILL BE LIMITED TO THE FIRST 39 PEOPLE AND MASKS ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED.

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:

KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.

Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.

HOW TO SUBMIT PUBLIC COMMENTS:

In Person: Anyone who desires to address the City Council on items appearing on the agenda, including 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. Once the City Clerk has announced the item, no person shall be permitted to speak on the item other than those persons who have submitted their names to the City Clerk. Each speaker will be allowed up to TWO (2) MINUTES to address the City Council on NON-PUBLIC HEARING items listed on the agenda. Speakers are allowed up to THREE (3) minutes on PUBLIC HEARING items.

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. Only those public speakers that have their hand raised once the speakers are called 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: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592

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.

2 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 [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.

Via email: to [email protected] 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).

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 3 or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] 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.

Pages
4 A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 4:30 p.m.

B. ROLL CALL
C. CLOSED SESSION
C.1 CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency Representatives: Sharrone Taylor and Jack Hughes• 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.2 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) Hilltop v. City of Richmond•
Winehaven Trust v. City of Richmond•
C.3 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of Subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9)
Three Cases•
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION (limited to items on the Closed Session agenda only)
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
________________________________________________________ 5 F. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 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) M. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)(limited to two minutes per Councilmember)(public comments allowed under Open Forum)
N. CRIME REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF - 4th Tuesday (public comment allowed under Open Forum)
O. 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)
P. 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.)
P.1 City Attorney's Office
P.1.a Acceptance of Brickyard Cove Road Dedication Pursuant to Recorded Infrastructure Agreements
9 AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute agreements(s) with BCHOA1 and Boardwalk Marina that provide for their $261,220 contribution to the City’s pavement management program; ADOPT a resolution of acceptance of dedication; and AUTHORIZE the City Manager to approve easements for HOAs to maintain landscaping with all of such documents in a form approved by the City Attorney – City Attorney’s Office (Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509).
6 P.2 Economic Development
P.2.a Contract with PES Environmental, Inc. dba NV5 for Environmental Consulting Services at Marina Bay
24 APPROVE a sole-source contract with PES Environmental, Inc. (dba NV5) for environmental consultation services and to perform annual inspections of nine deed restricted properties in Marina Bay for a total amount not to exceed $383,750, with a term from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2026 – City Manager’s Office (Nannette Beacham/Craig Murray 510-621-1264).

P.3 Library and Community Services
P.3.a Approve the Purchase of Two R-Transit Electric Passenger Vans 64 APPROVE a contract between the City of Richmond and the National Auto Fleet Group to purchase two R-Transit electric vans in an amount not to exceed $268,861.76; and ALLOCATE and
APPROPRIATE, if needed, Richmond’s Environmental and
Community Invest Agreement funding to support the purchase of electric vans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions - Community Services Department (LaShonda White 510-620-6828/Denée Evans 510-621-1718/Lori Reese-Brown 510-620-6869).

P.4 Mayor's Office
P.4.a National Drive Electric Week 102
PROCLAMATION declaring September 22 to October 1, 2023, as National Drive Electric Week in the City of Richmond – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503) and Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593).

P.5 Public Works
P.5.a Hilltop Landscape District Office Trailer and Yard Lease 105 APPROVE a sixth lease amendment with North Richmond
Properties, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $32,429.28, for a month- to-month term, for the rental of two office trailers and space to store containers and landscaping equipment – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Greg Hardesty 510-620-6920).

P.5.b Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project Funding Request 128 APPROVE and APPROPRIATE transfer of funds amounting to
$1,040,000 from Risk Management fund to the General Capital Fund for the Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478 / Ken Cheng 510-621- 1612).
7 Q. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Q.1 Approval of Adjusted Developer Impact Fees for a Revised Master Fee Schedule
132
HOLD a public hearing and ADOPT a resolution adjusting the dollar amount for proposed Developer Impact Fees using the two- and four-year phase in approach – Finance Department (Andrea Miller/Mubeen Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620- 6741).

Q.2 THIS ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO THE JANUARY 16, 2024, CITY

COUNCIL MEETING
HOLD a public hearing on an appeal filed objecting to the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of a Vesting Tentative Map, Major Design Review, and Density Bonus waivers to certain development standards, including a consistency checklist under CEQA for a 94-unit townhome project on a site located on Brickyard Cove Road; and ADOPT a Resolution denying the appeal and affirming the Planning Commission’s action on the Brickyard Cove Residential Project - Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6841).

R. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
R.1 Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City-Wide Accomplishments 223 RECEIVE a presentation from the city manager on the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 City-wide accomplishments – City Manager’s Office (Shasa Curl 510-620- 6512). This item was continued from the July 11, 2023, September 12, 2023, and September 19, 2023, meetings.

R.2 North Richmond Living Levee Project Presentation 277 RECEIVE a presentation from the North Richmond Shoreline working group on the North Richmond Living Levee Project - Councilmember Jimenez (510-620- 6565).

R.3 Contra Costa County’s Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) Program Update 315 RECEIVE a presentation from Contra Costa Health regarding the Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime (A3) program, which is an innovative approach to provide timely and appropriate mental and behavioral health crisis services to people in Contra Costa County – Community Services Department (LaShonda White 510-620-6828) and Councilmembers Soheila Bana (510-620-6743) and Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593).

S. ADJOURNMENT
________________________
8

September 26, 2023

City Attorney's Office

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Zepeda
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Subject:

Acceptance of Brickyard Cove Road Dedication Pursuant
to Recorded Infrastructure Agreements
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City will receive $261,220 from various homeowners’ associations to support the City’s Pavement
Management Program.

The action to accept negotiated agreements with
BCHOA1 and Boardwalk Marina Homeowners
Association with funding agreement would have long-
term financial impacts with maintenance costs
comparable to other public streets.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 20, 2023, City Council authorized City Manager to
negotiate agreements

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The BCHOA1, Boardwalk Marina and other Brickyard
Cove homeowners’ associations requested that the City
accept the dedication of the private portions of Brickyard Cove Road as a public road. These organizations have
offered $261,220 to the City’s Pavement Management
Program for the City to accept the aforementioned
dedication. No immediate maintenance work is required.

The City Attorney has negotiated recorded agreements,
while the homeowners’ associations retain landscape
responsibility through easements in a form to be
approved by City Attorney.

AGENDA
REPORT
9

September 26, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

AUTHORIZE the Mayor to execute agreements(s) with
BCHOA1 and Boardwalk Marina that provide for their
$261,220 contribution to the City’s pavement
management program; ADOPT a resolution of
acceptance of dedication; and AUTHORIZE the City
Manager to approve easements for HOAs to maintain
landscaping with all of such documents in a form
approved by the City Attorney – City Attorney’s Office
(Dave Aleshire 510-620-6509).

DISCUSSION:

Brickyard Cove (“BYC”) Road was originally constructed as a requirement of a Subdivision Agreement from November 15, 1968. This agreement stated that the City would accept BYC Road when it either connected Garrard Boulevard to Canal Boulevard or when the City developed public recreational facilities in the vicinity of Shipyard 3, which required access from Garrard Boulevard.

The connection to Canal Boulevard was completed in 1996. The City has not accepted BYC Road and it is still privately owned and maintained. The City never accepted BYC Road, in part due to staff turnover in the Public Works Department and in part due to the current condition of the road, which has aged and does not comply with current standards and will require future maintenance.

This matter was brought to the City Council on June 20, 2023, and the City Council directed that the City Manager or her designee negotiate agreements (the Agreements) with the HOAs permitting transfer and return to City Council for final approval. These Agreements are now before you.

The transfer and much of the funding for the maintenance of BYC Road is provided by BCHOA1 and Boardwalk Marina Homeowners’ Associations (collectively the “HOAs”).

These organizations have requested that the City accept the dedication of the roadway improvements (road, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, etc.) and the underlying land.

The Agreements, which will be recorded as negotiated by the City Attorney, include the following terms:

• The dedication of right of way is accepted by City and subject to dedication by adoption of the Resolution of Acceptance (Exhibit 1) which sets conditions before acceptance is effective including: (i) payment of the Contribution Payment (defined below), (ii) granting and acceptance of the landscaping easements, and (iii) complete execution and recordation of the Agreements.

• BCOHA1, Boardwalk Marina and other Brickyard Cove Homeowner’s Associations will contribute $261,220 toward the City of Richmond’s Pavement Management Program (the “Contribution Payment”). 10

September 26, 2023
• The proposed agreements would not require immediate repaving of Brickyard Cove Road. The City’s obligation to fund the repaving would be in accordance with Pavement Management Program’s guidelines and requirements which are currently being updated and can be amended from time to time.

• The Brickyard Cove community would continue to bear the costs of roadside and median landscaping as part of the proposed agreements and through easements granted for such purposes.

• HOAs represent that they have kept the roadway in a state of good repair and in a safe condition.

• HOAs agree that City shall not be liable for any claims from injury or damage directly or indirectly arising from the roadway before the effective date, being the adoption of the Resolution and the satisfaction of the conditions thereof including payment of the Contribution Payment, recordation of the Agreements and the creation of the landscape easements.

The Resolution of Acceptance (Attachment 1) and Agreements (Attachments 2 & 3) are attached. The Landscape Easements are still being drafted but the City Manager is given authority hereunder to execute them in a form approved by the City Attorney.

Accordingly, the City Council is recommended to follow the action on June 20, 2023, by acting pursuant hereto.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Resolution of Acceptance
Attachment 2 - Amendment to Improvement Agreement for Subdivision 3637 – Brickyard Cove Unit No. 3
Attachment 3 - Amendment to Agreement Respecting the Management, Maintenance and Control of the Common Properties and Improvements in the Brickyard Cove Subdivision No. 3520
11 RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING

THE OFFER TO DEDICATE LAND FOR PUBLIC

STREET AND ROAD PURPOSES AFFECTING A

PORTION OF BRICKYARD COVE ROAD, AS

SHOWN UPON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED
“BRICKYARD COVE MAP”

WHEREAS, there is land designated for public street and road purposes affecting a portion of Brickyard Cove Road, as shown upon those certain final subdivision maps described as follows:

Subdivision 3637 in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, per the final subdivision map recorded on Marc h 5, 1982, in Book 262 of Maps at pages 43 through 47, in the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California; and
Subdivision 3520 in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, per the final subdivision map recorded on December 12, 1968, in book 125 of Maps at page 16, in the office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California; and
WHEREAS, the Brickyard Cove Association No.1, a California nonprofit corporation (the “Association”) owns and maintains certain parcels in Subdivision 3520, described above and
BOARDWALK CAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 20% tenant -in-common interest; BOARDWALK CK 40, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 6% tenant -in-common interest; BOARDWALK CORONADO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company , as to a 9% tenant -in-common interest; BOARDWALK PALMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 25% tenant -in-common interest:
and BOARDWALK TV, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 40% tenant -in- common interest (collectively, “Boardwalk”) own and maintain certain parcels in Subdivision 3637, described above; and
WHEREAS, City and Boardwalk are parties to that certain IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION 3637 – BRICKYARD COVE UNIT NO. 3, dated the 12 22nd of February, 1982, and recorded at Page 348 of Book 10690 of the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa and City and Association are parties to that certain AGREEMENT

RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL OF THE

COMMON PROPERTIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BRICKYARD COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3520 Made and entered into on the 24
th of August, 1970, and
recorded as Instrument No. 55362 at Page 153 of Book 6201 of the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa (collectively, the “Agreements”) which Agreements, among other things, contemplated dedication of the Brickyard Cove Road Infrastructure (defined below) to the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreements , City has entered into separate infrastructure agreements with Association and Boardwalk which, among other things, provide for the dedication of the Brickyard Cove Road Infrastructure (collectively, the “Dedication Agreements”; and
WHEREAS, the Brickyard Cove Infrastructure dedicated for public street and road purposes as shown on the Brickyard Cove Road Map is described in Exhibits "A" and ''B" attached hereto and incorporated by this reference; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66477.2(a) governs offers of dedication and acceptance by the City by resolution of real property for any public purpose which includes but is not limited to, streets, paths, alleys and public utility easements.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Richmond hereby accepts the offer of dedication of the land designated for public street and road purposes affecting a portion of Brickyard Cove as described in Exhibits "A" and "B" and as identified on the attached Map, contingent on satisfaction of the following conditions:

1. City’s receipt of payments from the Association, Boardwalk and other Brickyard Cove homeowners’ associations as set forth in the Dedication Agreements.

2. City and Association and City and Boardwalk enter into separate landscape easement agreements whereby City will grant Association and Boardwalk the right to enter their respective subdivisions for Association and Boardwalk to fulfill their obligations to maintain the landscaping on or around Brickyard Cove Road, as more specifically described in the Dedication Agreements.
13 3. Complete execution and recordation of the Dedication Agreements.

This Resolution shall become effective on _________________ and shall be recorded by the City Clerk in the Contra Costa County Recorder's Office shortly thereafter.

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

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 September 26, 2023, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. _____, finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on

_______________________________________
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
14 15

1 (Space above for Recorder's use only)

AMENDMENT TO IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR
SUBDIVISION 3637 – BRICKYARD COVE UNIT NO. 3

This AMENDMENT TO IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION 3637 – BRICKYARD COVE UNIT NO. 3, dated February 22, 1982 (“ 3637 AMENDMENT”) is made and entered into this __ day of __________, 2023, by and between the CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation (“City”) and BOARDWALK CAL, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 20% tenant-in-common interest; BOARDWALK CK 40, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 6% tenant -in-common interest; BOARDWALK CORONADO, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 9% tenant -in-common interest; BOARDWALK PALMS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 25% tenant -in-common interest: and BOARDWALK TV, LL C, a Delaware limited liability company, as to a 40% tenant -in-common interest (collectively, “Boardwalk”). “City” and “Boardwalk” are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Parties”.

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Boardwalk owns and maintains certain parcels in that certain subdivision now commonly known as Richmond Boardwalk (“Subdivision”), more particularly described as follows:

Subdivision 3 637 in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, per the final subdivision map recorded on March 5, 1982, in Book 262 of Maps at pages 43 through 47, in the Office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County, California.

WHEREAS, City and Boardwalk, as successor-in-interest to the former owners of Boardwalk’s parcels within the Subdivision , are parties to that certain IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR SUBDIVISION 3637 – BRICKYARD COVE UNIT NO. 3 , dated the 22nd of February, 1982 (the “Agreement”), and recorded at Page 348 of Book 10690 of the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa and such agreement among other things, contemplated dedication of the Road Infrastructure (defined below) to the City; and

RECORDING REQUESTED
BY:

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Attn: Director of Public Works

NO FEE FOR RECORDING PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
16 2

WHEREAS, Boardwalk owns certain real property encompassing a portion of Brickyard Cove Road, commonly known as APN s 560-430-013 and 560-410-065 and more particularly described in Exhibit A hereto (the “Road Property”); and
WHEREAS, since its development, Boardwalk or its predecessors -in-interest have owned, operated and maintained the portion of Brickyard Cove Road (the “Road”) in the Subdivision, its curbs, gutters and sidewalks (the “Road Infrastructure”); and
WHEREAS, work on the Road Infrastructure commenced in 1968 and was completed in 1970.

The Road has been resealed at least once since completion and was restriped in 2021. Boardwalk has regularly performed repairs and maintenance on the Road; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement as specified herein and a resolution (the “Resolution”) has been prepared for adoption by the City Council.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by the Parties as follows:

1. Boardwalk hereby offers the Road Infrastructure, including fee title to the Road Property, for dedication to the City for ownership, operation, main tenance, repair and replacement of the Road Infrastructure.

2. City intends to accept the dedication and so shall accept such offer of dedication upon adoption of the Resolution, subject to the conditions specified therein, and the date of satisfaction of such conditions shall be deemed the Effective Date.

3. Boardwalk shall make a one-time payment of Fifty-Two Thousand Forty and 00/100 Dollars ($52,040.00) to the City on or before the Effective Date. These funds will be appropriated to the City’s Pavement Management Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Boardwalk understands and acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to at any particular time repave or repair the Road Infrastructure. Any City work on the Road Infrastructure shall be performed in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program Guidelines as they now exist or shall be amended by the City, which governs, among other things, prioritization of repaving and repair work performed on all City-controlled streets.

4. Boardwalk agrees to maintain and keep in good co ndition, at their sole cost and expense, without weeds and debris, the landscaping located within the Brickyard Cove Road roadside and median. The City and Boardwalk agree to negotiate and enter into an easement agreement on or prior to the Effective Date to facilitate the obligations set forth in this Section 4.

5. As noted in the Recitals above, the Boardwalk represents that it has owned, operated and maintained the Road Infrastructure in a state of good repair and in a safe condition by, among other things, restriping and resealing the Road and performing regular m aintenance and repairs, including pothole repairs.

6. Boardwalk understands and acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any claims for injury or damage, directly or indirectly arising from the Road Infrastructure prior to the Effective Date.

7. Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
17 3

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 3637 AMENDMENT on the day and year first above written.

[signatures on following page]

18 4

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation

By: ____________________________________
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor

Attest:

_______________________________
City Clerk
BOARDWALK CAL, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company

_______________________________
By: Tina Roberts, LLC Manager

Approved as to form:

_______________________________
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney

BOARDWALK CK 40, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company

_______________________________
By: Tina Roberts, LLC Manager

BOARDWALK CORONADO, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company

_______________________________
By: Tina Roberts, LLC Manager

BOARDWALK PALMS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company

_______________________________
By: Tina Roberts, LLC Manager

BOARDWALK TV, LIC, a Delaware
limited liability company

_______________________________
By: Tina Roberts, LLC Manager

19 5

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF ROAD PROPERTY

Brickyard Cove Road, as depicted and described on Tract 3637, recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Contra Costa County, State of California, on March 5, 1982 in Book 262 of Maps, Pages 43 to 47.

APN: 560-430-013

Parcel B, as shown and so designated on the Map of Subdivision 3520, filed December 12, 1968, Map Book 125, Page 16, Contra Costa County Records.

APN: 560-410-065
20 1

(Space above for Recorder's use only)

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND

CONTROL OF THE COMMON PROPERTIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BRICKYARD COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3520
This AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT,

MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL OF THE COMMON PROPERTIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BRICKYARD COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3520 (" 3520 AMENDMENT ”) is made and entered into this _ day of ___________, 2023 by and between the CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation (“City”) and the BRICKYARD COVE ASSOCIATION NO. 1, a non-profit corporation formed under the laws of the State of California (“Association ”) (“City” and “Association ” are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Parties”).

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, Association owns and maintains common properties in that certain subdivision known as Brickyard Cove Units 1 and 2 (“Subdivision ”), more particularly described as follows:

Subdivision 3520 in the County of Contra Costa, State of California, per the final subdivision map recorded on
December 12, 1968, in book 125 of Maps at page 16, in the office of the Recorder of Contra Costa County,
California.

WHEREAS, City and Association are parties to that certain AGREEMENT

RESPECTING THE MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE AND CONTROL OF THE COMMON PROPERTIES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BRICKYARD COVE SUBDIVISION NO. 3520

NO FEE FOR RECORDING PURSUANT TO
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27383
21 2

Made and entered into on the 24
th of August, 1970, and recorded as Instrument No. 55362 at Page 153 of Book 6201 of the Official Records of the County of Contra Costa and such agreement among other things, contemplated dedication of the Road Infrastructure (defined below ) to the City ; and
WHEREAS, since its development, the Association has owned, operated and maintained Brickyard Cove Road (the “Road”) , its curbs, gutters and sidewalks (See Exhibit A). Brickyard Cove Road shall be known as the “Road Infrastructure ”; and WHEREAS, work on the Road Infrastructure commenced in 1968 and was completed in 1970. The Road has been resealed at least once since completion and was restriped in 2021. The Association has regular ly performed repairs and maintenance on the Road; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Agreement as specified herein and a resolution (the “Resolution”) has been prepared for adoption by the City Council .

NOW, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed by the Parties as follows:

I

1. Association hereby offers the Road Infrastructure for dedication to the City for ownership, operation, maintenance, repair and replacement.

2. City intends to accept the dedication and so shall accept such offer of dedication upon adoption of the Resolution, subject to the conditions specified therein, and the date of satisfaction of such conditions shall be deemed the Effective Date.

3. Association shall pay the sum of $38,780.00 to the City on or before the Effective Date. These funds will be appropriated to the City’s Pavement Management Program. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Association understand s and acknowledges that the City is under no obligation to at any particular time repave or repair the Road Infrastructure. Any City work on the Road Infrastructure shall be performed in accordance with the City’s Pavement Management Program Guidelines as they now exist or shall be amended by the City, which governs, among other things, prioritization of repaving and repair work performed on all City-controlled streets.

4. The following funds shall be paid to the City on or before the Effective Date:

a. Brickyard Landing Owners Association shall pay to the City the sum of $120,000.00.
b. Brickyard Cove Association #2 shall pay to the City the sum of $14,828.00 c. Seacliff at Point Richmond Owners Association shall pay the City the sum of $74,352.00.

5. The Association agrees (along with the Brickyard Community Associations named in No. 4 above) to maintain and keep in good condition at their sole cost and expense, without weeds and debris, the landscaping located within the Brickyard Cove Road roadside and median. The City, Association and the Brickyard Community Associations named in No. 4 above agree to negotiate and enter into an easement 22 3

agreement on or prior to the Effective Date to facilitate the obligations set forth in this Section 5.

6. As noted in the Recitals above, the A ssociation represents that it has owned, operated and maintained the Road Infrastructure in a state of good repair and in a safe condition by, among other things, restriping and resealing the Road and performing regular maintenance and repairs, including pothole repairs.

7. Association understands and acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any claims for injury or damage, directly or indirectly arising from the Road Infrastructure prior to the Effective Date.

8. Except as amended hereby, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

I N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this 3520 AMENDMENT on the day and year first above written.

CITY OF RICHMOND, a municipal corporation

By: ____________________________________
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
Attest:

______________________________ BRICKYARD COVE ASSOCIATION, No. 1, CITY CLERK a non-profit corporation

By: __________________________________
Approved as to form: Eileen Lewis, President Brickyard Cove HOA1
______________________________
Dave Aleshire, City Attorney
23

September 26, 2023

Economic Development

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Nannette Beacham, Director of Economic Development
Craig K. Murray, Development Project Manager II

Subject:

Contract with PES Environmental, Inc. dba NV5 for
Environmental Consulting Services at Marina Bay
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed $383,750 expenditure will be budgeted accordingly each year and is included in the fiscal year 2023-24 City Manager’s Office Economic Development
Real Estate budget (01369065-400201) and the Public
Works Department Capital Improvement Project (CIP)
Area FM Cap budget (40536031-400201-23011) (FY
2023-24 $86,600; FY 2024-25 $50,150; FY 2025-26
$55,200 - 01369065-400201); (FY 2023-24 $191,800 -
40536031-400201-23011).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is requesting authorization to enter into a
contract with PES Environmental, Inc. (dba NV5) for
environmental work reporting at various locations in
Marina Bay, as required by the Department of Toxic
Substance Control, for a not-to-exceed amount of
$383,750.

AGENDA
REPORT
24

September 26, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a sole-source contract with PES
Environmental, Inc. (dba NV5) for environmental
consultation services and to perform annual inspections of nine deed restricted properties in Marina Bay for a total amount not to exceed $383,750, with a term from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2026 – City Manager’s Office
(Nannette Beacham/Craig Murray 510-621-1264).

DISCUSSION:

PES Environmental, Inc. (dba NV5) (NV5) has provided the Successor Agency and City with environmental analysis review and interface with regulatory agencies regarding soil conditions and soil handling for properties throughout Marina Bay (Attachment 2) as required by the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). The City of Richmond requires similar environmental services for nine deed restricted sites in Marina Bay including annual inspections and reporting. There will also be additional contract work as required by DTSC that will include the preparation of a five-year review work plan and Area T enhanced Groundwater work.

The NV5 contract amount of $383,750 will provide Area FM general environmental consultation in the amount of $191,800, Area T enhanced groundwater remediation, monitoring, and reporting in the amount of $99,600, and Marina Bay annual Inspections and five-year review in the amount of $92,350 as required by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). NV5 will provide remediation and development of an Area FM temporary Cap Maintenance Plan and any necessary environmental consultation services for the disposition of Area FM.NV5 will also provide environmental consultation services for Area T, perform annual inspections of nine deed restricted properties in Marina Bay and FM Cap work as designated in the CIP budget approved by City Council on June 29, 2021.

City staff completed certain work on this contract prior to July 1 for a July 2023 start date but were not able to have the full City Council report and contract related documents ready at that time. This NV5 Contract is now appearing following the approximate six-week City Council recess.

City staff is requesting approval of a contract with NV5 to perform contaminated product removal work, product monitoring and analysis work at Area T, temporary cap work at Area FM, and for annual inspection, analysis and reporting, and any additional environmental consultation services, as necessary, through the period ending June 30, 2026.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Contract
Attachment 2 – Map
Attachment 3 – Sole Source Justification
25 CITY OF RICHMOND

STANDARD CONTRACT

Department: Project Manager:

Project Manager E-mail:

Project Manager Phone No:

PR No: Vendor No: P.O./Contract No:

Description of Services:

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

1. Parties. The parties to this Contract are the City of Richmond (herein referred to as the “City”) and the following named Contractor:

Company Name:

Street Address:

City, State, Zip Code:

Contact Person:

Telephone: Email:

Business License No: / Expiration Date:

A California [ ] corporation, [ ] limited liability corporation [ ] general partnership, [ ] limited partnership, [ ] individual, [ ] non-profit corporation, [ ] individual dba as [specify:] , [ ] other [specify:]

2. Term. The effective date of this Contract is and it terminates unless terminated as provided herein.

3. Payment Limit. City’s total payments to Contractor under this Contract shall not exceed $ . City shall not pay for services that exceed the Contract Payment Limit unless a contract amendment has been approved by the City Council or City Manager.

4. Contractor’s Obligations. Contractor shall provide those services and carry out that work described in the Service Plan (Exhibit A) which is attached hereto and is incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

5. City's Obligations. City shall make to the Contractor those payments described in the Payment Provisions (Exhibit B) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

26 6. Authorized Representatives and Notices. This Contract is subject to the Authorized Representatives and Notices Provisions (Exhibit C) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference.

7. General Conditions. This Contract is subject to the General Conditions (Exhibit D) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein.

8. Special Conditions. This Contract is subject to the Special Conditions (Exhibit E) (if any) which are attached hereto and are incorporated herein by reference, subject to all the terms and conditions contained or incorporated herein. (Note:
other than Public Works contracts, the City will agree to Special Conditions only in unusual circumstances.)

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

10. Signatures. These signatures attest the parties' Contract hereto:

CITY OF RICHMOND CONTRACTOR:
a municipal corporation

By:
(* The Corporation Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice President should sign below)

Title: By:

I hereby certify that this Contract Title:
has been approved by City Council.

Date Signed:

B y :

City Clerk
(* The Corporation Chief Financial Officer,
Secretary or Assistant Secretary should sign below)
Approved as to form:

B y :

B y : T i t l e :

City Attorney
Date Signed:

(NOTE: Pursuant to California Corporations
Code Section 313, if Contractor is a corporation
or nonprofit organization, this Contract (1) must
be signed by (a) the Chairperson of the Board,
President or Vice-President
and (b) the
Secretary any Assistant Secretary, the Chief
Financial Officer or any Assistant Treasurer.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:

Service Plan Exhibit A
Payment Provisions Exhibit B
Authorized Representatives and Notices Exhibit C
General Conditions Exhibit D
Special Conditions Exhibit E
Insurance Provisions Exhibit F
Standard Contract/EJ/TE 9-26-07
27 For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT A

SERVICE PLAN

Contractor shall, to the satisfaction of the , perform the following services and be compensated as outlined below:

28 7665 REDWOOD BLVD, SUITE 200 | NOVATO, CA 94945 | WWW.NV5.COM | OFFICE 415.899.1600 June 13, 2023

644.010.04.P09

City of Richmond
City Manager’s Office
Attention: Mr. Craig Murray
440 Civic Center Plaza, Second Floor
Richmond, California 94804

PROPOSED SCOPE OF WORK AND FEE ESTIMATE
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTATION SERVICES DURING FISCAL YEARS 2023/24, 2024/25 AND 2025/26

MARINA BAY PROJECT NINE-DEED RESTRICTED AREAS

RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA

Dear Mr. Murray:

PES Environmental, Inc., dba NV5 (NV5) is pleased to present the City of Richmond (City) this proposed scope of work and fee estimate for environmental consultation services related to the nine deed restricted properties located within the Marina Bay Project. Nine areas owned by the City are subject to land use restrictions required by California Environmental Protection City (EPA), Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), and the instruments have been recorded with the Contra Costa County Recorder Office. The scope of work is for environmental consultation services to be provided to the City during Fiscal Years (FY) 2023/24, 2024/25, and 2025/26.

This proposal contains a brief description of the anticipated scope of work for the above-referenced properties. This proposed scope of work also includes environmental consultation during construction of the temporary asphalt cap at Area FM. However, as you know, the work plan for the construction of the temporary cap is under review by DTSC and the scope of the final approved scope is not known at this time. Costs for oversight and documentation of the temporary cap have been developed based on the proposed scope of work described in the work plan and assumptions and are included herein; however, if the scope of work approved by DTSC differs from what is proposed herein a separate proposal to supplement those fees will be prepared and submitted under separate cover.

29 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx

SCOPE OF WORK

The following sections present a summary of the scope of work for the environmental consultation services.

Task 1 - Marina Bay Project

Task 1a - Nine Deed Restricted Areas – Annual Inspections and Five-Year Review

The nine areas include: (1) Area T; (2) Area V; (3) Boat Launch Ramp Parking Area; (4) Marina Way South (West Shore Areas); (5) Peninsula Drive; (6) Regatta Boulevard Right-Of-Way (northwest of Area L); (7) Shimada Friendship Park; (8) Vincent Park; and (9) Area FM. The scope of work includes conducting: (1) annual inspections and reporting; (2) revising a Third Five Year Review Work Plan; and (3) preparing the Third Five Year Review Report.

Annual Inspections and Reporting

In accordance with the O&M Plans and the O&M Agreements, NV5 will conduct annual inspections of each area on an annual basis for FY 2023/24, FY 2024/25, and FY 2025/26.

Area FM does not have an O&M Plan at this time; however, NV5 will inspect Area FM during the 2023 annual inspections. The 2022 annual inspections were conducted in June 2022. The annual inspections will be conducted at each of the nine areas upon receipt of the executed contract for this proposed scope of work and are expected to be conducted with DTSC staff in attendance. This task also includes a contingency to address potential issues discovered during the annual inspections. In order to reduce costs, we have assumed that the inspections of the nine areas will be conducted during one day of field work and repairs will be made by City staff on the same day. The repairs will be documented on the day of the inspections and follow-up inspections will not be required. Following the inspection, an annual inspection report will be prepared for the areas. The report will be submitted to the City for review and comment. Following receipt of your authorization, the annual inspection report will be submitted to DTSC. The above process will be followed during FY 2024/25 and FY 2025/26. Fee estimates for annual inspections, reporting and contingencies for 2024 and 2025 have been increased by 10% annually to accommodate anticipated rate changes.

Revision of Third Five-Year Review Work Plan

On March 18, 2019, PES submitted a work plan for the third five-year review of the remedial actions implemented at nine environmental deed-restricted areas to DTSC for review and approval. On May 15, 2020, DTSC submitted comments on the work plan and on June 16, 2020, PES submitted a revised work plan that addressed DTSC’s comments. DTSC approval of the revised work plan is pending. DTSC submitted a survey to the Marina Bay community in March 2021 and we anticipate that DTSC may require further revisions to the work plan as a result of the survey. NV5 will revise the Third Five Year Review Work Plan, 30 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
if needed, for the five-year review of the nine deed restricted properties. The revised work plan will be submitted to you in draft form for your review and comment. Following receipt of your authorization, the work plan will be submitted to DTSC for review and approval. If revisions are not required, NV5 will proceed with preparing the Third Five Year Review Report. The cost estimate assumes that only one round of edits will be required.

Third Five-Year Review Reporting

Following DTSC approval of the revised work plan, NV5 will conduct a five-year review of each area. The purpose of the five-year review is to evaluate the implementation and performance of the remedy to determine, after five years, if the remedy is protective of human health and the environment. In accordance with applicable guidance 1, the five-year review
report will include an authority statement, objective of the review, background information, including site location, history and conditions, a discussion of remedial objectives, a summary of monitoring information, recommendations, and a statement of protectiveness. A registered civil engineer must prepare the five-year review report. A draft five-year review report will be prepared for the nine areas and submitted to you for your review and comment. Following receipt of your authorization, a final Third Five-Year Review Report will be submitted to DTSC for the nine areas described above.

Task 1b - Area T - Groundwater Remediation and Monitoring and Reporting

Groundwater Monitoring and Reporting

This estimate assumes six groundwater monitoring wells and four separate-phase hydrocarbon (SPH) characterization and removal wells located at Area T will be sampled on an annual basis during the second quarter of each year for the period covered by this proposal. This estimate also assumes wells TW-3R and CW-3 will be sampled on a quarterly basis. This proposal includes conducting 12 groundwater monitoring events starting in the Third Quarter 2023. The sampling and reporting proposed herein will be conducted in FY 2023/24, FY 2024/25, and FY 2025/26. Fee estimates for groundwater monitoring and reporting for 2024 and 2025 have been increased by 10% annually to accommodate anticipated rate changes.

Samples from wells WSS17, TW-1, TW-2, TW-4, TW-5, CW-1, CW-2, and CW-4 will be analyzed for total extractable petroleum hydrocarbons quantified as diesel (TEPHd) and motor oil (TEPHmo), total volatile hydrocarbons quantified as gasoline (TVHg), and Stoddard Solvent (TVHss) on an annual basis. Samples from well TW-3R are analyzed on a quarterly basis for TVHg, TVHss, TEPHd, TEPHmo, naphthalene, and benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX); and samples from well CW-3 are analyzed on a quarterly basis for TVHg, TVHss, TEPHd, and TEPHmo. The purge water generated during the groundwater sampling events will be transported off-site by the sampling subcontractor for disposal as non- hazardous waste at an appropriately licensed facility.

1 Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response No. 9355.7-03B-P. 31 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
Reports will be prepared on a quarterly basis to document the sampling and analysis as well as the groundwater remediation program discussed below.

Task 1c - Area FM – Work Plan Revision, Temporary Cap Construction, Reporting and General Environmental Consultation

Based on discussions with you, NV5 anticipates providing environmental consultation services to the City for Area FM, North Shore Area, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California. On March 18, 2021, DTSC submitted a letter 2 to the City regarding Area FM and
on May 3, 2021, City representatives, DTSC, and NV5 discussed the letter during a virtual meeting. The March 18, 2021 letter requested several documents be submitted by the City to DTSC by April 16, 2021. The City responded to the March 18, 2021 letter in correspondence dated April 15, 20213. The April 15, 2021 letter requested an extension for submittal of documents until Third Quarter 2021 due to budgetary constraints. The request for extension was approved by DTSC in electronic correspondence dated May 27, 20214.

Additionally, on March 19, 2021, DTSC notified the City 5 of an alleged trespass on the deed
restricted property and has directed the City to implement additional steps to ensure the site is secure. Accordingly, the City has implemented installation of additional fencing and repair of existing fencing and is proposing installation of a temporary cap (contractor costs are not included herein). The temporary soil cap is identified in the deed restriction recorded for Area FM6. A work plan7 for the installation of the temporary soil cap at Area FM was approved by DTSC in a letter dated August 12, 20168.

On July 27, 2022, PES submitted Work Plan Amendment for Construction of Temporary Asphalt Cap (Work Plan Amendment) to DTSC for review and approval. The Work Plan Amendment was reviewed by DTSC
9, DTSC’s Geological Services Unit (GSU)10, DTSC’s

2 DTSC, 2021. Letter to Mr. Craig Murray regarding “Marina Bay Project, Richmond (Site Code: 200134), Area FM Status Evaluation and Interim DTSC Comments”. March 18. 3 City of Richmond, 2021. Letter to DTSC regarding “Response to DTSC Correspondence Dated March 18, 2021, Area FM, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California”. April 15. 4 DTSC, 2021. Email to Ms. Laura Snideman. May 27.
5 DTSC, 2021. Letter to Mr. Craig Murray regarding “Marina Bay Project, Richmond (Site Code: 200134), Area FM Status Evaluation and Interim DTSC Comments”. March 18. 6 Covenant to Restrict Use of Property, Environmental Restriction, Parcel FM, Marina Bay Redevelopment, Richmond, California recorded March 21, 2005.
7 PES, 2016c. Work Plan for Construction of Temporary Soil Cap, Area FM, North Shore Areas, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California. August 12.
8 DTSC, 2021. DTSC Site Visit Report, Marina Bay Project. March 19. 9 DTSC, 2022. Marina Bay Project, Richmond (Site Code: 200134), DTSC Comments on Area FM Work Plan Amendment for Construction of Temporary Asphalt Cap. October 5. 10 DTSC, 2022. Work Plan Amendment for Construction of Temporary Asphalt Cap Area FM, North Shoe Areas, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California. October 3. 32 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
Engineering and Special Projects Office (ESPO)11, and DTSC’s Human and Ecological Risk Office (HERO)12. According to the ESPO comment letter the Work Plan Amendment was reviewed to determine conformance with the following documents:
• A March 18, 2021 Letter from DTSC to the Agency13;
• The Final RAP;
• A 2005 Remedial Design and Implementation Plan (RDIP)14; and • A 2016 RDIP Amendment15.

On January 24, 2023, NV5 submitted Revised Work Plan Amendment for Construction of Temporary Asphalt Cap (Revised Work Plan Amendment) to address the comments provided by DTSC in the four above-referenced letters. As noted in the Revised Work Plan Amendment, the Agency responded to DTSC’s March 18, 2021 letter. The Revised Work Plan Amendment is under review by DTSC and comments are pending.

The scope of work described below is based on: (1) responding to potential comments from DTSC on the Revised Work Plan Amendment; (2) the scope of work described in the Revised Work Plan Amendment required for the installation of the temporary cap; (3) reporting of the installation of the temporary cap at Area FM; and (4) preparation of an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan, as required by the deed restriction. Also included is a fee for general environmental consultation to provide ongoing consultation to the City regarding unanticipated requests from DTSC.

Response to DTSC Comments on Revised Work Plan Amendment

NV5 anticipates preparing and participating in meetings with City staff regarding the response to DTSC. We also anticipate modifying the Revised Work Plan Amendment in response to DTSC comments and participating in meetings with City staff and DTSC. While the extent of any comments from DTSC is not known at this time, we do not expect extensive comments.

Should the comments from DTSC require an effort beyond that proposed herein a supplemental proposal will be prepared and submitted.

11 DTSC, 2022. Marina Bay Parkway and Regatta Blvd., Richmond, California, Area FM (DTSC Site Code:
201134, 11018). October 10.
12 DTSC, 2022. Work Plan Amendment for Area FM Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California October 5. 13 DTSC, 2021. Letter from Ian Utz to Mr. Craig Murray, City of Richmond, regarding Marina Bay Project, Richmond (Site Code: 200134), Area FM Status Evaluation and Interim DTSC Comments. March 18. 14 PES, 2005. Remedial Design and Implementation Plan, Area FM – North Shore Areas, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California. April 1.
15 PES, 2016. Work Plan for Construction of Temporary Soil Cap, Area FM, North Shore Areas, Marina Bay Project, Richmond, California. August 12.
33 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
Installation of the Temporary Cap

Installation of the temporary soil cap requires a Soil Management Plan (SMP; equivalent to the Revised Work Plan Amendment) and a Health and Safety Plan (HASP). A site-specific health and safety plan (HASP) has been prepared by NV5 for NV5 personnel in accordance with applicable State and Federal Standards for Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (Cal. Code Regs., title 8, section 5192; 29 CFR 1910.120) and was included as an attachment to the Work Plan Amendment. Additionally, a Work Notice will need to be prepared and distributed to the surrounding community. Following installation of the cap, a report needs to be submitted to DTSC documenting the construction and the O&M Plan needs to be submitted to DTSC. Accordingly, NV5 will modify the Revised Work Plan Amendment, if required, and prepare the Work Notice, Report and O&M Plan. We understand the Work Notice will be distributed by the City or others to the surrounding community prior to the installation of the temporary cap. NV5 understands grading plans and other planning documents have been prepared by others. We further understand that all required permits will be obtained by others.

NV5 will conduct dust monitoring during the installation of the cap.

Work Notice Preparation

NV5 will work with DTSC to prepare the Work Notice informing the public that work will be performed on the site. The Work Notice will describe the work to be conducted, the equipment to be used, the dates and duration of the work, and a map depicting the location of the site. A draft Work Notice will be submitted to you for review and once your comments have been addressed a final draft version will be submitted to DTSC. We understand the final version of the Work Notice will be distributed by the City or others.

Monitoring and Documentation for Installation of Temporary Cap

NV5 will conduct observation and documentation of the installation of the temporary cap. The temporary cap will be installed by others, which will include site preparation activities such as grubbing and grading the site, and stockpiling excess soil for waste characterization and management. NV5 will document dust suppression activities and placement of cap materials.

NV5 will conduct dust monitoring as described below. Based on an estimate of the duration of the construction project provided by CWS/Stuber-Stroeh Engineering Group, Inc. (CSW), the fee estimate is based on a duration of six weeks to prepare the site and construct the temporary cap.

Due to the duration of the project, lead exposure will be controlled to less than the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) rolling three-month average limit of 0.15 micrograms lead per cubic meter of air (µg/m3). Maintaining total dust levels from soil below 35.7 µg/m3 total dust ceiling level will ensure the levels of lead will remain below the NAAQS rolling three-month average limit of 0.15 µg/m3. If this level is exceeded, additional dust suppression activities such as water application for dust suppression will be conducted during work activities.

34 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
Dust monitoring shall be conducted using portable airborne particulate monitors (Thermo 1500, TSI-Dust Track, or similar). This dust monitoring equipment has real-time monitoring capabilities complete with an alarm and data recording. Dust monitors will be positioned along the site perimeter for the duration of activities which disturb site soils.

The locations of the monitoring equipment will be adjusted to ensure the following:
• At least one upwind perimeter location near the active earthwork areas; • At least one downwind perimeter location near the active earthwork areas; and • At any active entry/egress location for construction equipment and trucks.

Waste Characterization

NV5 understands that approximately 600 cubic yards of soil may be generated during site preparation and that the soil will be placed into a stockpile on-site by the contractor. NV5 will collect two four-point composite soil samples for waste characterization purposes. The samples will be analyzed for petroleum hydrocarbons, Title 22 metals (including soluble metals analysis for lead and chromium), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), semi-volatile organic compounds (SVOCs), asbestos, and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). NV5 will work with the City’s contractor to profile the waste and assist with off-site disposal of the excess soil, if required. Costs for disposal of the excavated soil and associated activities (e.g., loading and transportation) are not included in the proposed scope of work and fee estimate.

Temporary Cap Installation Report

NV5 will prepare a report documenting the installation of the temporary cap. The report will document the materials used to construct the cap, the results of the dust monitoring, installation of the cap, and disposition of the excess soil generated during the work. A draft report will be submitted to you for review and once your comments have been addressed a final version will be submitted to DTSC.

Preparation of O&M Plan

NV5 will prepare an O&M Plan to describe inspection and maintenance procedures, and reporting requirements (annual and Five-Year Reviews). A draft O&M Plan will be submitted to you for review and once your comments have been addressed a final version will be submitted to DTSC.

General Environmental Consultation

NV5 will provide general environmental consultation to the City. These services will be provided as requested. We anticipate that the services may include but not be limited to participation in meetings with City staff, participation in meetings with City staff and DTSC, 35 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
conducting site inspections with DTSC staff, participation in public meetings, review of correspondence from DTSC, and preparation of correspondence to DTSC. The estimated fee for this task is based on 40 hours of principal geologist or engineer effort.

ESTIMATED FEE

The following is the estimated fee to perform the additional scope of work for the scope of work described above:

Task 1 – Marina Bay Project

Task 1a – Annual Inspections and Five-Year Review
FY 2023/24 Annual Inspections and Reporting $8,500
FY 2023/24 Annual Inspections and Reporting Contingency 7,000 Revise Third Five-Year Review Work Plan 6,000
Third Five-Year Review Reporting 35,000
FY 2024/25 Annual Inspections and Reporting 9,350
FY 2024/25 Annual Inspections and Reporting Contingency 7,700 FY 2025/26 Annual Inspections and Reporting 10,300
FY 2025/26 Annual Inspections and Reporting Contingency 8,500

$92,350
Task 1b – Area T – Enhanced Groundwater Remediation &
Monitoring & Reporting
FY 2023/24 Groundwater Monitoring & Reporting $30,100
FY 2024/25 Groundwater Monitoring & Reporting 33,100
FY 2025/26 Groundwater Monitoring & Reporting 36,400

$99,600
Task 1c – Area FM – Work Plan Revision, Temporary Cap
Construction, Reporting and General Environmental Consultation Work Plan Revisions $4,500
Preparation of Work Notice 1,800
Observation/Documentation of Cap Installation
(includes dust monitoring) 148,500
Waste Characterization 4,500
Preparation of Cap Installation Report 9,500
Preparation of O&M Plan 8,000
General Environmental Consultation 15,000
$191,800

Marina Bay Project Total $383,750
36 Mr. Craig Murray
June 13, 2023

64401004P010.docx
NV5 proposes to perform these additional services, as described herein, on a time and materials basis for an estimated cost of $383,750. Costs were estimated based on NV5’s current Schedule of Charges (see attached) and anticipated increases of 10% per year. This estimate will not be exceeded without the City’s authorization, and a material change in the scope of work. NV5 will perform the proposed scope of work under the terms of the City’s Purchase of Services Contract, which we understand will be provided by the City.

We appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to the City and trust this is the information you require at this time. If you have any questions, please contact Kyle Flory at (415) 497-2729.

Yours very truly,

NV5

Kyle S. Flory, P.G.

Principal Geologist

Thomas Neely, C.HG.

Principal Hydrogeologist

Attachment: Schedule of Charges
37 For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT B

PAYMENT PROVISIONS

{PLEASE NOTE THAT THE CITY OF RICHMOND SHALL NOT PAY FOR SERVICES

THAT EXCEED THE CONTRACT PA YMENT LIMIT UNLESS A CONTRACT

AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER}

1. Provided Contractor is not in default under this Contract, Contractor shall be compensated as provided below.

2. Any and all payments made pursuant to this Contract shall be subject to the Contract Payment Limit. The Payment Limit includes expenses (phones, photo copying, meals and travel etc). Invoices, shall be adequately detailed, based on accurate records, and be in a form reasonably satisfactory to the City. Contractor may be required to provide back-up material upon request.

3. Contractor shall submit timely invoices to the following address:

Attention: City of Richmond, Finance Department - Accounts Payable Project Manager: Department:

PO Box 4046
Richmond, CA 94804-0046

4. All invoices that are submitted by Contra ctor shall be subject to the approval of the City’s Project Manager, before payments shall be authorized.

5. The City will pay invoice(s) within 45 days a fter completion of services to the City’s satisfaction. The City shall not pay late fees or interest.

6. A Richmond business license shall be obtained before any payment under this Contract shall be authorized and the business license must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized.

7. All insurance coverage required by this Contract shall be provided by the Contractor before this Contract shall be executed by the City. The insurance coverage must be kept current during the term of this Contract for payments to continue to be authorized. 38 For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT C

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES AND NOTICES

1. Notices
. All notices, demands, statements, or communications provided for by this Contract shall be in writing and may be delivered by deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid. Notices to the City shall be addressed to the Department Head and (as delineated below in section 1.1) to the project manager responsible for the administration of or the supervision of the scope of work under this Contract. Notices to the Contractor shall be addressed to the party designated by Contractor (as delineated below in section 1.2). Notice shall be deemed delivered (a) upon personal delivery; (b) as of the fifth business day after mailing by United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the proper party; or (c) as of 12:00 p.m. on the second business day immediately after the day it is deposited with and accepted by Federal Express, or a similar overnight courier service, addressed to the proper party and marked for next business day morning delivery. For the purposes of this Contract, a "business day" means any day Monday through Friday that is not a holiday recognized by the federal government or the State of California.

1. 1 CITY hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

City of Richmond

Richmond, CA 94804-0046

1. 2 CONTRACTOR hereby designates as its Authorized Representative the Project Manager whose name and address are as follows:

39 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 1 of 13

EXHIBIT D

GENERAL CONDITIONS

1. Independent Contractor . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor is not a regular or temporary employee, joint venturer or partner of the City, but rather an independent Contractor. This Contract shall not be construed to create an agency, servant, employee, partnership, or joint venture relationship. As an independent Contractor, Contractor shall have no authority to bind City to any obligation or to act as City's agent except as expressly provided herein. Due to the independent Contractor relationship created by this Contract, City shall not withhold state or federal income taxes, the reporting of which shall be Contractor's sole responsibility.

2. Brokers . Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor has not hired, retained or agreed to pay any entity or person any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Contract.

3. City Property . The rights to applicable plans, drawings, reports, calculations, data, specifications, videos, graphics or other materials prepared for or obtained pursuant to this Contract, which, upon request, are to be delivered to City within a reasonable time, shall be deemed assigned to City. If applicable, Contractor shall prepare check prints upon request. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor shall not be obligated to provide to City proprietary software or data which Contractor has developed or had developed for Contractor's own use; provided, however, that Contractor shall, pursuant to Section 15 below, indemnify, defend and hold harmless City from and against any discovery or Public Records Act request seeking the disclosure of such proprietary software or data.

4. Patents, Trademarks, C opyrights and Rights in Data
. Contractor shall not
publish or transfer any materials, discoveries, developments, concepts, designs, ideas, know how, improvements, inventions and/or original works of authorship resulting from activities supported by this Contract without the express prior written consent of the City Manager. If anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract is patentable, trademarkable, copyrightable or otherwise legally protectable, City reserves the exclusive right to seek such intellectual property rights. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Contractor may, after receiving City's prior written consent, seek patent, trademark, copyright or other intellectual property rights on anything resulting from activities supported by this Contract. However, City reserves, and Contractor irrevocably grants, a nonexclusive, fully paid-up, royalty-free, assumable, perpetual, worldwide license, with the right to transfer, sublicense, practice and exploit said license and the right to make, have made, copy, modify, make derivative works of, use, sell, 40 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 2 of 13

import, and otherwise distribute under all applicable intellectual properties without restriction of any kind said license.

Contractor further agrees to assist City, at City's expense, in every proper way to secure the City’s rights in any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto, including the disclosure to City of all pertinent information and data with respect thereto. Contractor shall also assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations, and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to apply for, obtain, maintain and transfer such rights, or if not transferable, to waive such rights. Contractor shall further assist City in the execution of all applications, specifications, oaths, assignments, recordations and all other instruments which City shall deem necessary in order to assign and convey to City, and any assigns and nominees the sole and exclusive right, title and interest in and to any patents, trademarks, copyrights or other intellectual property rights relating thereto. Contractor further agrees that its obligation to execute or cause to be executed, when it is in Contractor's power to do so, any such instruments or papers shall continue during and at all times after the end of Contractor's services and until the expiration of the last such intellectual property right. Contractor hereby irrevocably designates and appoints City, and its duly authorized officers, agents and servants, as its agent and attorney-in-fact, to act for and in its behalf and stead to execute and file any such applications and to do all other lawfully permitted acts to further the application for, prosecution, issuance, maintenance or transfer of letters of patents, copyright and other registrations. This power of attorney is coupled with an interest and shall not be affected by Contractor's subsequent incapacity.

5. Inspection
. Contractor's performance, place of business and records pertaining to this Contract are subject to monitoring, inspection, review and audit by authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

If the project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work without notice. If such project or services shall not be performed on City or other public property, City shall have the right to inspect such work upon reasonable notice.

6. Services
. The project or services set forth in Exhibit A shall be performed to the full satisfaction and approval of City. In the event that the project or services set forth in Exhibit A are also itemized by price, City, in its sole discretion, may, upon notice to Contractor, delete certain items or services set forth in Exhibit A, in which case there shall be a corresponding reduction in the amount of compensation paid to Contractor. 41 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 3 of 13

Contractor shall, at its own cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment necessary for Contractor to complete the project or perform the services required herein, unless otherwise provided in Exhibit A.

7. Records
. Contractor shall keep and make available for inspection and copying by authorized representatives of the City, the State of California, and the United States Government, the Contractor's regular business records and such additional records pertaining to this Contract as may be required by the City.

Contractor shall retain all documents pertaining to this Contract for a period of five (5) years after this C ontract's termination (or for any further period that is required by law) and until all Fede ral or State audits are complete and exceptions resolved for this contract's funding period. Upon request, CONTRACTOR shall make thes e records available to authorized representatives of the CITY, the State of California, and the United States Government.

Contractor shall keep full and detailed accounts, maintain records, and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract. The Contractor’s accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to City. Contractor's accounting systems shall conform to generally accepted accounting principles and all records shall provide a breakdown of total costs charged under this Contract, including properly executed payrolls, time records, utility bills, invoices and vouchers. The City shall be afforded prompt access to Contractor's records, books, and Contractor shall preserve such project records for a period of at least five (5 years after the termination of this Contract , or for such longer period as may be required by law.

Contractor shall permit City and its authorized representatives and accountants to inspect, examine and copy Contractor's books, records, accounts, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to the project or services set forth in Exhibit A, and any and all data relevant to this Contract at any reasonable time for the purpose of auditing and verifying statements, invoices, or bills submitted by Contractor pursuant to this Contract and shall provide such assistance as may be reasonably required in the course of such inspection. Contractor shall also allow City access to the record keeping and accounting personnel of Contractor.

City further reserves the right to examine and re-examine said books, records, accounts, and data during the five (5 year period following the termination of this Contract; and Contractor shall in no event dispose of, destroy, alter, or mutilate said books, records, accounts, and data in any manner whatever for five (5 years after the termination of this Contract. 42 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 4 of 13

Pursuant to California Government Code § 10527, the parties to this Contract shall be subject to the examination and audit of representatives of the Auditor General of the State of California for a period of three (3) years after final payment under this Contract. The examination and audit shall be confined to those matters connected with the performance of this Contract including, but not limited to, the cost of administering this Contract.

8. Changes and Extra Work . All changes and/or extra work under this Contract shall be performed and paid for in accordance with the following:

Only the City Council or the City Manager may authorize extra and/or changed work. Contractor expressly recognizes that other City personnel are without authorization to either order extra and/or changed work or waive contract requirements. Failure of Contractor to secure the authorization for such extra and/or changed work shall constitute a waiver of any and all right to adjustment in contract price due to such unauthorized work and Contractor thereafter shall be entitled to no compensation whatsoever for performance of such extra and/or changed work.

If Contractor is of the opinion that any work which Contractor has been directed to perform is beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work, Contractor shall promptly notify City of the fact. The City shall make a determination as to whether or not such work is, in fact, beyond the scope of this Contract and constitutes extra work. In the event that City determines that such work does constitute extra work, City shall provide extra compensation to Contractor on a fair and equitable basis. A change order or Contract Amendment providing for such compensation for extra work shall be negotiated between City and Contractor and executed by Contractor and the appropriate City official.

In the event City determines that such work does not constitute extra work, Contractor shall not be paid extra compensation above that provided herein and if such determination is made by City staff, said determination may be appealed to the City Council; provided, however, a written appeal must be submitted to the City Manager within five (5) days after the staff's determination is sent to Contractor. Said written appeal shall include a description of each and every ground upon which Contractor challenges the staff's determination.

9. Additional Assistance
. If this Contract requires Contractor to prepare
plans and specifications, Contractor shall provide assistance as necessary to resolve any questions regarding such plans and specifications that may arise during the period of advertising for bids, and Contractor shall issue 43 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 5 of 13

any necessary addenda to the plans and specifications as requested. In the event Contractor is of the opinion that City's requests for addenda and assistance is outside the scope of normal services, the parties shall proceed in accordance with the changes and extra work provisions of Section 8 of these General Conditions.

10. Professional Ability. Contractor acknowledges, represents and warrants that Contractor and its employees are skilled and able to competently provide the services hereunder, and possess all professional licenses, certifications, and approvals necessary to engage in their occupations.

City has relied upon the professional ability and training of Contractor as a material inducement to enter into this Contract. Contractor shall perform in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and standards of Contractor's profession. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, desires the removal of any person employed or retained by Contractor to perform services hereunder, such person shall be removed immediately upon receiving notice from City.

11. Business License
. Contractor shall obtain a Richmond Business License
before performing any services required under this Contract. The failure to so obtain such license shall be a material breach of this Contract and grounds for immediate termination by City; provided, however, that City may waive the business license requirement in writing under unusual or extraordinary circumstances without necessitating any modification of this Contract to reflect such waiver.

12. Termination Without Default. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, City may, in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause, terminate this Contract at any time prior to completion by Contractor of the project or services hereunder, immediately upon written notice to Contractor. Contractor may terminate this Contract at any time in its sole and absolute discretion and without cause upon 30 days' written notice to City. In the event of termination by either party, Contractor shall be compensated for: (1) all authorized work satisfactorily performed prior to the effective date of termination; (2) necessary materials or services of others ordered by Contractor for this Contract, prior to receipt of notice of termination, irrespective of whether such materials or services of others have actually been delivered, provided that Contractor is not able to cancel such orders. Compensation for Contractor in such event shall be determined by City in accordance with the percentage of the project or services completed by Contractor; and all of Contractor's finished or unfinished work product through the time of the City's last payment shall be transferred and assigned to City. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

44 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 6 of 13

13. Termination in the Event of Default. Should Contractor fail to perform any of its obligations hereunder, within the time and in the manner provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Contract, City may immediately terminate this Contract by giving written notice of such termination, stating the reasons for such termination. Contractor shall be compensated as provided in Section 12 of these General Conditions; provided, however, there shall be deducted from such amount the amount of damage, including attorney's fees, expert witness fees and costs, if any, sustained by City by virtue of Contractor's breach of this Contract. Additionally, in the event of such termination, the City may proceed with the work in any reasonable manner it chooses.

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

15. Indemnification.

(a) If this Contract is a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) and Contractor is a design professional, as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall hold harmless, defend and indemnify the City, its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all claims, damages, losses, and expenses including attorneys’ fees arising out of, or pertaining to, or relating to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, except where caused by the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of the City. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall immediately defend and indemnify the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers from and against any and all liabilities, regardless of nature or type, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Contractor, or its employees, agents, or subcontractors.

Liabilities subject to the duties to defend and indemnify include, without limitation, any and all claims, losses, damages, penalties, fines, and judgments; associated investigation and administrative expenses; defense costs, including but not limited to reasonable attorneys’ fees; court costs; and costs of alternative dispute resolution. Contractor’s obligation to 45 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 7 of 13

indemnify applies unless it is finally adjudicated that the liability was caused by the sole active negligence or sole willful misconduct of an indemnified party.
(b) If this Contract is not a contract for design professional services subject to California Civil Code Section 2782.8(a) or Contractor is not a design professional as defined in California Civil Code Section 2782.8(b)(2), Contractor shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers from any and all claims, suits, or actions of every name, kind and description, brought forth on account of injuries to or death of any person or damage to property arising from or connected with the willful misconduct, negligent acts, errors or omissions, ultra-hazardous activities, activities giving rise to strict liability, or defects in design by Contractor or any person directly or indirectly employed by, or acting as, the agent for Contractor in the performance of this Contract, including the concurrent or successive passive negligence of the City, its officers, agents, employees or volunteers.
(c) It is understood that the duty of Contractor to indemnify and hold harmless includes the duty to defend as set forth in Section 2778 of the California Civil Code. Contractor shall be obligated to defend, in all legal, equitable, administrative, or special proceedings, with counsel approved by the City, the City and its officers, agents, employees, and volunteers, immediately upon tender to Contractor of the claim in any form or at any stage of an action or proceeding, whether or not liability is established. An allegation or determination that persons other than Contractor are responsible for the claim does not relieve Contractor from its separate and distinct obligation to defend under this Section 15. The obligation to defend extends through final judgment, including exhaustion of any appeals. The defense obligation includes an obligation to provide independent counsel if Contractor asserts that liability is caused in whole, or in part, by the negligence or willful misconduct of an indemnified party. (d) The review, acceptance or approval of the Contractor’s work or work product by any indemnified party shall not affect, relieve or reduce the Contractor’s indemnification or defense obligations. This Section 15 survives completion of the services or the termination of this Contract.

The provisions of this Section 15 are not limited by, and do not affect, the provisions of this Contract relating to insurance.
(e) Acceptance of insurance certificates and endorsements required under this Contract does not relieve Contractor from liability under this Section

15. This Section 15 shall apply whether or not such insurance policies are determined to be applicable to any such damages or claims for damages.

16. Safety
. Contractor acknowledges that the City is committed to the highest standards of workplace safety. Contractor shall perform all work hereunder in full compliance with applicable local, state and federal safety requirements including but not limited to Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements, and shall assume sole and complete 46 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 8 of 13

responsibility for the safety of Contractor's employees and any subContractor's employees. If a death, serious personal injury or substantial property damage occurs in connection with the performance of this Contract, Contractor shall immediately notify the City by telephone.

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

18. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the City. No official or employee of the City shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Contract.

19. Compliance with Laws. Contractor shall comply with all federal, state and local laws, statutes, ordinances, rules and regulations, and the orders and decrees of any courts or administrative bodies or tribunals, with respect to this Contract, including without limitation environmental laws, employment discrimination laws and prevailing wage laws. Compliance under this provision includes compliance with all provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code ("Municipal Code"), including Chapters 2.50, 2.52, 2.56, and 2.60, if applicable.

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

Contractor shall comply with § 2.28.030 of the Municipal Code, obligating every Contractor or subcontractor under a contract or subcontract with the City for public work or for goods or for services to refrain from discriminatory employment or subcontracting practices on the basis of race, color, sex, sexual orientation, religious creed, national origin or ancestry of any employee, any applicant for employment or any potential subcontractor.

Contractor acknowledges that the City’s Drug Free Workplace Policy, Violence in the Workplace Policy and the Policy Against Workplace Harassment, are available on the City’s website at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/workplacepolicies
. Contractor agrees to
abide by the terms and conditions of said policies.

20. Limitations upon Subcontracting and Assignment. This Contract binds the heirs, successors, assigns and representatives of Contractor. The Contractor shall not enter into subcontracts for any work contemplated 47 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 9 of 13

under this Contract and shall not assign this Contract, nor any portion hereof or monies due or to become due, without the prior written consent of the City Council or its designee.

Contractor acknowledges that the services which Contractor shall provide under this Contract are unique, personal services which, except as otherwise provided herein, Contractor shall not assign or sublet to any other party without the prior written approval of City, which approval may be withheld in City's sole and absolute discretion. In the event that City, in writing, approves any assignment or subletting of this Contract or the retention of subcontractors by Contractor, Contractor shall provide to City upon request copies of each and every subcontract contract prior to the execution thereof by Contractor and subcontractor. Any assignment by Contractor of any or all of its rights under this Contract without first obtaining City's prior written consent shall be a default under this Contract.

The sale, assignment, transfer or other disposition of any of the issued and outstanding capital stock of Contractor (if applicable), or of the interest of any general partner or joint venturer or syndicate member if Contractor is a partnership or joint-venture or syndicate, which shall result in a change of control of Contractor, shall be deemed an assignment. For this purpose, control shall mean fifty percent or more of the voting power or twenty-five percent or more of the assets of the corporation, partnership or joint-venture.

21. Integration
. This Contract constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter hereof and supersedes any previous oral or written agreement; provided, however, that correspondence or documents exchanged between Contractor and City may be used to assist in the interpretation of the Exhibits to this Contract.

22. Modifications and Amendments. This Contract may be modified or amended only by a change order or Contract Amendment executed by both parties and approved as to form by the City Attorney.

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

24. Non-exclusivity. Notwithstanding any provision herein to the contrary, the services provided by Contractor hereunder shall be non-exclusive, and 48 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 10 of 13

City reserves the right to employ other Contractors in connection with the project.

25. Exhibits. All Exhibits hereto are made a part hereof and incorporated herein by reference; provided, however, that any language in Exhibit A which does not pertain to the project description, proposal, scope of services, or method of compensation (as applicable) , or any corresponding responsibilities of City, shall be deemed extraneous to, and not a part of, this Contract.

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

27. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Contract. Contractor and City agree that any time period set forth in Exhibit A represents their best estimates with respect to completion dates and both Contractor and City acknowledge that departures from the schedule may occur.

Therefore, both Contractor and City will use reasonable efforts to notify one another of changes to the schedule. Contractor shall not be responsible for performance delays caused by others, or delays beyond Contractor's control, and such delays shall extend the times for performance of Contractor's work.

28. Confidentiality. Contractor agrees to comply with, and to require its employees, agents and partners to comply with, all applicable State or Federal statutes or regulations respecting confidentially, including but not limited to, the identity of persons served under this Contract, their records, or services provided them, and assures that:

All applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by Contractor or any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of or relating to services provided under this Contract will be confidential, and will not be open to examination for any purposes not directly connected with the administration of such service.

No person will publish or disclose or permit or cause to be published or disclosed, any list of persons receiving services, except as may be required in the administration of such service.

49 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 11 of 13

29. Third Parties. Nothing herein shall be interpreted as creating any rights or benefits in any third parties. For purposes hereof, transferees or assignees as permitted under this Contract shall not be considered "third parties."

30. Governing Law. This Contract shall be construed in accordance with the law of the State of California without regard to principles of conflicts of law.

This Contract is made in Contra Costa County, California, and any action relating to this Contract shall be instituted and prosecuted in the courts of Contra Costa County, California.

31. Nonrenewal. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the services provided by Contractor under this Contract will be purchased or renewed by the City under a new contract following expiration or termination of this Contract, and waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City to continue the purchase of all or any failure to continue purchase of all or any such services from Contractor.

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

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

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

35. Severability. In the event that any of the provisions or portions or applications thereof of this Contract are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, City and Contractor shall negotiate an equitable adjustment in the provisions of the Contract with a view 50 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 12 of 13

toward effecting the purpose of this Contract, and the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions or portions or applications thereof, shall not be affected thereby.

36. Authority. City warrants and represents that the signatory hereto (the Mayor of the City of Richmond or the City Manager) is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of City. The party signing on behalf of Contractor warrants and represents that he or she is duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor, and shall be personally liable to City if he or she is not duly authorized to enter into and execute this Contract on behalf of Contractor.

37. Waiver. The waiver by City of any breach of any term or provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver of any subsequent breach.

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

38. Possessory Interest. If this Contract results in the Contractor having possession of, claim to or right to the possession of land or improvements, but does not vest ownership of the land or improvements in the same person, or if this Contract results in the placement of taxable improvements on tax exempt land (Revenue and Taxation Code 107), such interest or improvements may represent a possessory interest subject to property tax, and Contractor may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest.

39. Performance and Final Acceptance.

Contractor represents that it is experienced, qualified, registered, licensed, equipped, organized and financed to perform the services under this Contract.

Contractor shall perform the services under this Contract with that degree of skill and judgment normally exercised by professional firms performing services of a similar nature in the State of California, and shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy and coordination of the services it performs under this Contract. In addition to the other rights and remedies which City may have, Contractor shall, at its own expense, correct any services which fail to meet the above standard.

51 General Conditions/EJ/TE 01-19-11 13 of 13

City shall provide Contractor an opportunity to cure errors and omission which may be disclosed during the review of submittals, with no increase in the authorized Contract Payment Limit. Should Contractor fail to make necessary corrections in a timely manner, such corrections shall be made by the City and the cost thereof shall be charged to Contractor.

If warranted, City shall determine, and Contractor may request such determination, that Contractor has satisfactorily completed performance of this Contract. Upon such determination, City shall issue to Contractor a written Notice of Final Acceptance, after which Contractor shall not incur further costs under this Contract. Contractor shall respond to such Notice of Final Acceptance by executing and submitting to City a Release and Certificate of Final Payment.

40. Survival
. The rights and obligations of the parties which by their nature survive termination or completion of the services covered by this Contract shall remain in full force and effect after termination or completion. 52 For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT E

SPECIAL CONDITIONS

The General Conditions are hereby amended to include the following modifications and/or provisions (if applicable):

53 For the Contract between the City of
Richmond and

EXHIBIT F

INSURANCE PROVISIONS

During the entire term of this Contract and any extension or modification thereof, the CONTRACTOR shall keep in effect insurance policies meeting the insurance requirements specified in the insurance provisions which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

54 ___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 1 of 4

Revised: September 2011

In all instances where a CONTRACTOR or its representatives will be conducting business and/or providing services, the City requires the following MINIMUM insurance requirements and limits.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7. Contractor’s Pollution Liability (if applicable for Construction Contractors)

Required Coverage

Minimum Limits
Workers’ Compensation and
Employers’ Liability
Statutory limits as required by the State of California including $1 million Employers’ Liability per accident, per employee for bodily injury or disease.

If CONTRACTOR
is self-insured, provide a certificate of Permission to Self- Insure, signed by the California Department of Industrial Relations and Self- Insurance. If contractor is a sole proprietor (has no employees) than contractor must sign “Contractor Release of Liability” found at:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61.

55 ___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 2 of 4

Revised: September 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Builders’ Risk/Course of
Construction – Covers property
under construction, repair or
renovation as well as equipment
and materials to be installed.

(Only required for Construction
Projects involving property and
equipment installation.)
Coverage shall include all risks of direct physical loss, excluding earthquake, for an amount equal to the full completed value of the covered structure or replacement value of alterations or additions, including soft costs and business interruption.

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

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

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

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

Same limits as General Liability.

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

Additional Insured Endorsement

Applicable to General Liability Coverage.

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

ISO form CG 20 10 (11/85) or its equivalent is required. The endorsement must not
exclude products and completed operations
coverage. If it does, then CG 20 37 (10/01) is also required. 56 ___ Exhibit F
___ Section 8
City of Richmond - Insurance Requirements – Type 1:

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 3 of 4

Revised: September 2011
Additional Insured Endorsement
(continued)

SAMPLE Endorsements can be found at
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/index.aspx?nid=61
Primary and Noncontributory The contractor’s insurance coverage must be primary coverage as it pertains to the City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self insurance maintained by the City is wholly separate from the insurance of the contractor and in no way relieves the contractor from its responsibility to provide insurance.

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

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

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

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

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

1. A Bid bond

2. A Performance Bond

3. A Payment Bond

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

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

Subcontractors

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

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

Consultants and Contractors

Type 1 – Page 4 of 4

Revised: September 2011

Verification of Coverage
All original certificates and endorsements shall be received and approved by the City before work may begin . The City
of Richmond reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies including endorsements affecting the coverage at any time.

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

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

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

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

Cancellation

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

Reporting Requirements

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

Consistent with Public Policy
The insuring provisions, insofar as they may be judged to be against public policy shall be void and unenforceable only to the minimum extent necessary so that the remaining terms and provisions herein may be consistent with public policy and thus enforceable.

58 CITY OF RICHMOND
Sanctuary City Compliance Statement

The undersigned, an authorized agent of (hereafter
"Contractor"), has had an opportunity to review the requirements of City of Richmond Ordinance 12 -18 (hereafter "Sanctuary City Contracting Ordinance" or “SCCO”). Contractor understands and agrees that the City may choose with whom it will maintain business relations and may refrain from contracting with any person or entity that provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Division of the United States Department of Homeland Security (“ICE”). Contractor understands the meaning of the following terms used in the SCCO:

a. "Data Broker” means either of the following:

i. The collection of information, including personal information about consumers, from a wide variety of sources for the purposes of reselling such information to their customers, which include both private-sector business and government agencies;

ii. The aggregation of data that was collected for another purpose from that for which it is ultimately used.

b. “Extreme Vetting” means data mining, threat modeling, predictive risk analysis, or other similar services."

Contractor understands that it is not eligible to receive or retain a City contract if at the time the Contract is executed, or at any time during the term of the Contract, it provides Data Broker or Extreme Vetting services to ICE.

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

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

Based on the foregoing, the undersigned declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this day of , 20 , at , California.

Printed Name: Title:

Signed: Date:

Business Entity:

Vendor SCCO Compliance Statement (Augt2020)
59 APPROXIMATEAREA
SHOWN ON PLATE 3

HALL AYE,
1,.
"1
MARINA BAY DEVEtOPMENT

PROJECT BOUNDARY

SAN FRANCISCO
BAY
SHItflADA.FRIENDSHIP PARK
(Previously known as
Trailbead Park)

EXPLANATION

RICHMOND MARINA
SAY
Area of investigation

MEEKER DITCH
500
Scale in Feet
1000
PES Inc.

Engineering & Environmentai Services
Vicinity Map
Regatta Boulevard O&M Pian
Marina Bay Project
Richmond, California
2 644.010.01.002 64401001002_0&!'APtan_Regat$a8ivd_PI2.cdr AL 2/Q7 JOB XUMBER DRAW8N6 NUMBER REVIEWEO BV
60 «I<.*».5S?»"
City of Richmond
Sole Source Justification
TfflS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY PURCHASE Contact the Purchasing Division and discuss your rationale before completing this form. If Purchasing can help you make this a competitive purchase, then this form will not be required.

Attach this completed/approved form to requisitions when competitive quotes/bids/proposals are not solicited. (Required for requisitions > $3,000)
Requested Sole Source Supplier:

Company Name: N|V|5 _ Contact Name: Kyle Flory
Address: '/'665 Redwood Boulevard, Suite 200
City: Novato _ state: _CA _Zip Code: 94945
Phone Number f415 ) 899-1600 E-MaiI [email protected]
Duration of Contract: 3 yeare
Estimated Cost: $ 383.750- _ Funding Source (Account String) 01369065-400201 Is the product/service IT related? Yes No ^_ If Yes, please attach the approved IT Authorization Form For Product: Is the recommended company the manufacturer of the product? Yes_ No _x_ For Product: Does the manufacturer sell the item(s) through distributors? Yes_ No _^ Description of Product or Service:

Describe the full scope of work or service contemplated including installation if required; items should include brand, model aiidpart number if applicable; (if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) Environmental consulting semces and work required for the former Successor Agency and other City-owned properties including preparation of the annual report for Nine Deed Restricted Properties in Marina Bay, preparation of the Third Five-Year Report and review for Marina Bay, and groundwater monitoring, enhanced groundwater remediation, and development of a Cap Maintenance Plan at Area T in Marina Bay. Annual work will also including environmental consultation services for Area FM Work Plan and Cap construction and response to DTSC Comments on a Revised Work Plan Amendment.

Sole Source Rationale: PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: Explain why the recommended company is the only company that can meet the requirement. Address the following: Are there any other companies who can do this job? What condition (e.g. technological superiority, or performance risks, etc.) exists so that the recommended company has a significant advantage over any other company who can do this job? It is important to sufficiently address the key reason for awarding an order/contract without soliciting competitive bids. The rational must be clear and convincing, avoiding generalities and unsupported conclusions.

PES Environmental, Inc. dba N|V[5 ("NV5") is the only firm able to offer the services of Kyle Flory.

Mr. Flory has prepared the necessary environmental engineering site reports and gained methodology concurrence with DTSC. Mr. Flory has unique knowledge of the City environmental sites. Working with PES will be more cost effective and reduce the time required to work with DTSC and remediate the necessary environmental conditions in order to prepare former Successor Agency areas in Marina Bay and other City areas for redevelopment. ; t.
(if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) Page | 1 Sole Source Form - Rev. May 12, 2016
61 Complete the following checklist
A specific contractor is the only source of the required item because (check all that apply):
!•! The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor solely transacts (sells) direct to the customer. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

H The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor does not sell direct to the customer. Contractor solely distributes the item or service through only one dealer or distributor in the United States. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

Note: If item or service is available _from more than one som-ce, the item or service may be treated as proprietary, but must be competitively solicited from multiple (two or more) sources.

A specific item is needed:

To be compatible or interchangeable with existing hardware As spare or replacement hardware I_I For the repau- or modification of existing hardware Federal or state grant names vendor as condition offun.ding. (Attach copy of grant that names vendor)
There is a substantial risk in contracting with any other contractor, (e.g., only one contractor has been successful to date in implementing a difficult manufacturmg process or the services sought). In a brief explanation, provide supporting evidence of why other contractors are considered to be unable to overcome the substantial risk.

There are no other firms that possess the decades of historical knowledge and unique expertise specific to the former Successor Agency and other City sites that will require Mr.

Flory's consultation services.

Continuation of prior Work - Additional item, service or work required, but not known to have been needed when the original order was placed with vendor, and it is not feasible or practicable to contract separately for the additional need. Provide brief explanation and supporting evidence.

Mr. Flory, with NV5 and prior firm names Harding Lawson Associates and PES, has been under contract with the Redevelopment Agency, Successor Agency and City performing related work since 1991. This is a continuation of his prior work with Marina Bay Deed Restricted properties as transferred via the approved Long Range Property Management Plan (LRPMP) from the Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency to the City with Resolution No. 6-15 on December 8, 2015. It is not feasible to contract separately with a different firm for the work Mr. Flory originated. (if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page) 2 I Page
62 I acknowledge the City's requirements for soliciting competitive quotes/bids for purchases over $3,000.00 and the criteria for justification for Sole Source purchases. I have gathered the required information, have made a concerted effort to review comparable/equal equipment/services (e.g., market research), and further affirm that there is no conflict of interest involved in the selection made.

Department: city Manager's Office
Requester Name and Title: crai9 x. Murray, SR/WA, DPM l Note: Requester must Ae able to defend this justification.

Date: 62123 _ Phone: /l Mi
Department Director (Print) Nannette Beacham _ (Si^0^^^^^^^at£_ Submit completed form to the Purchasing Division (Prior to submission to City Manager) Finance Director:
/
APPROVED: _ .. . ' DATE: ./ . / ,
NOT APPROVED: COMMENTS:

City Manager City Clerk Attesting to Council Approval
(Under $10,000.00) (Over $10,000.00) (Copy of Minutes may be substituted) Note: Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326 Sole Source Procurement requires final approval by the City Manager and/or City Council. Sole Source must be approved by Finance Director, PMOR to Council Approval.

PROCEDURE
Sole Source purchase/service are exceptions to the normal bidding process and require a detailed justification, hi processing Sole Source requests for supplies, semces and/or equipment, the Purchasing Division adheres to and is governed by the principles set forth in City of Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326 Sole Source Procurement.

If you are requesting a particular vendor, brand or product, you must make this fact clear on your Sole Source form.

Your request will then be restrictive and non-competitive, and will fall into a sole source category. If the sole source justification is approved, the requisition can be expedited without the normal bidding requirements.

Such a request should not be made unless you are confident that your request is reasonable and appropriately justified to meet the City's requirements and withstand any possible audit. The City's requirements and the format for submitting such requests are contained herein. Sole Source form must be signed by authorized department representative(s). The certification will remain on file for audit purposes.

The following factors DO NOT apply to sole source requests and should not be included in your sole source justification. They will not be considered and only tend to confuse the evaluation process.

1. Personal preference for product or vendor.

2. Cost, vendor performance, and local service (these are generally considered award factors in competitive bidding).

3. Features which exceed the minimum department requirements. 3 IP age
63

September 26, 2023

Library and Community Services

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager, Community
Services
Denée Evans, Project Manager
Lori Reese-Brown, Project Manager

Subject:

Approve the Purchase of Two R-Transit Electric
Passenger Vans
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Measure J funds will be used to support the purchase of new vehicles. In Fiscal Year 2023-2024, a Measure J
Claim form was submitted to the Contra Costa
Transportation Authority (CCTA), in which staff noted the allocation of Measure J funding for the purchase of two new low emission / electric vans from the approved
Transportation accounts (Fund 1003). If additional funds are needed, the City requests to use ECIA Transportation funds which are allocated to support the reduction of
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (11785051-400201-
2A109). The purchase of new electric vans will support
reducing vehicle emissions throughout West County
where existing paratransit gas fuel vans presently travel to support transit users.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Transportation staff is seeking City Council approval to replace two older model paratransit gas vans with two
newer model electric vans that will support the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions into the community and will transition the City of Richmond R-Transit program to a
clean fuel fleet.

AGENDA
REPORT
64

September 26, 2023
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a contract between the City of Richmond and
the National Auto Fleet Group to purchase two R-Transit electric vans in an amount not to exceed $268,861.76;
and ALLOCATE and APPROPRIATE, if needed,
Richmond’s Environmental and Community Invest
Agreement funding to support the purchase of electric
vans to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions -
Community Services Department (LaShonda White 510-
620-6828/Denée Evans 510-621-1718/Lori Reese-Brown
510-620-6869).

DISCUSSION:

Background

Since the 1976 inception of the Richmond paratransit service, the City of Richmond has utilized gasoline fueled vans. The vans in current use have become old and frequently inoperable. The purchase of new vans would benefit operators and users by reducing emissions that lead to sources of carbon pollution and meet the City’s goal of combating climate change and safeguarding a healthy climate for future generations.

The purchase of the electric vans helps meet several State goals, as well as goals outlined in the Climate Element of the City’s General Plan, of transitioning existing gas- fuel fleets to clean fuel fleets. A few State bills are referenced below:

 Assembly Bill (AB) 118 (Low-Carbon Transportation and “Smart” Growth):

Establishes the California Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program, which provides grants and rebates to support the development, manufacture, and purchase of electric vehicles (EVs), natural gas vehicles (NGVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (FCVs), biofuel vehicles, and other low-emissions vehicle technologies.

 Senate Bill (SB) 375: Requires climate impacts to be addressed by local General Plans and directs California Air Resources Board (CARB) to work with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to set and achieve regional targets for greenhouse gas reductions based on changes in land use and transportation.

In the Bay Area, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is the lead agency for SB 375 planning.

 Assembly Bill (AB) 1493: Requires CARB to adopt regulations that achieve the maximum feasible reduction of greenhouse gases from vehicles.

In West Contra Costa County, Richmond has demonstrated its commitment to reducing emissions by instituting programs and services that support the laws on climate change.

As we continue to obtain funding to support such goals, there are existing grant and tax 65

September 26, 2023
measure funding mechanisms in place (i.e., Measure J), that support adopted low emission policies.

Hybrid and Zero Emission Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP)

The HVIP program is a program funded through the California Air Resources Board and funds from the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Funding Plan for Clean Transportation Incentives.

The HVIP program offers point-of-sale discounts to power California communities and to drive commercial technology transformation to small fleets as they transition to zero emission vehicles.

On April 7, 2023, the Richmond Transportation Division and the National Auto Fleet Group (NAFG) submitted a joint request to receive HVIP vouchers. On May 24, 2023, Richmond Transportation received notification via email that the request for two vouchers for the total amount of $90,000 was accepted and reserved to purchase two wheelchair accessible electric passenger vans for paratransit from the National Auto Fleet Group. As a disadvantaged community, Richmond also qualified to receive an additional fifteen percent (15%) discount for a total amount of $13,500 off the sales price for the vehicles that are purchased or leased from a program approved vendor by a public small fleet with 10 or fewer trucks or buses. R-Transit currently operates two vans. The National Auto Fleet Group was selected as an approved HVIP dealership with Sourcewell Contract 091521-NAF to complete electric engine modifications on HVIP approved vehicles. NAFG provided a quote of $268,861.76 to purchase the two 2022 Transit wheelchair accessible passenger vehicles which reflects the purchase point of sale HVIP voucher discount of $103,500.

Transportation staff recommends that the City Council approve a contract between the City of Richmond and the National Auto Fleet Group to purchase two R-Transit electric passenger vans in an amount not to exceed $268,861.76.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – City of Richmond and National Auto Fleet Group Contract Attachment 2 – City of Richmond Lightning Truck National Auto Fleet Group Quote Attachment 3 – HVIP Letter of Commitment
Attachment 4 – Voucher Reservation Acceptance
Attachment 5 – Sole-Source Form
66 67
68 69
70 71
72 73
74 75
76 77
78 79
80 81
82 83
84 85
86 87
88 89
90 91
92 93

City of Pride and Purpose
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org | 510.620.65 03

April 6, 2023
Hybrid and Zero Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher
Incentive Project (HVIP)
[email protected]

Subject: Letter of Commitment to the Hybrid and Zero Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP)

Dear Voucher Processing Center/ CALSTART,

On behalf of the City of Richmond, the Lead Applicant, I would like to express our commitment to the project described in the proposal for the Hybrid and Zero Emissions Truck and Bus Voucher Incentive Project (HVIP). This letter serves as our intent to purchase vehicles contingent upon HVIP award. The City Council intends to issue final approval of the purchase within 60 days of receipt of notice of reserved vouchers.

The City of Richmond’s proposal will increase access to clean mobility while reducing greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) and criteria pollutants, increase the uptake of zero-emission vehicles, and improve air quality and public health in the Richmond community.

Richmond is willing to contribute the following existing resource materials, technology, vehicle storage/maintenance and power costs, with no expectation of reimbursement through the voucher program. I can confirm that the city pays all the utility costs for the public electric vehicle charging equipment listed in the grant application to support the electric vehicles. The non-voucher portion of vehicle costs are included in the approved fleet replacement budget for FY 23/24 and/or additional grant funding from other sources.

The purchasing information is as follows:

Purchaser Name City of Richmond
Dealer Joshua Jerome at Watsonville Ford dba
National Auto Fleet Group
Voucher amount $45k per vehicle (2 vehicles) for a total amount of $90k
# Of units 2 shuttle buses
Model name & year Lightning FT3-86 BEV 2022
Issued date
HVIP eligible vehicle Lightning FT3-86 BEV
Office of the Mayor

CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
Eduardo Martinez, Mayor
94 City of Pride and Purpose
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 | www.RichmondCAMayor.org | 510.620.65 03 The date by which documentation of the final
approval will be provided
Within 60 days of notification of HVIP award.

Energy or fuel costs
Currently, all the energy provided to the publicly owned charging stations is paid for by the city.

This is also true for the electric vehicle charging hub that has been previously constructed in 2020 in preparation to install electric vehicle charging stations with the City’s Corporation Yard that supports the public fleet. Therefore, 100% of energy costs for this project will be provided by the City of Richmond.

Site for infrastructure
A combination of up to three Level 2and one DC fast chargers will be installed at 6 -13th Street, Richmond 94801, which is the site of Richmond’s Corporation Yard within City-owned land that will be provided for the purpose of installing this charging equipment.

Through these community resource contributions, we hope to indicate our deep commitment to this project and to better serve the clean mobility needs of our community in Richmond.

Sincerely,

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
Sent Via Email

95 From: ECM.voucherprocessing
To: Denee Evans; ECM.voucherprocessing; [email protected] Subject: RE: Voucher Request Accepted
Date: Wednesday, May 24, 2023 3:32:35 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Hello,
Your vouchers have been created for this request, and we are working with Joshua to get all the necessary documents uploaded for the next steps.

Best,
The HVIP Voucher Processing Team
1-888-457-4847
voucherprocessing @tetratech.com

From: Denee Evans <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2023 5:23 PM
To: ECM.voucherprocessing <[email protected]>; [email protected]
Subject: RE: Voucher Request Accepted

Good evening,

I am just following up on the status of the voucher.

Thank you,

Denée

Denée Evans, MA, CPM
Richmond Transportation Department
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
[email protected]
(510) 621-1718

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of HVIP Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2023 3:28 PM
To: [email protected]; Denee Evans <[email protected]> Subject: Voucher Request Accepted

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
96 The voucher request for City of Richmond has passed a preliminary review and funding has been set aside for the voucher(s). Your voucher request will now undergo further review. If any issues are found during this review by the Voucher Processing Center team, the dealer will be contacted within 5 business days regarding the information that must be addressed.

If you have any questions, please contact HVIP admin by email at [email protected]
or by phone at 1-888-457-4847.

Vehicle name: Lightning FT3-86 Battery Electric Vehicle Quantity: 2

Sincerely,
The HVIP Voucher Processing Team
1-888-457-4847
voucherprocessing @tetratech.com

97 Voucher Processing Center
Search...

Home (/s/) Dashboard (/s/dashboard/Dashboard/Recent) Voucher Requests (/s/opportunity/Opportunity/Default) Vouchers (/s/voucher/Vo

27 items • Sorted by Voucher ID • Filtered by All vouchers • Updated a few seconds ago VouchersAll
Search this list...

Vouch… L… Purchaser Vehicle Status Vouch… Street Addr… City S… Zi… Cre 1 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 2 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 3 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 4 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 5 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 6 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 7 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 8 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 9 VR-000425… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Cha… Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 10 VR-000426… City of Richmo… Lightning FT3-… Accepted Pend… $45,000.00 6 -13th Street Richmond CA 94801 5/18 11 VR-000426… City of Richmo… Lightning FT3-… Accepted Pend… $45,000.00 6 -13th Street Richmond CA 94801 5/18 12 VR-000429… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Van … Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 13 VR-000429… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Van … Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 14 VR-000429… Los Angeles Co… Ford T350 Van … Accepted Pend… $7,500.00 1955 Workman … Whittier CA 90601 5/18 15 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 16 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 17 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 18 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 19 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 20 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 21 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 22 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 23 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 24 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 25 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 26 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 27 VR-000430… Los Angeles W… Phoenix Motor… Accepted Pend… $60,000.00 7411 World Way… Los Angeles CA 90045 5/18 98 Page | 1 Sole Source Form – Rev. May 12, 2016

City of Richmond
Sole Source Justification

THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND APPROVED PRIOR TO ANY PURCHASE _______________________________________________________________________________ Contact the Purchasing Division and discuss your rationale before completing this form. If Purchasing can help you make this a competitive purchase, then this form will not be required.

Attach this completed/approved form to requisitions when competitive quotes/bids/proposals are not solicited. (Required for requisitions > $3,000)
Requested Sole Source Supplier:

Company Name: ___________________________ Contact Name: ______________________ Address: _______________________________________________________________________ City: _________________________ State: _____________ Zip Code: ____________________ Phone Number (____) ___________ E-Mail _______________________________________ Duration of Contract: ____________________________________ Estimated Cost: $ _______________ Funding Source (Account String)_________________ Is the product/service IT related? Yes_____No _____ If Yes, please attach the approved IT Authorization Form For Product: Is the recommended company the manufacturer of the product? Yes_____ No _____ For Product: Does the manufacturer sell the item(s) through distributors? Yes_____ No _____ Description of Product or Service:

Describe the full scope of work or service contemplated including installation if required; items should include brand, model and part number if applicable; (if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page)

Sole Source Rationale: PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: Explain why the recommended company is the only company that can meet the requirement. Address the following: Are there any other companies who can do this job? What condition (e.g. technological superiority, or performance risks, etc.) exists so that the recommended company has a significant advantage over any other company who can do this job? It is important to sufficiently address the key reason for awarding an order/contract without soliciting competitive bids. The rational must be clear and convincing, avoiding generalities and unsupported conclusions.

(if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page)

72 Hour LLC dba National Auto Fleet Group
Joshua Jerome
490 Auto Center Drive
Watsonville
CA
95076
626
457-5590
[email protected]
September 19, 2023 to September 19, 2024
268,861.76
11731013-400201-2A1JL
X
X
X
National Auto Fleet Group (NAFG) will provide the City of Richmond with (2) two electrified ADA passenger vans and chargers sourced from Lightning e-Motors.

National Auto Fleet Group is uniquely qualified to provide (2) two electrified Ford Transit passenger vans to the City of Richmond for the following reasons: 1. We hold the Sourcewell contract which allows the City of Richmond to participate in streamlined protected procurement. 2. NAFG is an HVIP approved dealer and has already successfully secured vouchers on behalf of the City of Richmond for the acquisition of (2) two electrified Ford Transit passenger vans . 3. NAFG authorized for securely sourcing and supplying the City of Richmond with the Lightning electrified vans.
99 2 | Page

Complete the following checklist
A specific contractor is the only source of the required item because (check all that apply):

The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor solely transacts (sells) direct to the customer. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

The required items are proprietary to the Contractor, and contractor does not sell direct to the customer. Contractor solely distributes the item or service through only one dealer or distributor in the United States. (There are no dealers or distributors for contractor).

Note: If item or service is available from more than one source, the item or service may be treated as proprietary, but must be competitively solicited from multiple (two or more) sources.

A specific item is needed:

To be compatible or interchangeable with existing hardware As spare or replacement hardware For the repair or modification of existing hardware Federal or state grant names vendor as condition of funding. (Attach copy of grant that names vendor)
There is a substantial risk in contracting with any other contractor, (e.g., only one contractor has been successful to date in implementing a difficult manufacturing process or the services sought ). In a brief explanation, provide supporting evidence of why other contractors are considered to be unable to overcome the substantial risk.

Continuation of prior Work – Additional item, service or work required, but not known to have been needed when the original order was placed with vendor, and it is not feasible or practicable to contract separately for the additional need. Provide brief explanation and supporting evidence.

(if additional space is needed, include them in a separate page)

Lightning Motors is a certified named contractor for the state funded HVIP voucher program. 100
3 | Page

I acknowledge the City’s requirements for soliciting competitive quotes/bids for purchases over $3,000.00 and the criteria for justification for Sole Source purchases. I have gathered the required information, have made a concerted effort to review comparable/equal equipment/services (e.g., market research), and further affirm that there is no conflict of interest involved in the selection made.

Department: _________________________________
Requester Name and Title: ____________________________________________________________ Note: Requester must be able to defend this justification.

Date:_____________ Phone: _______________
Department Director (Print) _____________________ (Sign) ________________ Date:__________

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Submit completed form to the Purchasing Division (Prior to submission to City Manager)

Finance Director:

APPROVED: ____________________ DATE: ___/___/___

NOT APPROVED: ________________ COMMENTS:

____________________________ ______________________________ City Manager City Clerk Attesting to Council Approval (Under $10,000.00) (Over $10,000.00) (Copy of Minutes may be substituted)

Note: Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326 Sole Source Procurement requires final approval by the City Manager and/or City Council. Sole Source must be approved by Finance Director, PRIOR to Council Approval.

PROCEDURE
Sole Source purchase/service are exceptions to the normal bidding process and require a detailed justification. In processing Sole Source requests for supplies, services and/or equipment, the Purchasing Division adheres to and is governed by the principles set forth in City of Richmond Municipal Code Section 2.52.326 Sole Source Procurement.

If you are requesting a particular vendor, brand or product, you must make this fact clear on your Sole Source form.

Your request will then be restrictive and non-competitive, and will fall into a sole source category. If the sole source justification is approved, the requisition can be expedited without the normal bidding requirements.

Such a request should not be made unless you are confident that your request is reasonable and appropriately justified to meet the City’s requirements and withstand any possible audit. The City’s requirements and the format for submitting such requests are contained herein. Sole Source form must be signed by authorized department representative(s). The certification will remain on file for audit purposes.

The following factors DO NOT apply to sole source requests and should not be included in your sole source justification. They will not be considered and only tend to confuse the evaluation process.

1. Personal preference for product or vendor.

2. Cost, vendor performance, and local service (these are generally considered award factors in competitive bidding).

3. Features which exceed the minimum department requirements.

Transportation
Denée Evans
9/6/23
621-1718
9/15/2023
LaShonda White
LaShonda White
Digitally signed by LaShonda White
DN: cn=LaShonda White, o=City of Richmond, ou,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2023.09.15 16:12:59 -07'00'
Digitally signed by Andrea Miller
DN: cn=Andrea Miller, o=City of Richmond,
ou=Finance,
[email protected], c=US
Date: 2023.09.20 14:36:59 -07'00'
9 20 2023
101

September 13, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: September 26, 2022
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM: Mayor Eduardo Martinez and Councilmember Cesar
Zepeda

Subject: National Drive Electric Week – September 22 to October 1, 2023
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Petroleum-fueled vehicles are a major source of
greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution,
exacerbating climate change and public health issues.

The City of Richmond, California, is advocating for a
transition to clean energy in the transportation sector through its support of National Drive Electric Week,
aiming to educate citizens and encourage the adoption of electric vehicles.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION declaring September 22 to October 1, 2023, as National Drive Electric Week in the City of
Richmond – Mayor Eduardo Martinez (510-620-6503)
and Councilmember Cesar Zepeda (510-620-6593).

DISCUSSION:

The designation of "Drive Electric Week" in Richmond, California, represents a significant effort in the broader initiative to address climate change and public health concerns. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the transportation AGENDA
REPORT
102

September 13, 2022
sector was responsible for 29 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2019, highlighting the critical need for cleaner transportation options like electric vehicles (EVs). The World Health Organization estimates that air pollution contributes to approximately seven million premature deaths globally each year. A report by the Union of Concerned Scientists indicates that EVs emit less than half the greenhouse gases of their gasoline-powered counterparts over their lifetimes. By supporting National Drive Electric Week, Richmond aims to raise public awareness and speed up the transition to more sustainable means of transportation.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation
103

Whereas petroleum-fueled vehicles are responsible for 30% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and are a contributing factor to air pollution and climate change, threatening the health of our citizens and the sustainability of our planet; and

Whereas the transportation sector needs support to move toward adoption of clean energy technology, including plug-in electric vehicles, that reduces our dependence on foreign fuels and supports a healthy environment and economy; and
Whereas Richmond, California is dedicated to being a leader in the use of clean energy, establishing policies and programs that conserve energy, and promote sustainability; and

Whereas September 22 to October 1, 2023 has been designated as National Drive Electric Week throughout the United States to educate our citizens about the benefits of plug-in electric vehicles and to promote their adoption;

Now, I, Richmond Mayor Eduardo Martinez, on behalf of the Richmond City Council, do hereby proclaim September 22 to October 1, 2023 as “Drive Electric Week” in the City of Richmond and call upon all residents of this great City of Richmond, California to join me in supporting the aims and goals of this worthwhile effort.

National Drive Electric Week
September 22 to October 1, 2023

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
September 26th, 2023
Therefore,
Councilmember Cesar Zepeda
District 2
City of Richmond
September 26th, 2023
104

September 26, 2023

Public Works

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Greg Hardesty, Parks & Landscaping Superintendent

Subject:

Hilltop Landscape District Office Trailer and Yard Lease FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed expenditure of $32,429.28 will be funded from the proposed fiscal year 2023-2024 Hilltop
Landscape Maintenance District Operational Budget
(11233731-400536). There is no impact to the General
Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

n/a

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Public Works staff is requesting authorization to continue the month-to-month lease with North Richmond
Properties, Inc. for office trailers and yard space to store containers and landscaping equipment.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE a sixth lease amendment with North
Richmond Properties, Inc., in an amount not to exceed
$32,429.28, for a month-to-month term, for the rental of two office trailers and space to store containers and
landscaping equipment – Public Works Department
(Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478/Greg Hardesty 510-620-
6920).

AGENDA
REPORT
105

September 26, 2023
In 2015, the Public Works Department leased storage space for equipment only at a cost of $1,312.50 per month at 2801 Giant Road. The proximity to the Hilltop District, has greatly improved the efficiency of the unit by reducing the travel time associated with transporting equipment from the Parks Yard on Leona Avenue to the Hilltop area, thus, enabling City staff to spend more time in the field.

In April 2019, Parks Operations had to vacate the office trailer in the parking lot at Hilltop Mall. Parks Operations sought additional space and now occupy two office trailers at the storage yard at 2801 Giant Road. City staff is seeking approval to continue with the month-to-month lease agreement. The new monthly payment for this lease will be $2,702.44 per month which includes the equipment storage space and two office trailers. The expense will be paid from the fiscal year 2023-2024 Hilltop Maintenance District Operational Fund.

City staff recommends approval of a Lease Agreement Addendum #6.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Original Lease
Attachment 2 – Lease Agreement Addendum #1
Attachment 3 – Lease Agreement Addendum #2
Attachment 4 – Lease Agreement Addendum #3
Attachment 5 – Lease Agreement Addendum #4
Attachment 6 – Lease Agreement Addendum #5
Attachment 7 – Lease Agreement Addendum #6

106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9940223F-510C-4609-8F51-D00C84B10D7E 7/30/2021
125
126
127

September 26, 2023

Public Works

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, PE, Director of Public Works
Ken Cheng, PE, Senior Civil Engineer
Subject:

Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project Funding Request
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project will be funded from Risk Management funds.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council adopted Resolution No. 81-23 to transfer
$650,000 of monies from the General Capital Fund
(Santa Rita Road Piling Project) to the Flood Risk
Reduction in Rheem Creek Watershed Project.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

City staff is requesting City Council approval to transfer funds in the amount of $1,040,000 from the Risk
Management Fund to the General Capital Fund to fund
the Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE and APPROPRIATE transfer of funds
amounting to $1,040,000 from Risk Management fund to
the General Capital Fund for the Santa Rita Road
Stabilization Project – Public Works Department (Daniel Chavarria 510-620-5478 / Ken Cheng 510-621-1612).

AGENDA
REPORT
128

September 26, 2023
DISCUSSION:

On June 20, 2023, agenda report (Item x.11.f Emergency Earth Slope Stabilization of Drainage Area Adjacent to Santa Rita Road Near 2929 Salvino Court) summarized the events that occurred in January 2023 that involved City staff, the City’s Consultant (Questa Engineering), and residents. Due to the mudslide continuing to worsen, Questa Engineering recommended the City take immediate action to mitigate the effects of the mudslide by implementing remediation measures. The mudslide jeopardizes the integrity of Santa Rita Road (City infrastructure) and nearby homes. Therefore, City Council approved an after-the-fact emergency slope stabilization contract with Bay Hawk, Inc.

In April 2023, Questa Engineering (one of the City’s pre-approved contractors) provided an approximate preliminary construction cost estimate of $650,000 for the retaining wall to protect and support the existing Santa Rita Road from failing and collapsing into the creek.

On June 20, 2023, City staff presented the Fiscal Year 2023-2024 Operating Budget and Five-Year Improvement Projects Program Budget for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028, to City Council. A substitute motion was approved related to utilizing climate resiliency contingency funds for Santa Rita Road. Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project was selected, and City Council approved $650,000 to be allocated.

Due to the time sensitivity of the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) Grant deadline to fund the Flood Risk Reduction in Rheem Creek Watershed Project, City Council adopted Resolution 81-23 on July 11, 2023, to transfer funds from the Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project to the Flood Risk Reduction in Rheem Creek Watershed Project. The Rheem Creek Project was scheduled to start immediately. The July 11, 2023 staff report noted that the Santa Rita Road Stabilization project would use Risk Management funds. This report revises that request to provide a more accurate estimate. City staff is seeking City Council final approval for the Santa Rita Road Project to be funded from the Risk Management fund.

The Sanita Rita Road Stabilization Project was presented to City Council with an anticipated construction start in the fall and completion of the project before the next rain event. This revised cost estimate includes additional construction items, design, construction management, contingency, and staff time. Currently, the Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project does not have any funding. The estimated costs to complete the project are listed below (approximately) and additional cost information for lines 1 and 2 are included in Attachment 1:

1. Construction: $740,000

2. Construction Contingency (20%): $150,000

3. Final Design/Bid Package: $ 40,000 (Proposal from Questa)

4. Construction Management (10%): $110,000
Total: $1,040,000
129

September 26, 2023

Therefore, Public Works is requesting the City Council to transfer and appropriate funds from the Risk Management Fund to General Capital Fund for the Santa Rita Road Stabilization Project.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – City 90 Cost Estimate dated: 2023-08

130
Item # Description Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost
1 Additional Mobilization (included in item#5) 1 LS -$ -$ 2 Traffic Control (included in item#5) 1 LS -$ -$ 3 Clearing & Grubbing 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$ 4 SWPPP 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10,000.00$
5 Stitch Wall (includes 10% mark up) 1 LS 689,810.00$ 689,810.00$ 6 Guard Rail (included in item#5) 80 LF -$ -$ 7 Chain-Link Fence 100 LF 150.00$ 15,000.00$ 8 Vegetation 1 LS 15,000.00$ 15,000.00$
739,810.00$
147,962.00$
887,772.00$
20% Contingency
Park Central St and CT Grand Total
Subtotal
City of Richmond
Santa Rita Road Stablization Project
Submittal: City 90% Estimate
Date: 2023-08-28
131

September 26, 2023

Finance Department

DATE: September 26, 2023
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM: Nickie Mastay, Deputy City Manager, Internal Services Andrea Miller, Director of Finance
Mubeen Qader, Deputy Director of Finance
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Subject: Approval of Adjusted Developer Impact Fees for a Revised Master Fee Schedule
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This update of the Master Fee Schedule adjusts Developer Impact Fees based on an analysis of the fees
needed to support future development in the City of
Richmond through 2040. This update does not include
the Traffic Impact Fees which will be updated later this year.

Based on the level of activity in FY2022-2023, the
proposed fee adjustments would generate additional
annual revenue totaling $436,000 for the City of
Richmond’s Impact Fee funds in year one of the phase in approach proposal.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

May 23, 2023 - City Council approved the first reading of the Ordinance establishing Commercial Cannabis
Regulatory Fees.

June 6, 2023 - City Council approved the second reading of the Ordinance establishing Commercial Cannabis
Regulatory Fees.

June 27, 2023 - City Council approved a Resolution
adjusting the dollar amount for current fees except for Recreation fees which remained as is.

AGENDA
REPORT
132

September 26, 2023

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Sections 2.34.040 (Schedule of fees and service
charges) and 13.45.020 (Approval of adjustments by City Council) of the Richmond Municipal Code authorize
periodic adjustments to all City levied fees and charges, subject to approval by the City Council. City staff is requesting adoption of a resolution adjusting the dollar amount for current Developer Impact Fees as outlined in the proposed Master Fee Schedule.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: HOLD a public hearing and ADOPT a resolution adjusting the dollar amount for proposed Developer
Impact Fees using the two- and four-year phase in
approach – Finance Department (Andrea Miller/Mubeen
Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620- 6741).

DISCUSSION:

Section 2.34.040 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) (Schedule of fees and service charges) provides that “The City Manager shall review the fees and charges based upon the review schedule set forth (herein) and shall set and adjust the fees or charges so as to recover up to the … costs reasonably necessary to provide the listed regulations, products or services.”

Additionally, Sections 13.45.010 and 13.45.020 of the RMC, as recently amended by the Richmond City Council at its May 2, 2023 meeting, further provides that:

The Director of Finance of the City shall adjust all city -levied taxes, fees and charges provided for in the Richmond Municipal Code on a yearly basis, or as needed, in accordance with any increase or decrease in the Bureau of Labor Statistics Employment Cost Index (ECI), State and Local Government Workers component, during the preceding fiscal year.

Additionally, a comprehensive fee study should be conducted at least every five years.

And
Each year, the Director of Finance shall submit to the City Council a report listing all proposed adjustments for approval. No proposed adjustment shall take effect until it is approved by the City Council. The Council may reject, but may not modify, any one or more of the proposed adjustments in any report before approving the adjustments.

The Finance Department worked with Willdan Financial Services to develop the proposed Developer Impact Fees. The scope of services provided under this program was designed to produce reports used in updating the Master Fee Schedule to help better offset the impacts of new development. The traffic impact fee section is still pending, and Finance staff will return later this year with those proposed changes.

133

September 26, 2023
Willdan’s Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update (Attachment 2) summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Richmond through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:

 Sewer Facilities
 Parks
 Community Center and Aquatic Facilities
 Police Facilities
 Fire Protection Facilities
 Library Facilities
 Storm Drains

AB 602 Requirements

On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among other changes, AB 602 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines for impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:

 66016.5. (a) (2) When applicable, the nexus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.  66016.5. (a) (4) If a nexus study supports the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.  66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after July 1, 2022, shall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the square footage of proposed units of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee proportionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the development shall be deemed to have used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development.  66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvement plan as a part of the nexus study.

One key change listed above is the fee calculation methodology for residential properties. Previously, the City of Richmond, like many other cities, calculated the fee based on the number of dwelling units. Going forward, the fee will be on a square footage basis. The goal here is to be more equitable in that smaller dwellings are charged a lower fee than larger dwellings.

134

September 26, 2023
Phase In Approach

The proposed increases to the Developer Impact Fees are significant; therefore, City staff is proposing a phase in approach over several years. For non-residential properties, the developer impact fees would be updated over two years. Yearly increases after that would be based on changes to the Employment Cost Index; that is until the next study is done in four to five years. For residential properties, the phase in would be over four years with the next overall fee study to be completed around year five.

NEXT STEPS:

Due to recent legislation, further technical work is required to justify traffic impacts fees by developing a long-term plan that demonstrates how the City will expand its transportation resources in order to mitigate the impacts of new development. Public Works staff members are updating a list of traffic projects with one of the City’s on-call consultants. This list of projects may include projects which facilitate movement of traffic, mitigate safety impacts, and/or address the growing requirements for all travel modes consistent with SB 743 (e.g., complete streets, bicycle projects, pedestrian improvements, transit improvements, etc.). City staff will return with proposed updates to the Developer Impact Fees focused on the Traffic Impact Fees.

Additionally, City staff will return to City Council with a proposed contract focused on Recreation Department fees, which will include a comparison with nearby jurisdictions.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proposed Master Fee Schedule
Attachment 2 – Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Attachment 3 – Resolution
Attachment 4 – Presentation

135
Residential - Four Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Parks - Quimby (Subdivisions) 4.39$ 6.12$ 7.86$ 9.59$ 11.32$ Parks (Infill) 4.39 6.05 7.71 9.37 11.03 Community / Aquatic Center 1.05 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Police Facilities 0.25 0.43 0.62 0.80 0.99 Fire Protection Facilities 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Library Facilities 1.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Storm Drains 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Sewer Facilities 2.29 3.72 5.14 6.57 7.99 Total (Subdivisions) 9.92$ 12.86$ 15.79$ 18.72$ 21.66$ Total (Infill) 9.92$ 12.78$ 15.64$ 18.51$ 21.37$ Nonresidential - Two Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2
Office
Police Facilities 0.30$ 0.42$ 0.54$
Fire Facilities 0.26 0.38 0.49
Library 0.42 - -
Storm Drainage 0.74 0.07 0.07
Sewer 2.32 3.38 4.44
Total 4.04$ 4.25$ 5.54$
Industrial
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.15$ 0.19$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.18 0.18
Library 0.18 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.11 0.11
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.10
Total 2.41$ 4.56$ 7.58$
Warehousing
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.06$ 0.06$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.05 0.05
Library 0.05 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.11 0.11
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.10
Total 2.29$ 4.34$ 7.32$
136

CITY OF RICHMOND

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
UPDATE

FINAL

AUGUST 21, 2023

Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
66 Franklin Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 300 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94607 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (888) 326-6864 Seattle, WA
Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
137

This page intentionally left blank.

138

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 1 Background and Study Objectives 1
Facility Standards and Costs 1
Use of Fee Revenues 2
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 2
Other Funding Needed 4

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................... 5 Public Facilities Financing in California 5
Study Objectives 5
Fee Program Maintenance 6
Study Methodology 6
Types of Facility Standards 6
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 7
Organization of the Report 8

2. GROWTH FORECASTS ................................................................. 9 Land Use Types 9
Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units 9
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 11

3. SEWER FACILITIES .................................................................... 13 Service Area 13
Sewer Demand 13
EDU Generation by New Development 14
Facility Needs and Costs 15
Cost per EDU 16
Fee Schedule 16

4. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES ........................................... 18 Service Population 18
Existing Parkland Inventory 18
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 20
Park Facility Standards 21
Quimby Act Standard 21
City of Richmond Park Facilities Standards 22
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 22
Park Facilities Cost per Capita 23
Use of Fee Revenue 24
Fee Schedule 24

5. COMMUNITY CENTER AND AQUATIC FACILITIES ............................ 26 139
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update ii

Service Population 26
Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities Inventory 26 Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities 28
Cost Allocation 28
Existing Level of Service 28
Future Level of Service 29
Use of Fee Revenue 29
Fee Revenue Projection 29
Fee Schedule 29

6. POLICE FACILITIES .................................................................... 31 Service Population 31
Existing Facility Inventory 31
Planned Facilities 32
Cost Allocation 32
Existing Level of Service 32
Future Level of Service 33
Fee Revenue Projection 33
Fee Schedule 34

7. FIRE PROTECTION FACILITIES .................................................... 36 Service Population 36
Existing Facilities Inventory 36
Planned Facilities 40
Cost Allocation 40
Fee Revenue Projection 41
Fee Schedule 41

8. LIBRARY FACILITIES .................................................................. 43 Service Population 43
Existing Facility Inventory 43
Planned Facilities 45
Cost Allocation 46
Existing Level of Service 46
Fee Revenue Projection 46
Fee Schedule 46

9. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES .......................................................... 48 Storm Drain Demand 48
EDU Generation by New Development 48
Planned Facilities 49
Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit 51
Fee Schedule 51

10. AB 602 REQUIREMENTS ............................................................ 53 Compliance with AB 602 53
66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 53
140
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii

66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions 53 66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot 54
66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan 54

11. IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................... 55 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 55
Inflation Adjustment 55
Reporting Requirements 55
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 57

12. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS .................................................. 58 Purpose of Fee 58
Use of Fee Revenues 58
Benefit Relationship 58
Burden Relationship 59
Proportionality 59
141

1 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysi s o f development impac t fees nee ded to support future development in the City of Richmond through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a pu blic facilities fee. T he publi c fa cilities and impr ovements included in t his analysis are divi ded into the fee categories listed below:
▪ Sewer Facilities
▪ Parks
▪ Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Library Facilities
▪ Storm Drains
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy object ive of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays t he ca pital c osts a ssociated with growth. Although growt h also imposes operating costs, ther e is not a similar sy stem to genera te reven ue from new d evelopment for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees t hat will enable the City to expand its inventory of public fa cilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.

The City collects public facilities fees under authority grant ed by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et s eq. Th is report provides th e necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in t he fee sc hedules contained herein.

The City progr ams development im pact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan ( CIP). Usin g a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will acco mmodate f uture growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capit al projects, the City can help ensure a reasona ble r elationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.

Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches used to calculate facilities standards and al locate the costs of planned facilities to accom modate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements in this study.

The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the C ity’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not a vailable. Future facilities to serve growth will be identi fied t hrough the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is used to calculate the park and recreation facilities fees, fire protection facilities and library facility fees in this report.

The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new develo pment. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be iden tified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new d evelopment can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid d eficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to 142
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 a previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the community and aquatic center facilities fees, storm drain, and sewer facilities fees in this report.

The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where specific needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determ ine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of ne w facilities between ne w and existing dev elopment. This approach is used to calculate the police facilities fees in this report.

Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current fa cilities to serve new development. Fa cilities can be generally defined as capital acquis ition items with a us eful life greater tha n five years. Imp act fee revenue c an be spent on capital facilities to serve new development, including but not limited to land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisitio n of vehicles or equi pment, info rmation te chnology, so ftware licenses and equipment.

In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the 17-year p lanning horizon assumed in this stud y, the City may need to update and revise the p roject lis ts fun ded by the fees do cumented i n this study. Any subs titute projects should be funded within th e same facility category, an d the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to n ew development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded b y the impact fees whe n it updates the CIP. The imp act fees could also be updat ed if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.

Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the develo pment impa ct fe es that meet t he City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.

143
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 3 Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Sewer
Facilities 1
Parks -
Quimby
(Subdivisions)2
Parks
(Infill)2
Community /
Aquatic
Center
Police
Facilities
Fire
Protection
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Storm
Drains
Total -
Subdivisions
Total -
Infill
Residential - per Sq. Ft. 7.99$ 11.32$ 11.03$ 0.58$ 0.99$ 0.46$ 0.28$ 0.03$ 21.66$ 21.37$ Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial 3.55$ -$ -$ -$ 0.35$ 0.32$ -$ 0.06$ 4.28$ 4.28$ Office 4.44 - - - 0.54 0.49 - 0.07 5.54 5.54 Industrial 7.10 - - - 0.19 0.18 - 0.11 7.58 7.58 Warehousing 7.10 - - - 0.06 0.05 - 0.11 7.32 7.32 2 Only charged w ithin Richmond Municipal Sew er District Boundaries.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.7, 5.7, 6.6, 7.9, 8.8 and 9.5.
1 A development project either pays the Quimby fee of the park infill fee, not both. Development not occurring in subdivisions is subject to the infill fee. Development in subdivisions is subject to the Quimby fee.
144
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 4 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facili ties related to new de velopment in Richmond.

They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown i n Table E. 2, approximately $ 405.8 million in additional funding will be ne eded to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop if fees are adopted at the maximum justified fee level. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee fun ding required to fund a share o f th e improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities are needed partially to remedy existing deficiencies and partly to accommodate new development. To the extent that the City adopts fees tha t are lower th an t he maximum justified amou nt, the non -fee funding requirements may increase, depending on the fee category and methodology.

The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund existing developme nt’s share of the planned facil ities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.

Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Fee Calculation
Methodology
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Sewer Facilities Planned Facility Standard 584,149,500$ 228,891,385$ 355,258,115$ Parks1 Existing Facility Standard 303,328,000 303,328,000 - Community / Aquatic Center Planned Facility Standard 16,000,000 16,000,000 - Police Facilities System Standard 80,000,000 32,771,000 47,229,000 Fire Protection Facilities Existing Facility Standard 17,714,400 17,714,400 - Library Facilities Existing Facility Standard 6,910,000 7,687,512 - Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,587,773 3,359,227 Total 1,014,048,900$ 608,980,070$ 405,846,342$
1 Fee revenue show n if all development is infill development. Refer to Table 4.5 for projections of Quimby in-lieu fee revenue.

Sources: Tables 3.3, 4.5, 5.4, 6.5, 7.8, 8.5, 8.7, and 9.3.

Note: For facility categories calculated using the existing facility standard, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of planned facilities needed to serve new development.

145

5 1. Introduction
This report pres ents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommoda te new development in the City o f Richmond. This chapt er provides background for t he stu dy and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.

Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in C alifornia during the p ast 45 years h as steadily undercut t he financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a stri ng of tax limitation measures, s tarting with Pro position 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popul ar support for bond measures to f inance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.

Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “gr owth pays its own way. ” This policy shifts t he burden of funding infrastructure expan sion from e xisting ratepayers and ta xpayers on to new dev elopment. Th is funding shift has b een accom plished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as pu blic facilities fees. Assessments and spe cial taxes require the approval of p roperty owners and a re appropria te when the fund ed fac ilities a re directly re lated to the developi ng property. De velopment impact fees, on the oth er hand, ar e an appropriate fundi ng source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Deve lopment impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.

Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure t hat new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Finding 2 of the General Plan Growth Management Element states: “To accommodate growth, Richmond will need to acquire additional sources of revenue to address future infrastructure and public facilities needs. Long -term growth management strategies include: Ensuring that new development pays its fair share of community improvements through impact fees, development agreements and other mechanisms …” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees bas ed on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The maximum justified fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of pub lic facilities as new developmen t leads to increa ses in service demands. This report supports the General Plan finding stated above.

The City collects public facilities fees under authorit y granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 6600 0 et seq. Th is r eport provides the necessary findings requ ired by th e Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules presented in this report.
146
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

6 Richmond is forecast to see significant growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040. This growth will creat e an increase in demand for publ ic services a nd the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges de scribed above, Richmond has decided to continue to use a deve lopment impact fee program to ensure that new development f unds its share of facility costs a ssociated wi th growth. Th is report makes use o f the most cur rent available growth forecasts and facility plans to update th e City’s existing f ee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.

Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure t hat the revenue collected ade quately f unds t he facilities n eeded by new development. To avoid collect ing inadequate revenue, the invento ries of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities m ust be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees re calculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, buildings, and equipment), such as the California Construction Cost Index, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees.

For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 11.

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues ke ep up with increases in the cos ts of public f acilities, it is recommended to conduct more ext ensive upda tes of the fee docu mentation and calcu lation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth fo recasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 11.

Study Methodology
Development impact fees are cal culated t o f und the cost of facilities requ ired to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:

1. Estimate existing develop ment an d future growt h: Identify a base year for existing development and a growt h forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;

2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facil ity s tandards used to p lan for new and expanded facilities;

3. Determine facilities re quired to serve new development: Estimate the total amount o f planned facilities, and ide ntify the share required to a ccommodate new development;

4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share o f the cost of plann ed facilities required to accommodate new development;

5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facil ities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and

6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is required to complete projects.

The key public po licy issue in devel opment impact f ee st udies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility s tandards document a reasonable relation ship between new development and the nee d for new facilities. Standards ensure th at new dev elopment does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.

Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
147
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

7 ▪ Demand standards determine the amount of fac ilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park ac res per thousand residents, square feet of library space per capita, or gallons of wa ter per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design st andards determine h ow a faci lity shou ld be designed to mee t expected demand, for example, park improveme nt requirements and technology i nfrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee an alysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost o f planned facilities built to sa tisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate met hod for determining the amount of facilit ies required to acc ommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when dem and standards were not explicitly devel oped for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed ba sed on a single me asure (co st or value) an d are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.

New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new develo pment.

This is o ften a two -step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.

There a re three common meth ods for determining ne w development’s fair share of planned facilities costs in this study: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system plan method. Often the m ethod selected depends on the degree to whi ch the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.

The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:

Existing Inventory Method
The existing inve ntory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:

Current replacement cost of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new de velopment will fund the expansion of facil ities at t he same s tandard currently serving e xisting de velopment. The existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This met hod is often used whe n a long -range plan for new facilities is not available. Future facilities to s erve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly a fter c ompletion of a new faci lity master plan. This approach is used to calculate the park and recreation facilities fees, fire protection facilities and library facilities fees in this report.

Planned Facilities Method
The plann ed f acilities met hod allo cates costs based on th e ratio of pla nned fa cility costs to demand from new development as follows:

Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the = cost per unit of demand
= cost per unit of demand
148
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

8 former is a Sewer trunk line extension to a previ ously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of a n existing lib rary building and book co llection, which will be needed only i f new development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existi ng development, as well . Under this method new development will fund the exp ansion of facilities at the st andards used i n th e applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the community and aquatic center facilities fees, storm drain, and sewer facilities fees in this report.

System Plan Method
This method c alculates the fe e based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:

Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This me thod is useful when planned facilities n eed to be an alyzed as part of a system that benefits both exis ting and new d evelopment. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to ne w development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.

The system plan method e nsures that new development d oes not pay for existing deficienci es.

Often fa cility st andards based on policies such a s t hose found in Comprehensive Plans ar e higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables t he calculation of the ex isting deficiency required to bring e xisting development up to the polic y-based stan dard. The local agency must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to co rrect the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.

This approach is used to calculate the police facilities fees in this report.

Organization of the Report
The determinati on o f a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a p lanning horizon and development of growth projection s for p opulation and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.

Chapters 3 through 9 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between n ew development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ Sewer Facilities
▪ Parks
▪ Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
▪ Police Facilities
▪ Fire Protection Facilities
▪ Library Facilities
▪ Storm Drains

Chapter 10 describes how this nexus studies complies with the requirements of AB 602.

Chapter 11 details the pro cedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.

The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 12. = cost per unit of demand
149

9 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allo cate those needs between ex isting and new devel opment. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2023 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.

Estimates of existing developme nt and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development i n 2023 is used as an indica tor of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of to tal development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future d emand to determine total facilities ne eded to accomm odate growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2023 through 2040 are used to (1) a llocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.

The dema nd for public facilities is based on the service populat ion, dwel ling un its or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.

Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable re lationship between each fee and t he type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Residential D welling Units : All residential dwelling units, inclu ding detached and attached one-unit dwellings and all multifamily dwellings including apartments, duplexes, and condominiums.
▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, and service development ▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial: All manufacturing, distribution, and other industrial development. ▪ Warehousing: All warehouse development, including distribution facilities.

Some developments m ay includ e m ore th an one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.

The City has the dis cretion to determine which land use type best ref lects a de velopment project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the im pact characteris tics of the use . If a project results in t he intensification of use, at i ts discre tion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.

Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
The California State Legi slature recently amended requirements on local agencies for the imposition of development impact fees on accessory dwelling units (ADU) with Assembly B ill AB 68 in 2021. The amendment to California Government Co de §65852.2(f)(2) stipulates that local agencies may not impose any impact fees on ADU less than 750 square feet. ADU greater than 750 square feet can be charged impact fees in proportion to the size of the primary dwelling unit. 150
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

10 Calculating Impact Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units For ADU s greater t han 750 squar e feet, impact fees can be charged as a per centage of the single family impact fee. The formula is:

𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡
𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑦 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑒 𝑆𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑟𝑒 𝐹𝑒𝑒𝑡 × 𝑆𝑖𝑛𝑔𝑙𝑒 𝐹𝑎𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑦 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒 = 𝐴𝐷𝑈 𝐼𝑚𝑝𝑎𝑐𝑡 𝐹𝑒𝑒

In the case of an 800 square foot ADU and a 1,600 square foot primary r esidence, the impact fees would be 50 percent (800 square fee t / 1,600 square feet = 50% ) of the single family dwelling unit fee.

Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number o f residen ts, dwell ing unit s, employees, a nd building square feet in Richmond, both in 2023 and in 2040. The base year estima tes of household residents and dwelling units come from th e California Department of Finance. The 2040 projection of residents was identified in the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) 2016- 2040 RTP/SCS Final Growth Forec ast. The projection of total dwelling units in 2040 is based on increasing the supply of dwelling units proportionally to the pr ojected increase in population . This analysis assu mes that the same r atio of single family to multifamily will be maint ained as development occurs.

Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 2,138 local government (public admi nistration) employees. Total projected workers in 2040 are identified by ABAG. The projected 2040 proportion of workers by land use is held co nsistent with curre nt estimates. The estimates of nonresidential building square feet were estimated by dividing employee counts by the occupancy density factors presented in the following table.
151
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

11 Table 2.1: Existing and New Development
2023 2040 Increase
Residents1 111,924 164,220 52,296
Dwelling Units2
Single Family 25,125 36,865 11,740
Multifamily 15,746 23,103 7,357
Total 40,871 59,968 19,097
Employment3
Commercial 9,899 22,181 12,282
Office 8,695 19,483 10,788
Industrial 8,993 20,151 11,158
Total 27,587 61,815 34,228
Building Square Feet (1,000s)4
Commercial 4,669 10,463 5,793
Office 2,667 5,976 3,309
Industrial 7,753 17,372 9,619
Total 15,089 33,811 18,722
Sources: Table 2.2; ABAG 2016-2040 RTP/SCS Final Grow th Forecast by Jurisdiction; California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2023; U.S.

Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.
4 Equivalent building square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF).

Projection total for 2040 from ABAG.
2 Current values from DOF. Total dw ellings units projection is based on maintaining current ratio of dw elling units to population. 3 Base year from OnTheMap Applicaion. Projection from ABAG allocated to land uses based on current proportions

Occupant Densities
All f ees i n this re port are calculated bas ed on the assumed square footage of the average dwelling unit or nonresidential building square feet . Occupa nt density a ssumptions ens ure a reasonable relationship between the size of a devel opment project, the i ncrease in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.

Occupant densities (residents per average dwelling unit or worker s per bu ilding square foot) are the most ap propriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee impose d sho uld b e based o n the la nd use type that most closely represents the proba ble occ upant density of the development. The occupancy factors are shown in Table 2.2 . The residential density factor is based on data for Richmond from the 2021 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey, the most recent data available . The nonr esidential occupancy factors are derived f rom d ata from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. 152
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

12 Table 2.2: Occupant Density Assumptions
Residential 2.72 Residents per Dwelling Unit
Nonresidential
Commercial 2.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.26 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Warehousing 0.34 Employees per 1,000 square feet Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2021 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition; Willdan Financial Services.

153

13 3. Sewer Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for sewer facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Richmond. The projects and asso ciated costs in this c hapter were identified in the City’s 2016 WWTP Facility Plan. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a sewer facilities impact fee to fund facilities to serve new development.

Service Area
Unlike the other facility categories included in this nexus study, the City’s sewer facilities do not serve the entire City. The Richmond Municipal Sewer District (RMSD) serves approximately 14 square miles within the City of Richmond. Two other sewer districts provide service to the other areas of the City. Consequently, this fee is calculated based on demand from existing and new development within the RMSD boundaries and cannot be charged in other areas of the City.

Sewer Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased sewer demand provide the basis for calculating the sewer facilities fee . The need f or sewer facilities improv ements is based on the sewer demand place d on t he sys tem by develop ment. A typical measure of de mand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day genera ted by a specific type of land use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on t he City’s system of sewer improvements because t hey r epresent the average rate of de mand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.

Table 3.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand fa ctors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow g eneration estimates based on data from the City’s Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. EDU factors express water flow from each land use in terms of the flow generated by a single family dwelling unit.
154
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

14 Table 3.1: Sewer Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation
(GDP/NA)1 Density2
Average
Flow
Generation/

DU, KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family n/a n/a 165.00 1.00
Multifamily 3,000 25.00 120.00 0.73
Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 1,000 21.78 45.91 0.28
Office 1,000 17.42 57.39 0.35
Industrial 1,000 10.89 91.83 0.56
Warehousing 1,000 10.89 91.83 0.56
1 Gallons per day per net acre.
2 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for nonresidential. Based on General Plan density assumptions and minimum FAR of 0.5 for commercial, 0.4 for office and 0.25 for light industrial.

Sources: City of Richmond Sanitary Sew er Master Plan Nov. 2011: Table 3-2; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 3.2 shows the e stimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. The EDU factors fr om Table 3.1 are multiplied by the land use assumptions specific to the RMSD boundaries to estimate total EDUs in the base year, at the pla nning horizo n and for new development within the District. New development will generate approximately 18,423 new EDUs through 2040, comprising 39.2% of sewer demand in the City at that time. 155
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

15 Table 3.2: Sewer Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing2
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth3
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential - Dwelling Units
Single Family 1.00 17,881 8,953 17,881 8,953 26,834 Multifamily 0.73 8,051 4,032 5,877 2,943 8,820 Subtotal 25,932 12,985 23,758 11,896 35,654 Nonresidential - 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 0.28 3,360 4,536 941 1,270 2,211 Office 0.35 1,758 2,373 615 831 1,446 Industrial 0.56 5,856 7,904 3,279 4,426 7,705 Subtotal 10,974 14,813 4,835 6,527 11,362 Total 28,594 18,423 47,017
Percent of Total 60.8% 39.2% 100.0%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential) Sources: ESRI Business Analyst; OnTheMap; Tables 2.1 and 3.1, Willdan Financial Services. 2 Existing dw elling units in Richmond Municipal Sew er District (RMSD) estimated using GIS analysis w ith ESRI Business Analyst. Based on ACS data. Existing equivalent building square feet estimate using GIS analysis using existing sew er district boundaries and employment data from OnTheMap. Jobs converted to equivalent building square feet using employment density factors from Table 2.2. 3 Projected development estimated in RMSD using cityw ide residential and nonresidential average compound grow th rates from 2022 to 2040 applied to development w ithin sew er district.

Facility Needs and Costs
Table 3.3 identifies the planned sewer facilities to be funded by the fee. The new sewer facilities were all identified in the City ’s 2016 WWTP Facili ty Plan. Since sewer facilities projects will benefit both existi ng development an d ne w development, capacity expan ding project s a re allocated to new development based on new development ’s share of sewer demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee. 156
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

16 Table 3.3: Sewer Facilities Allocation to New Development Escalated
Cost Estimate1
Allocation to
New
Development
Costs
Allocated to
New
Development
Waste Water Treatment Plant 2020-2040 2
CRITICAL PROJECTS 2020

1.5 Dewatering Facility 12,135,200$ 39% 4,755,020$
NEAR-TERM PROJECTS 2021-2025

2.1 Level 1 Nutrient Removal Improvements $ 1,712,200 39% $ 670,903

2.10 Site Protection from Rock Slides 2,140,200 39% 838,610

2.11 Low-Lift Effluent Pump Station 7,847,500 39% 3,074,941 LONG-TERM PROJECTS 2026-2045

3.1 Level 2 Nutrient Removal Improvements 195,760,500$ 39% 76,706,206$

3.2 Level 3 Nutrient Removal Improvements 120,281,400 39% 47,130,702

3.3 Wet Weather Improvements 193,049,500 39% 75,643,936

3.4 Digested Sludge Storage (to support dewatering) 8,703,600 39% 3,410,392

3.5 Biosolids Post-Processing (Dryer Facility) 42,519,400 39% 16,660,674 Total Project Cost 584,149,500$ 228,891,385$
1 Project Cost Estimates adjusted to 2023 construction costs using ENR BCI. 2 Richmond WWTP Facility Plan Final Draft 2016.10.7 Appendix A - CIP Summary Source: City of Richmond: WWTP Facility Plan, 2016: Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Wildan Finacial Services

Cost per EDU
The cost of planned facil ities allocated to new develo pment in Table 3.3 is divided by the to tal growth in EDUs to determine a cost per EDU. Table 3.4 displays this calculation.

Table 3.4: Cost per EDU
Costs Allocated to New Development 228,891,385$
Growth in EDUs 18,423
Cost per EDU 12,424$
Sources: Tables 3.2 and 3.3.

Fee Schedule
The maxim um justified fee for sewer facilities is show n in Table 3.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new developm ent based on the EDU factors shown in Table 3.1.

The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The to tal fe e includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, acco unting, and other departmental and administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of p rojects funded by the f acilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative co sts including revenue collection , revenue an d cost accountin g, mandated p ublic reporting , and fee justification analyses.
157
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

17 Table 3.5: Maximum Justified Sewer Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 12,424$ 0.92 11,430$ 229$ 11,659$ 7.99$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 12,424$ 0.28 3,479$ 70$ 3,549$ 3.55$ Office 12,424 0.35 4,348 87 4,435 4.44 Industrial 12,424 0.56 6,957 139 7,096 7.10 Warehousing 12,424 0.56 6,957 139 7,096 7.10 1 Fee per average dw elling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, 3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

158

18 4. Parks and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of t he parks and recreation facilities impact fee is to fund t he parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified im pact f ee is pre sented based on the existing standard of parks and recreation facilities per capita.

Service Population
Park a nd recreat ion facilities in Richmond primarily serve resi dents. Therefore, demand for services and associa ted facilities is based on the City’s residential populati on. Table 4.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for park and recreation facilities.

Table 4.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Parkland Inventory
The City of Richmond maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table

4.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2023. All facilities are located within the City limits. In total, the inventory includes a total of 322.33 acres of improved parkland. 159
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 19 Table 4.2: Parkland Inventory
Park Name Total Acres
Community Parks
B.T. Anderson Jr. Park 22.00
Central Richmond Greenway 11.00
Hilltop Lake Park 36.00
La Moine Park 22.00
Marina Bay Park 11.00
Martin Luther King Jr. Park 13.00
Nichol Park 21.00
Pt. Molate Beach Park 25.00
Subtotal 161.00
Joint Use Parks
Central Park 2.60
Fairmede Park 12.00
Hilltop Park 6.70
Olinda School Field 2.00
Valley View School Fields 11.00
Subtotal 34.30
Pocket Parks
Abraham Braxton Park 0.60
Bay Vista Park 0.70
Clinton Play lot 0.20
Elm Playlot 0.50
Humboldt Park 0.40
Humphrey Play Lot 0.20
Huntington Park/Senior Annex 0.30
Janice Play Lot 0.10
Kern Play Lot 0.30
Mendocino Play Lot 0.40
Monterey Play Lot 0.50
Moody Underpass Park 0.73
Sheridan Observation Poin 1.00
Solano Play Lot 0.20
Stewart Playground 0.80
Virginia Play Lot 0.20
Subtotal 7.13
Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Parks Master Plan Dec 22, 2010, Parks and Recreation Richmond Master Plan 2030

160
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 20 Table 4.2: Park Land Inventory Continued
Park Name Total Acres
Neighborhood Parks
Atchison Village Park 4.30
Barbara & Jay Vincent Park 6.00
Belding-Garcia Park 2.00
Boorman Park 4.00
Burg Park 1.00
Country Club Vista 2.60
Crescent Park 3.10
Harbor 8 Park 1.00
Hilltop Green Park 6.30
John F. Kennedy Park 4.80
Judge Carroll Park 2.50
Lucas Park 7.20
Lucretia Edwards Park 2.00
Marina Bay Trails 18.00
Mira Vista Park 1.70
Miraflores 4.30
Nevin Park 4.40
North Richmond Ball Field 8.20
Parchester Park 2.10
Rain Cloud Park 1.40
Rosie The Riveter Park 2.00
Shields-Reid Park 5.90
Shimada Friendship Park 3.00
Southside Park 3.50
State Court Park 2.10
The Plunge -
Tiller Park 2.70
Unity Park 10.00
Veterans Memorial Park 1.60
Wendell Park 2.20
Subtotal 119.90
Total 322.33
Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Parks Master Plan Dec 22, 2010, Parks and Recreation Richmond Master Plan 2030

Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 4.3 displays the unit costs neces sary to develop parkland in Richmond. The la nd cost assumption was based on an analysis of land sales comparisons from 2020, 2021 and 2022 within the City of Richmond using data from CoS tar. An estimate of $ 748,000 per acre for standard parkla nd improvements is based on Willdan’s experience with other recent cl ients in California. In total, it costs over $2 million to acquire and impr ove an acre of park land in Richmond.
161
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Standard Park Improvements1
748,000$
Subtotal - Improvements 748,000$ 37%
Land Acquisition2 1,266,000$ 63%
Total Cost per Acre 2,014,000$ 100%
2 Based on recent sales comparison data from CoStar.
1 Improvement costs are estimated at $748,000 per acre for site improvements (curbs, gutters, w ater, sew er, and electrical access), plus basic park and school field amenities such as basketball or tennis court, parking, tot lot, irrigation, turf, open green space, pedestrian paths, and picnic tables. Excludes special use facilities such as recreation centers, structures and pools.

Sources: Table 4.3; San Diego County Parks and Recreation: Prototypical Park Cost Estimate; CoStar; Willdan Financial Services.

Park Facility Standards
Park facilit y standards establish a re asonable relati onship between ne w developm ent and the need for expanded park fa cilities. Information regarding the Cit y’s existing inventor y of exist ing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.

The most comm on measure in cal culating new developm ent’s demand for par ks is the ratio o f park acr es per resident. In general, f acility standards may be b ased on a jurisdicti on’s existing inventory of park facilities, o r an adop ted policy stan dard conta ined in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a l and dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.1
Quimby Act Standard
The Quimby Act specifies that the dedication requirement must be a minimum of 3.0 acres and a maximum of 5.0 acres per 1,0 00 residents. A juris diction can require residential devel opers to dedicate above the three-acre minimum if the jurisdiction’s existing park sta ndard at the time it adopted its Quimby Act ordinance justifies the higher level (up to five ac res per 1,000 res idents).

The standard used must also conf orm to the jurisd iction’s a dopted general or specific pla n standards.

The Quimby Act only applies to land subdivisions. The Quimby Act would not apply to residential development on f uture approved p rojects on single parcels, such as apa rtment complexes and other multifamily development.

The Quimby Act allows payment of a fee in lieu of land dedication. The fee is calculated to fund acquisition of the same amount of land that would have been dedicated.

The Quimby Ac t allows use of in -lieu fe e revenue for a ny park or recrea tion facil ity purpose.

Allowable uses of this revenue include land acquisition, park i mprovements including recreation

1 California Government Code §66477.
162
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 22 facilities, and rehab ilitation of ex isting par k and recreation facilities. The Quimby Act generally requires that fees be used for neighb orhood and community park acreage to serve the subdivision, except in limited circumstances.

City of Richmond Park Facilities Standards
Table 4.4 shows the existing standard for improved park acreage pe r 1,000 residents based on the type of parkl and. In total the City has an existing parkland standard of 2.88 acres per 1 ,000 residents, which is less than the minimum Quimby standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents. The impact fee analysis in this repor t will be based o n maintaining the C ity’s 2.88 acre p er 1,000 resident standard as new development adds demand for parks in Richmond. Fees in-lieu of land dedication for subdivisions are calculated at the minimum Quimby standard o f 3.0 ac res of developed parkland per 1,000 residents.

Table 4.4: Parkland Standards
Park Acres 322.33
Service Population (2023) 111,924
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.88
Quimby Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
City Policy Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 3.00
Sources: City of Richmond; Tables 4.1 and 4.2, Willdan Financial Services.

Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 4.5 shows the park fa cilities needed to accomm odate new deve lopment at the exist ing standard. To achieve the stand ard by the plannin g horizon , depending on the amount of development subject to the Quimby Act, new development must fu nd the purchas e and improvement of between 150.61 and 156.89 parkland a cres, at a tot al cost ranging betwe en $303.3 and $311.3 million.

The facility standards and result ing fees under the Quimby Act are higher because development will be charged t o provide 3.0 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, a nd 2.88 acres of improvements, whereas d evelopment not subjec t to the Quimby Act will be charged to provide only 2.88 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, and 2.88 acres of improvements. Since the exact amount of development that will be subject to the Q uimby fees is unknown at this time, Table 4.5 presents the rang e of total facility cos ts that may be incurred depending on t he a mount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

163
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 23 Table 4.5: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development Calculation Parkland Improvements Total1
Parkland (Mitigation Fee Act) & Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 2 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 2.88 2.88 Service Population Growth (2023-2040) B 52,296 52,296 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B 150.61 150.61 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,266,000 $ 748,000 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $190,672,000 $ 112,656,000 $303,328,000 Parkland (Quimby Act), Improvements (Mitigation Fee Act) 3 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita) A 3.00 2.88 Service Population Growth (2023-2040) B 52,296 52,296 Facility Needs (acres) C = A x B 156.89 150.61 Average Unit Cost (per acre) D $ 1,266,000 $ 748,000 Total Cost of Facilities E = C x D $198,623,000 $ 112,656,000 $311,279,000 Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.

Sources: Tables 4.1, 4.3 and 4.4.
1 Values in this column show the cost of parkland acquisition and development in orer to meet the existing 3.0 acre standard under either the Quimby Act or the Mitigation Fee Act.
3 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Quimby Act. The Quimby Fee applies anytime the Subdivision Map Act is applied. Under the Quimby Act, an in-lieu fee is charged at 3.0 acres per 1,000 residents; improvements charged at the existing standard. If a subdivision has less than 50 units, then the Quimby "in-lieu" fee w ill apply. If a subdivision has more than 50 units, then the developer has the option of dedicating land to meet its Quimby parkland requirements or paying the fee. 2 Cost of parkland to serve new development show n if all development is subject to the Mitigation Fee Act. Parkland and improvements are charged at the existing standard.

Park Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 4.6 shows the cost per capi ta of providing new park facilities at the Quimby standard, and the existing facility standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.

The costs per capita in this table will serve as the basis of three fees:
• A Quimby Act Fee in -lieu of parkland dedi cation. This fee is payable by residentia l development occurring in subdivisions.
• A Miti gation Fee A ct F ee for parkland acquisi tion. This fee is p ayable by resid ential development not occurring in subdivisions.
• A Mitigation Fee Act Fee for parkland improvements. This fee is payable by all residential development.

A development project pays either the Quimby Act Fee in-lieu of land dedication, or the Mitigation Fee Act Fee for land acqu isition, not both. A ll development projects pay the Mitigat ion Fee Act Fees for park improvements.
164
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 24 Table 4.6: Park Facilities Investment per Capita
Improvements
Calculation Quimby Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Cost per Acre A 1,266,000$ 1,266,000$ 748,000$
Facility Standard B 3.00 2.88 2.88 Investment Per Capita C = A / B 3,798$ 3,646$ 2,154$ Sources: Tables 4.3 and 4.4.

Land

Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use pa rk and r ecreation facilities fee revenue to p urchase parkland and open space and construct improvements t o ad d to the s ystem of park facilities that s erves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilitie s and intensify usage of existing faci lities needed to serve new development. The City should program fee revenue to capacity expanding projects annually through its CIP and budget process.

Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the inve stment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for parkland acquisition , and parkland improvements. These investment fa ctors (shown in Table 4.6) are based on the uni t cost estimates and the City ’s existing facility standards.

Table 4.7 shows the maxim um justified park and recr eation facilities fee based on the existing standard per capita under th e Quimby Act and under the existing park standard under the Mitigation Fee Act, respectively. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factor from Table 2.2. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare foot by dividing the fee per dw elling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes an administra tive charge to fund costs that in clude: (1) legal, accounting, and othe r a dministrative support and ( 2) imp act fee progra m adminis trative costs including revenue collection, revenue, and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the c ost of fee pro gram adm inistration. The administ rative charge should be re viewed a nd adjusted during compreh ensive i mpact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated fr om the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exc eed, the administrative costs associated with the f ee program.
165
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 25 Table 4.7: Maximum Justified Park Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Base Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Fee Charge1 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit - Subdivisions
Quimby Fee In Lieu of
Land Dedication 3,798$ 2.72 10,331$ 207$ 10,538$ 7.22$ Improvements 2,154 2.72 5,859 117 5,976 4.10 Total 5,952$ 16,190$ 324$ 16,514$ 11.32$ Residential Dwelling Unit - Infill
Parkland Acquisition 3,646$ 2.72 9,917$ 198$ 10,115$ 6.93$ Improvements 2,154 2.72 5,859 117 5,976 4.10 Total 5,800$ 15,776$ 315$ 16,091$ 11.03$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 4.6.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
166

26 5. Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities
The following chapter docu ments the nexus analysis, demonstrating the need for new recreation and community center facilities demanded by new development.

Service Population
Community center and aquatic facilities in Richmond primarily serve residents so this analysis assumes that demand for services and associated facilities is based on the City ’s residential population. Table 5.1 shows the existing and future pro jected residential population for community center and aquatic facilities . These facilities primarily serve resi dents so the se rvice population is based on the existing and projected residents of the City.

Table 5.1: Community Center and
Aquatic Facilities Service Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Source: Table 2.1.

Existing Recreation and Community Center Facilities
Inventory
The City of Richmond maintains several community center and aquatic facilities. Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s exi sting community center and aquatic facilities building inventory. All facilities are located within the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each facility was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index. 167
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 27 Table 5.2: Existing Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Building Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired
Building
Cost
Cost
Index
Replacement
Cost1
Community Centers
Richmond Annex Senior Center 5801 Huntington Avenue 01/01/37 13,300$ 39.52 525,600$ Richmond Annex Senior Center Renovation 5801 Huntington Avenue 06/11/09 25,850 1.59 41,200 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 06/30/04 294,361 1.85 545,000 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center Restroom Building 960 South 47th Street 06/30/04 65,648 1.85 121,500 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center Renovation 960 South 47th Street 01/01/80 2,525 3.71 9,400 Developing Personal Resources Center 1900 Barrett Avenue 01/01/79 288,647 4.01 1,157,800 Crescent Park Child Care 5050 Hartnett Ave, 01/01/70 161,464 8.21 1,326,100 May Valley Community Center 3530 Morningside Drive 01/01/80 153,740 3.71 570,800 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center 3230 MacDonald Avenue 01/01/49 1,100,000 20.76 22,837,900 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Labor & Mats 3230 MacDonald Avenue 05/10/00 4,498 2.18 9,800 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Upgrade 3230 MacDonald Avenue 06/30/99 11,010 2.20 24,200 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center Renovation 3230 MacDonald Avenue 06/11/09 296,820 1.59 473,300 Nevin Community Center 598 Nevin Ave 01/01/77 449,929 4.71 2,117,900 Nevin Community Center Renovation 598 Nevin Ave 06/11/09 160,859 1.59 256,500 Parchester Community Center 900 Williams drive 01/01/73 144,459 6.46 933,400 Parchester Community Center Renovation 900 Williams drive 06/11/09 226,107 1.59 360,500 Shield-Reid Community Center 1410 Kelsey Street 01/01/79 498,907 4.01 2,001,200 Shield-Reid Community Center Renovation 1410 Kelsey Street 06/11/09 214,657 1.59 342,300 Richmond Senior Center 2525 Macdonald Avenue 01/01/77 1,341,128 4.71 6,312,900 Total Replacement Value - Community Centers 39,967,300$ Aquatic Centers
Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center Restoration 1 E Richmond Ave 08/31/10 5,928,790 1.54 9,126,000$ Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center 1 E Richmond Ave 01/01/26 184,600 41.86 7,727,000 Kennedy Swim Center 4300 Cutting Blvd 04/23/99 4,300,000 2.20 9,459,800 Kennedy Swim Center Construction Cost 4300 Cutting Blvd 06/30/99 185,720 2.20 408,600 Kennedy Swim Center Construction Cost 4300 Cutting Blvd 06/30/99 851,479 2.20 1,873,200 Total Replacement Value - Aquatic Centers 28,594,600$
Total Replacement Value - Community and Aquatic Centers 68,561,900$ 1 Original facility cost, building construction cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 5.3 displays the City’s inventory of community center and aquatic facilities land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Ind ex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

168
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 28 Table 5.3: Existing Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Land Inventory
Date A B C = A x B
Facility Address

Acquired Land Cost Cost Index Land Value 1
Community Centers
Richmond Annex Senior Center 5801 Huntington Avenue 01/01/51 1,660$ 10.85 18,000$ Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 04/05/62 27,080 9.40 254,400 Booker T. Anderson Jr. Community Center 960 South 47th Street 01/01/54 11,050 10.73 118,500 Disabled Peoples Recreation Center 1900 Barrett Avenue 06/11/57 9,500 9.95 94,500 Crescent Park Child Care 5050 Hartnett Ave, 04/07/71 194,240 6.88 1,336,000 May Valley Community Center 3530 Morningside Drive 05/02/60 14,740 9.62 141,700 Richmond Recreation Complex / Memorial Youth Center 3230 MacDonald Avenue 12/11/75 134,120 4.74 636,300 Shield-Reid Community Center 1410 Kelsey Street 01/01/53 7,290 10.69 77,900 Richmond Senior Center 2525 Macdonald Avenue 01/01/75 112,500 5.05 568,400 Point Richmond Community Center 139 Washington Avenue 06/15/60 25,790 9.62 248,000 Total Land Value - Community Centers 3,493,700$
-
Aquatic Centers
Richmond Plunge Aquatic Center Restoration 1 E Richmond Ave 01/01/54 18,050 10.73 193,600$ Kennedy Swim Center 4300 Cutting Blvd -
Total Land Value - Aquatic Centers 193,600$
Total Land Value - Community and Aquatic Centers 3,687,300$ 1 Original land cost, inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables

Planned Recreation and Community Center Facilities
The City has one planned community center. Table 5.4 summarizes the cost o f the planned facility.

Table 5.4: Planned Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Cost Estimate
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center 16,000,000$
Total Planned Facilities Cost 16,000,000$
Source: City of Richmond.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study r equirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a n exus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the pr oposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriat e.” Table 5.5 expresses the City’s current community center and aquatic facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is not us ed in the fee calculation, rather it is shown here for informational purposes only.

Once the planned facilities have been constructed and new development has increased the City’s service population the resulting facility cost per capita will be lower than the cost per capita shown in Table 5.5. This lower cost per capita will drive the fee calculation. 169
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 29 Table 5.5: Existing Level of Service
Value of Existing Facilities 68,561,900$
Value of Existing Land 3,687,300
Total 72,249,200$
Existing Service Population 111,924
Facility Standard per Resident 646$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Future Level of Service
Table 5.6 shows the planned facilities cost per resident This level o f ser vice dri ves the fee calculation. This value i s calculated by dividing the cost of planned facilities by the projected increase in service population.

Table 5.6: Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities Planned Facilities Standard
Cost of Planned Facilities 16,000,000$
Growth in Service Population 52,296
Cost per Resident 306$
Sources: Tables 5.1 and 5.3.

Use of Fee Revenue
The City c an use community center and aquatic facilities fee revenue s for the construct ion or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are par t of the system of community center and aquatic facilit ies serving new deve lopment. A li st of planned facilities is included in Table 5.4.

Fee Revenue Projection
The City plan s t o use community center and aquatic facilities fee revenue to construct improvements to construct a new comm unity center that will serve new deve lopment. The planned facility is detailed above in Table 5.4. By using the planned facility methodology, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of the planned facility.

Fee Schedule
Table 5.7 shows the maximum justified community center and aquatic facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new develo pment based on dwelling unit densities 170
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 (persons per dwelling). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two -percent (2% ) admi nistrative char ge to fun d costs t hat incl ude: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accou nting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program adm inistrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee pro grams, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewe d and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generat ed from th e charge sufficiently cov ers, but does not exceed, the administ rative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 5.7: Community Center and Aquatic Facilities Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 306$ 2.72 832$ 17$ 849$ 0.58$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.4.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification.
1 Fee per average dw elling unit.

171

31 6. Police Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new dev elopment funds its f air share of police facilities.

A fee s chedule is present ed based on the existing inventory facilities standard of police facilities in the City of Richmond to ensure that ne w development provides adeq uate funding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Police facilities ser ve both resi dents and bu sinesses. Therefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.

Table 6.1 shows the existing and future project ed service p opulation fo r police facilities. While specific data is not available t o estimate the actual ratio of demand pe r resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assu me that d emand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidential buildings are typically occupied less i ntensively than dwe lling u nits. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects th e degree to which nonresidential developme nt yields a les ser demand for police facilities.

Table 6.1: Police Facilities Service Population
A B C D = A + (B x C)
Residents Workers
Worker
Demand
Factor1
Service
Population
Existing (2023) 111,924 27,587 0.31 120,500 New Development (2023-2040) 52,296 34,228 0.31 62,900 Total Development (2040) 164,220 61,815 183,400 Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are w eighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour w ork w eek out of a possible 128 non- w ork hours in a w eek (40/128 = 0.31)

Existing Facility Inventory
Table 6.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of police facilities, which is comprised primarily of vehicles and equipment. The City operates primarily out of a leased facility, which is not included in this inventory. All fa cilities are located within the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the inventory was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index.
172
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 32 Table 6.2: Existing Police Facilities Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility
Date
Acquired Original Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Hilltop Mall Police Sub-Station 03/31/10 434,014$ 1.54 668,100$ Vehicles and Equipment Various Various Various 14,837,979 Total 434,014$ 15,506,079$
1 Original facility cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
The City is planning to construct a new police facility. The City’s current capital improvement plan identifies the projected cost of this facility. Table 6.3 displays the cost of the planned facility.

Table 6.3: Planned Facilities
Cost Estimate
New Police Facility 80,000,000$
Total 80,000,000$
Source: City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan FY2021/22 to FY2025/26.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each publi c facility, identify the proposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of s ervice is appropriate.” Table 6.4 expresses the City’s current police facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita.

This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculat ion, rather i t is shown here for informational purposes only.
173
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 33 Table 6.4: Police Facilities Existing Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 15,506,079$
Existing Service Population 120,500
Cost per Capita 129$
Facility Standard per Resident 129$
Facility Standard per Worker1 40
1 Based on w eighting factor in Table 6.1.

Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.2.

Future Level of Service
Table 6.5 shows the calculation of the system facilities standard per capita for police facilities used to calculate the fees. This value is calculated by dividing the total value of all police facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The value pe r capita is multiplied by the wor ker weighting factor of 0.31 to determine the value per worker. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 6.5: Police Facilities - System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 15,506,079$
Value of Planned Facilities 80,000,000
Total System Value (2040) 95,506,079$
Future Service Population (2040) 183,400
Cost per Capita 521$
Cost Allocation per Resident 521$
Cost Allocation per Worker 1 162
1 Based on a w eighting factor of 0.31.

Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3.

Fee Revenue Projection
Completing the planned facilities will provide a higher value of facilities per capita than is currently provided in the City. Impact fee revenue may not be used to increase the level of service provided to existing development. Therefore, impact fee revenue will not fully fund the planned facilities and some non-fee funding will be requi red. Table 6.6 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required th rough 2040. After accounting for the projected fu ture impact fee 174
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 34 revenue approximately $47.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

The City will need to use alternative funding sources to fund exi sting development’s share of the planned civic facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, donations, and grants.

Table 6.6: Revenue Projection - System Standard
Cost per Capita 521$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 62,900
Fee Revenue 32,771,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 80,000,000
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified (47,229,000)$
Sources: Tables 6.1, 6.3 and 6.5.

Fee Schedule
Table 6.7 shows the maximum justified police facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is co nverted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment dens ities (persons per dwelling uni t or empl oyees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per sq uare fo ot by dividing the fee per dw elling un it by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two perc ent (2.0%) administrative charge t o fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and admin istrative s upport, and fee prog ram administrative costs in cluding revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted durin g comp rehensive impact fe e updates to ensure t hat revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, b ut does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with t he fee program.
175
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 35 Table 6.7: Maximum Justified Police Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft. 3 Residential Dwelling Unit 521$ 2.72 1,417$ 28$ 1,445$ 0.99$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 162$ 2.12 342$ 7$ 349$ 0.35$ Office 162 3.26 527 11 538 0.54 Industrial 162 1.16 187 4 191 0.19 Warehousing 162 0.34 55 1 56 0.06 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.5.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
1 Fee per average dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
176

36 7. Fire Protection Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure t hat new development funds its fai r share of fire protection facilities. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing standard of fire protection facilities in the City of Richmond to ens ure that new development provide s adeq uate fun ding to meet its needs.

Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both r esidents, visitors, and busin esses. T herefore, demand for services and associated facilities are ba sed on the City’s service population including residents , visitors, and workers.

Table 7.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for fire protection facilities.

Residents and workers are assume d to create different amounts of demand for fire protection facilities. To calculate service population for fire protecti on facil ities, residents are weight ed at

1.00. A worker is weighted at 0.6 1 of one resident to reflect the lower per capita need for fi re services associated with businesses. The specific 0.61 per worker weighting used here is derived from an analysis of fire services demand by residential versus nonresidential land uses in other agencies in California.

Table 7.1: Fire Protection Facilities Service Population A B C D = A + (B x C)
Residents Workers
Worker
Demand
Factor1
Service
Population
Existing Development (2023) 111,924 27,587 0.61 128,800 New Development (2023-2040) 52,296 34,228 0.61 73,200 Total (2040) 164,220 61,815 202,000
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Service population w orker demand factor based on fire service call data from other Willdan clients w eighted by the relative proportions of residential and nonresidential land use in the City.

Existing Facilities Inventory
The City’s fire protection facilities inventory is comprised of the several fire stations , vehicles, apparatus, and equipment. All facilities are located w ithin the City limits. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the inventory was adjusted for i nflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Record’s Building Cost Index.
177
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 37 Table 7.2: Existing Fire Protection Facilities Inventory A B C = A x B
Facility Date Acquired Building Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Fire Station 61- 140 W Richmond Ave
Fire Station 61 01/01/68 108,795$ 9.86 1,072,200$ Retrofitting 06/02/99 16,667 2.20 36,700 Seismic Upgrade 09/23/99 248,334 2.20 546,300 Garage 01/01/70 14,581 8.21 119,800 Fire Station 62- 1065 7th St
Fire Station 62 01/01/70 156,396 8.21 1,284,400$ Re-Roofing Fire Station 62 06/30/10 179,100 1.54 275,700 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #62 01/21/09 21,000 1.59 33,500 Fire Station 63- 5201 Valley View Rd
Fire Station 63 01/01/92 906,605 2.60 2,356,000$ Trash Enclosure 01/01/92 1,655 2.60 4,300 Fire Station 64- 4801 Bayview Avenue
Fire Station 64 08/16/74 309,742 5.96 1,846,500$ Garage 01/01/74 36,410 5.96 217,100 Re-Roofing Fire Station 64 06/30/11 183,078 1.50 275,500 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #64 01/21/09 24,200 1.59 38,600 Fire Station 66- 4100 Clinton Avenue
Fire Station 66 01/01/68 52,068 9.86 513,100$ Garage 01/01/68 4,139 9.86 40,800 Fire Station 67- 1131 Cutting Blvd
Fire Station 67 01/01/53 118,607 17.46 2,070,500$ Garage 01/01/53 10,842 17.46 189,300 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #67 01/21/09 35,100 1.59 56,000 Fire Station 68- 2904 Hilltop Drive
Fire Station 68 01/01/81 348,552 3.49 1,214,700$ Garage 01/01/81 37,088 3.49 129,300 Fire Station 68-Laundry & Restroom 07/01/15 16,740 1.38 23,100 Electronic Gate - Station #68 01/21/09 30,000 1.59 47,800 Fire Training Facility- 3506 Cutting Blvd
Training Tower 01/01/53 31,742 17.46 554,100$ School Building 01/01/53 42,537 17.46 742,600 Smoke House 01/01/53 3,017 17.46 52,700 Youth Academy Building 01/01/53 91,847 17.46 1,603,300 Electronic Gate - Fire Training Center 01/21/09 37,400 1.59 59,600 Office/Storage Trailer 11/14/13 24,500 1.41 34,600 Total Replacement Value 15,438,100$
1 Original facility cost escalated to 2022 cost.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index, 1920 - 2022

178
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 38 Table 7.3 displays the C ity’s inventory of fire protection facilities land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for us e in this analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its c urrent replacement cost using the Consumer Price Ind ex for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Table 7.3: Existing Fire Facilities Land Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired Land Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Fire Station 62 1065 7th St 10/26/72 19,640 6.46 126,900$ Fire Station 63 5201 Valley View Rd 01/22/90 125,820 2.83 356,100 Fire Station 64 4801 Bayview Avenue 03/08/72 35,040 6.84 239,700 Fire Station 66 4100 Clinton Avenue 01/01/48 1,610 22.12 35,600 Fire Station 67 1131 Cutting Blvd 05/25/60 127,500 13.71 1,747,700 Total Land Value 2,506,000$
1 Original land cost inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 7.4 displays the Ci ty’s current inventory of fire protection vehicles , apparatus, and equipment. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

179
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 39 Table 7.4: Existing Fire Vehicles, Apparatus and Equipment A B C = A x B
Equipment Date Acquired
Acquisition
Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Stationary Compressor 4/5/2021 68,629$ 1.00 68,600$ Spartan Tiller Truck 11/22/2021 1,230,660 1.00 1,230,700 2020 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 2021 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 Spartan Pumper Gladiator Truck 8/31/2020 725,993 1.04 757,100 Spartan Pumper Gladiator Truck 7/31/2020 725,993 1.04 757,100 Ford Hybrid Explorer 12/3/2020 38,484 1.00 38,500 Ward Diesel Exhaust Removal System 1/30/2018 57,416 1.12 64,600 Diesel Exhaust Removal Systems 10/5/2016 57,416 1.14 65,700 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Ford Explorer 6/1/2015 30,512 1.20 36,600 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 2015 Chevrolet Tahoe 11/19/2014 37,917 1.20 45,400 Spartan Heavy Rescue Apparatus 12/16/2014 397,827 1.20 476,600 Zeiss Stabilization Binocular 8/28/2013 6,277 1.21 7,600 Office/Storage Trailer 11/14/2013 24,500 1.21 29,700 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid 2/2/2012 30,236 1.23 37,300 2012 Ford Fusion Hybrid 2/2/2012 30,236 1.23 37,300 2011 Hi-Tech/Spartan Type-1 Pumper 7/23/2012 522,721 1.23 645,100 Milnor 30015 T5X Grdn Washer Extractor 12/13/2011 9,940 1.23 12,300 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Opticon Emergency Equipment 6/2/2010 12,311 1.28 15,700 Ford F250 Truck For RFD 6/30/2010 28,267 1.28 36,100 2011F250 Crew Cab 7/6/2010 35,933 1.28 45,900 Fuel Master 3500 Plus Prokee/RF 12/7/2009 15,036 1.28 19,200 Fuel Master 3500 Plus Prokee/RF 12/7/2009 15,036 1.28 19,200 Toyota Sit Down LPG Pnuematic 6/24/2009 9,000 1.32 11,900 Cargo Trailer 10/30/2009 8,373 1.28 10,700 Electronic Gate - Fire Station #62 1/21/2009 21,000 1.32 27,700 Isg K1000 Elite Camera 6/30/2008 65,231 1.34 87,400 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 459,474 1.32 605,800 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 443,320 1.32 584,500 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 369,658 1.32 487,400 Fire Truck Rear Mount Aerial Model 9/30/2008 658,835 1.32 868,700 Hi Tech Custom Pumper 9/30/2008 369,658 1.32 487,400 Fire Truck 110 Ft. Aerial 6/3/2002 599,954 1.56 937,400 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 1500 Gmp Pumper Fire Truck 6/29/2001 379,303 1.60 606,200 110 Ft. Aerial Fire Apparatus 6/29/2001 624,441 1.60 997,900 Type IV Fire Apparatus - 4 X 4 6/29/2001 26,058 1.60 41,600 Type Iv Fire Apparatus - 4 X 4 6/29/2001 26,058 1.60 41,600 Emergency Rescue Vehicle 9/8/1999 93,946 1.67 156,900 Emergency Rescue Vehicle 9/8/1999 93,946 1.67 156,900 Truck Pumper '98 Spartan 1/1/1998 289,600 1.73 499,800 Total Fire Equipment Value 13,162,800$
1 Original cost inflation adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables; Willdan Financial Services.

180
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 40 Table 7.5 summarizes the total replacement cost of fire protection facilities owned by the City. In total the City owns over $31.1 million worth of fire protection facilities.

Table 7.5: Existing Fire Facilities Summary
Replacement
Cost
Buildings 15,438,100$
Land 2,506,000
Vehicles, Apparatus and Equipment 13,162,800
Total 31,106,900$
Sources: Tables 7.2, 7.3 and 7.4.

Planned Facilities
Table 7.6 summarizes the planned fire protection facilities needed to serve the City, as identified in the City’s Capital Improvement P lan. The City anticipates that additional planned facilities will be needed to provide service to new d evelopment as it increases demand for fire protection services.

Table 7.6: Planned Fire Protection Facilities
Cost Estimate
Gender Specific Restrooms Fire Station 66 600,000$
Training Tower at New Facility 800,000
Station 64 Apparatus Storage Building 82,350
Total Planned Facilities Cost 1,482,350$
Source: City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan FY2021/22 to FY2025/26.

Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that we nt into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the pro posed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of s ervice is appropriate.” Table 7.7 expresses the City’s current fire protection facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita. This cost per capita is used to drive the fee calculation. 181
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 Table 7.7: Fire Protection Facilities Existing Standard Total Value of Existing Facilities 31,106,900$
Existing Service Population 128,800
Cost per Capita 242$
Facility Standard per Resident 242$
Facility Standard per Worker1 148
1 Based on w eighing factor from Table 7.1.

Sources: Tables 7.1 and 7.5.

Fee Revenue Projection
Table 7.8 shows the projected fee revenue through 2040. After accounting for the cost of planned facilities, the City will need to id entify $ 16.2 million in additional planned facilities in order to maintain its existing facility standards.

Table 7.8: Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita 242$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 73,200
Fee Revenue 17,714,400$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 1,482,350
Future Facilities to be Identified 16,232,050$
Sources: Tables 7.1, 7.6, and 7.7.

Fee Schedule
Table 7.9 shows the maximum justified fire protection facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment dens ities (persons per dwellin g unit or empl oyees per 1,000 squa re feet of nonresidential bu ilding spa ce). The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two perc ent (2.0%) administrative charge t o fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and admin istrative s upport, and fee prog ram administrative costs in cluding revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be rev iewed and adjusted durin g compre hensive impact fe e updates to ensure t hat revenue generated from the 182
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 42 charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with t he fee program.

Table 7.9: Maximum Justified Fire Protection Facilities Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 242$ 2.72 658$ 13$ 671$ 0.46$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 148$ 2.12 314$ 6$ 320$ 0.32$ Office 148 3.26 482 10 492 0.49 Industrial 148 1.16 172 3 175 0.18 Warehousing 148 0.34 50 1 51 0.05 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.7.
1 Fee per average dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

183

43 8. Library Facilities
The purpose of this f ee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of library facilities.

A fee schedule is presented based on the existing facilities standard of library facilities in the City of Richmond to ensure that new development maintains the existing level of service.

Service Population
Library facilities in Richmond primarily serve resi dents. Therefor e, deman d for servic es and associated facili ties is based on the City’s residential populati on. Table 8.1 shows the ex isting and future projected service population for library facilities.

Table 8.1: Library Facilities Service
Population
Residents
Existing (2023) 111,924
Growth (2023 - 2040) 52,296
Total (2040) 164,220
Sources: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.

Existing Facility Inventory
The City’s library facilities inventory is comprised of three libraries and the library collections . The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item included in the invento ry was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Engineering News Recor d’s Building Cost Index . Table 8.2 displays the City’s existing inventory of library buildings.
184
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 44 Table 8.2: Existing Library Facilities Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Date Acquired Building Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Main Library - 325 Civic Center Plaza2 -$
Bay View Branch - 5100 Hartnett Avenue
Bay View Branch Library 01/01/76 99,280 5.04 500,300 Bayview Branch Library Renovation 06/11/09 152,686 1.59 243,400 West Side Branch - 135 Washington Avenue
Westside Branch Library 01/01/60 68,475 13.71 938,600 Remodel - West Side Branch Lib 01/01/92 125,000 2.60 324,800 West Side Branch Library Renovation 06/11/09 112,936 1.59 180,100 Total Replacement Value 2,187,200$
1 Original facility cost adjusted to 2022 cost.
2 No value show n because library w ill be replaced by planned facility.

Source: City of Richmond; Engineering New s Record Building Cost Index; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 8.3 displays the City’s inventory of library land assets. The City provided an asset schedule for use in t his analysis. The original acquisition cost of each site was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

Table 8.3: Existing Library Facilities Land Inventory
A B C = A x B
Facility Address
Date
Acquired Land Cost Cost Index
Replacement
Cost1
Main Library 325 Civic Center Plaza 01/01/1958 72,832 9.88 719,566$ Bay View Branch 5100 Hartnett Avenue 03/08/72 28,670 6.48 185,600 West Side Branch 135 Washington Avenue 06/15/60 25,790 9.62 248,000 Total Land Value 1,153,166$
1 Original land cost adjusted to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond; US Dept of Labor: CPI Tables; Willdan Financial Services.

Table 8.4 displays the City ’s current inventory of library collections. The City provided an asset schedule for use in th is analysis. The original acquisition cost of each item was adjusted for inflation to its current replacement cost using the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).

185
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 45 Table 8.4: Existing Library Collections
Inventory Unit Cost1
Replacement
Cost
Books
Adult / Young Adult 204,180 36$ 7,350,500$ Children / Juvenile 120,152 36 4,325,500 Subtotal 324,332 11,676,000$
Multimedia
Adult / Young Adult 22,800 36$ 820,800$ Children / Juvenile 11,000 36 396,000 Subtotal 33,800 1,216,800$
Other
Bookmobile '95 International 1 184,904 184,900$ Total Library Collections 13,077,700$
1 Cost per item based on data from similar jurisdictions. 1995 Bookmobile Acquisition indexed to 2022.

Source: City of Richmond: Richmond Library Program Feb 2009; Wildan Finacial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 8.5 summarizes the planned library facilities needed to s erve the City, as identified by City staff. The City plans to rehabilitate and reconfig ure its current library so that it can increase its capacity to provide library services to existi ng and new development. The City has secured a grant to fund part of the mai n library reconfiguration. Beyond that the City has identified more capacity enhancing library facilities projects, as listed in the table below.

Table 8.5: Planned Library Facilities
Project Cost
New Main Library
New Library (Infrastructure Grant) 14,569,469$
Courtyard 2,100,000
Cameras 100,000
FF&E 2,000,000
Internal Reconfiguration 2,710,000
Total Project Cost 21,479,469$
Source: City of Richmond.

186
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 Cost Allocation
Existing Level of Service
Per the new nexus study requirements that went into effect of January 1, 2022, a nexus study “shall identify the exis ting level of serv ice for each public facility, identify the proposed new lev el of service, and include an explanation of wh y the new level of service is appropria te.” Table 8.6 expresses the City’s current library facilities level of service in terms of an existing cost per capita.

This cost per capita is used to drive the fee calculation.

Table 8.6: Existing Level of Service
Existing Facilities 2,187,200$
Existing Land 1,153,166
Existing Library Collection 13,077,700
Value of Existing Facilities 16,418,066$
Existing Service Population 111,924
Facility Standard per Resident 147$
Sources: Tables 8.1 through 8.4.

Fee Revenue Projection
Table 8.7 shows the projected fee revenue through 2040. After accounting for the cost of planned facilities, the City will need to id entify $777,512 million in additional planned facilities in order to maintain its existing facility standards.

Table 8.7: Fee Revenue Projection
Cost Per Capita 147$
Growth in Residents (2023-2040) 52,296
Estimated Fee Revenue 7,687,512$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 6,910,000$
Additional Facilities to be Identified (777,512)$
Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.5, 8.6.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.8 shows the maximum justified library facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capi ta is converted to a f ee per unit of new dev elopment based on dwelli ng unit densities (per sons p er dwelling unit ). The fee per average dwelling unit is 187
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee i ncludes a two percent (2.0%) adm inistrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and a dministrative s upport, and fee prog ram a dministrative costs inclu ding reve nue collect ion, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the c ost of fee program ad ministration. The ad ministrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fe e updates t o ensure th at revenue generated f rom the charge sufficiently covers, b ut does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.

Table 8.8: Library Facilities Fee - Maximum Justified Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge1, 2 Total Fee Sq. Ft.3 Residential Dwelling Unit 147$ 2.72 400$ 8$ 408$ 0.28$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.6.
1 Fee per average dw elling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification
3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.
188

48 9. Storm Drain Facilities
This chapter s ummarizes an analysis of the nee d fo r storm drain facilities to accommodate growth with in the C ity of Richmond. This projects and associated c osts in this c hapter were identified it t he City’s Storm Drain Master Plan , 2018. This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new dev elopment and a storm drain fee t o fund storm drain f acilities that serve new development.

Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water ru noff that must be contro lled through storm drain facilities by increasing the amount of land that is impervious to precipitation. Table 9.1 shows the calculation o f equivalent d welling unit ( EDU) demand factors based on impe rvious surface coefficient by land use category. The impervious surface coefficients are bas ed on data from the Environmental Protection Agency. EDU factors relate demand for storm drain facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.

Table 9.1: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units A B C = (43,560 / A) x B D = C / Single Family
DU or 1,000
Sq. Ft. per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious
per Acre
Impervious
Square feet per
DU or 1,000 Sq.

Ft.

Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)2
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 10.00 35% 1,525 1.00 Multifamily 25.00 80% 1,394 0.91 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 21.78 86% 1,720 1.13 Office 17.42 85% 2,125 1.39
Industrial 10.89 81% 3,240 2.12 Warehousing 10.89 81% 3,240 2.12 Note: Figures have been rounded.
1 Dw elling units for residential and thousand building square feet for nonresidential. Based on General Plan density assumptions and minimum FAR of 0.5 for commercial, 0.4 for office and 0.25 for light industrial. 2 EDUs per dw elling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential Sources: User’s Guide for the California Impervious Surface Coefficients, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment California Environmental Protection Agency, December 2010. Richmond General Plan; Willdan Financial Services.

EDU Generation by New Development
Table 9.2 shows t he estim ated EDU gener ation from new development t hrough 2040. New development w ill generate 49,974 new EDU s, represe nting 44 percent of to tal storm d rain demand in 2040.
189
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 49 Table 9.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1 Existing
Projected
Growth Existing Growth Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 25,125 11,740 25,125 11,740 36,865 Multifamily 0.91 15,746 7,357 14,329 6,695 21,024 Subtotal 40,871 19,097 39,454 18,435 57,889 Nonresidential
Commercial 1.13 4,669 5,793 5,276 6,547 11,823 Office 1.39 2,667 3,309 3,707 4,600 8,307 Industrial 2.12 7,753 9,619 16,435 20,392 36,827 Subtotal 15,089 18,722 25,418 31,539 56,957 Total 64,872 49,974 114,846
Percent of Total 56% 44% 100%
1 Per dw elling unit (residential), thousand building square feet (nonresidential). ---------- DU or KSF---------- ---------------- EDU ---------------- Sources: Tables 2.2 and 9.1, Willdan Financial Services.

Planned Facilities
Table 9.3 identifies the planned storm dra in facilities to be funded by the fee. The n ew storm drain facilities were all identified in the City ’s Storm Drain Master Plan. Since drainage projects will benefit both existi ng development an d new development, capacity expandi ng project s a re allocated to new develo pment based on new development ’s share of storm drain demand at the planning horizon. Projects that do not expand capacity are not allocated to the impact fee. 190
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 50 Table 9.3: Storm Drain Capital Improvements
Proj.

No. Location Project Total Cost
Allocation To
New
Develpoment
Cost
Allocated
to Impact
Fee
1 Central Avenue - West end of Van Fleet Avenue Replace/upsize pipes upstream in storm drain system through area and increase inlet capacity. 676,000$ 44% 294,154$ 2 32nd Street - End of Spring Street south of
Freeway and railroad tracks Convert 32' of ditch to dual 48" RCP. 182,000 44% 79,195 3 8th-9th Street and Harbor Way Replace/upsize inlets to storm drain throughout area to alleviate flooding 332,000 44% 144,466 4 McLaughlin - Plumas Ave and San Benito St.

Add new storm drain along Plumas Ave. and upsize an
additional existing storm drain near Plumas and San Benito St. and connect to Carlson Blvd. system. Add inlets along Plumas Ave. 950,000 44% 413,382
5 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 105,000 44% 45,690 6 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 226,000 44% 98,341
7 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals along Carlson Boulevard from Santa Cruz Avenue to Tehama Avenue. 560,000 44% 243,678 8 McLaughlin - Green infrastructure along Carlson
Boulevard.

Construct infiltration within the public ROW along Carlson Boulevard from Santa Cruz Avenue to Tehama Avenue. 2,215,000 44% 963,833 9 McLaughlin - Green infrastructure along Plumas
Avenue.

Construct infiltration within the public ROW along Plumas Avenue from San Pablo Avenue to Carlson Boulevard. 701,000 44% 305,033 Total 5,947,000$ 2,587,773$
Source: City of Richmond Storm Drain Master Plan 12/21/18; Willdan Financial Services. 191
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 51 Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
This c hapter uses the planned facilities approach to calcul ate the storm drain facilities cost standard. The cost of planned facilit ies allocated to new development is divided by the gro wth in EDUs to determine a cost standard per EDU. Table 9.4 shows the facility cost standard for storm drain facilities.

Table 9.4: Cost per Equivalent Dwelling Unit
Planned Facilities Allocated to New Development 2,587,773$ Growth in EDUs 49,974
Cost Allocation per EDU 52$
Sources: Tables 9.2 and 9.3.

Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 9.5. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per EDU from Table 9.4 is converted to a fee p er unit of new development based on th e EDU factors shown in Table 9.1. The fee per average dwelling unit is converted into a fee per square foot by dividing the fee per dwelling unit by the assumed average square footage of a dwelling unit.

The total fee includes a two percent (2.0%) admin istrative charge to fund c osts tha t include: a standard overhead charge applied to a ll Cit y programs fo r legal, ac counting, and other departmental and administrative support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.

In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative char ge should be reviewed and adjusted during com prehensive impact fee up dates to ensure t hat revenue generate d from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, th e administrative costs associated wi th the fee program.
192
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 52 Table 9.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee Schedule A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D F = E / Average
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Fee 1,2
Total
Fee 1
Fee per Sq.

Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 52$ 0.97 50$ 1$ 51$ 0.03$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 52$ 1.13 59$ 1$ 60$ 0.06$ Office 52 1.39 72 1 73 0.07 Industrial 52 2.12 110 2 112 0.11 Warehousing 52 2.12 110 2 112 0.11 Note: KSF = 1,000 Square Feet
4 Average EDU factor per residential dw elling unit w eighted by projected single family and multifamily development.

Sources: Tables 9.1 and 9.4; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Fee per average dw elling unit, per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, 3 Assumes an average of 1,459 square feet per dw elling unit in the San Francisco MSA per the 2019 American Housing Survey.

193

53 10. AB 602 Requirements
On January 1, 2022, new requirements went into effect for California jurisdictions implementing impact fees. Among othe r c hanges, AB 60 2 added Section 66016.5 to the Government Code, which set guidelines f or impact fee nexus studies. Four key requirements from that section which concern the nexus study are reproduced here:
66016.5. (a) (2) When a pplicable, the ne xus study shall identify the existing level of service for each public facility, identify the p roposed new level of service, and include an explanation of why the new level of service is appropriate.
66016.5. (a) (4) If a nex us study suppo rts the increase of an existing fee, the local agency shall review the assumptions of the nexus study supporting the original fee and evaluate the amount of fees collected under the original fee.
66016.5. (a) (5) A nexus study adopted after J uly 1, 2022, s hall calculate a fee imposed on a housing development project proportionately to the squ are footage of pro posed uni ts of the development. A local agency that imposes a fee pro portionately to the square footage of the proposed units of the dev elopment shall be deemed to h ave used a valid method to establish a reasonable relationship between the fee charged and the burden posed by the development. 66016.5. (a) (6) Large jurisdictions shall adopt a capital improvem ent plan as a part of the nexus study.

Compliance with AB 602
The following sections describe this study’s compliance with the new requirements of AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service

1. For fees calculated under the existing standard methodology, the fees are calculated such that new development funds facilities at the existing level of service. These fee categories are: parks, libraries and fire protection facilities . The exist ing level service in terms of the existing facility investment per capita is shown in each corresponding chapter.

2. For fees calculated under the planned facilities methodology, the fees are calculated to ensur e that the level of service does not fall to unacceptable levels. The fees calculated under this approach are the community/aquatic center facilities, sewer, and storm drain facilities i mpact fees. For sewers and storm drains projects were identified in the City’s various master plans as necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service. Fees for community/aquatic center facilities are calculated at a lower standard than current exists.

3. For the fees calculated under the system stand ard methodology, the maximum justified fe es represent an increase in the fac ility level of service. The fees calculate d under this methodology are the police facility fees. The increased level of service is required to fund new development’s fair share of identified planned facility. New development will not fun d the entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, i t will fund a share of th e increased level of service represen ted by the planned facilities. The City will have to fund existing development’s share of the in crease level of service through any other funding source. The police facilities chapter includes a table that shows the existing level of service and future level of service in terms of facility investment per capita. 66016.5. (a) (4) – Review of Original Fee Assumptions
The original nexus studies, fee schedules and corresponding revenue generated we re reviewed by the City and Willdan prior to conducting the nexus study analysis. The current fee schedule did not generate sufficient revenue to fully fund n ew development’s share of future needed facilities. 194
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Additionally, the City’s 2006 fee study assume d a planning horizon of 2025. Staff and Willdan agreed that the assumptions from the 2006 study needed to be updated to account for changes in planned development and the facilities needed to serve that development.

Table 10.1 displays annual fee revenue collected, by impact fee fund.

Table 10.1: Annual Collected Impact Fee Revenue
FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 FY 2017-18 FY 2018-19 FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 Fee Category Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals Actuals (YTD) Parks 432$ -$ -$ 23,604$ 80,256$ 26,352$ 59,220$ 3,024$ Traffic 1,042,199 163,223 1,329,544 990,507 470,727 221,218 629,841 233,605 Fire 76,404 25,665 148,752 100,785 70,690 23,442 54,797 28,992 Police 106,442 21,868 106,215 78,107 74,971 23,685 159,818 153,612 Community Centers/Aquatic 109,113 91,838 160,429 92,882 341,346 82,325 220,558 15,282 Parks/Open Space 447,963 375,929 272,270 387,278 679,474 343,270 1,158,109 63,726 Library 143,965 114,077 261,645 181,208 477,876 114,017 288,913 41,674 Storm Drain 619,556 113,542 578,597 490,117 161,910 51,701 154,376 111,219 Sewer - 60,441 238,736 715,857 764,633 202,688 511,878 176,564 Total 2,546,075$ 966,583$ 3,096,188$ 3,060,345$ 3,121,882$ 1,088,697$ 3,237,510$ 827,698$ Source: City of Richmond.

66016.5. (a) (5) – Residential Fees per Square Foot
Impact fees for residential land uses are calculated per square foot and comply with AB 602. 66016.5. (a) (6) – Capital Improvement Plan
The Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study is comprised of the identified planned facilities within each facility fee chapter. Adoption of this nexus study would approve the planned facili ties identified herein as the Capital Improvement Plan for this nexus study. .
195

55 11. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee progra m adoption procedures are fou nd in the California Governmen t Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee pr ogram requires the City Council to follow certai n procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days pri or to the publi c hearing. The City’s legal counsel sh ould be consulted for any other procedural requiremen ts as well as advice r egarding adop tion of an enabl ing o rdinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.

Inflation Adjustment
The City can keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation.

Such adjustments should be completed regularly t o ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilit ies. We recomme nd that th e California Construction C ost Index (https://www.dgs.ca.gov/RESD/Resources/Page-Content/Real-Estate-Services-Division- Resources-List-Folder/DGS-California-Construction-Cost-Index-CCCI) be used for adjusting fees for inflation. The California Construction Cost Index is based on data from the Engineering News Record and is aggregated and made available for free by the State of California.

The fee amounts can be adjusted based on the change in the index compared to the index in the base year of this study (2023).

While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extens ive updates of the fee do cumentation and calculation (such as this st udy) w hen significant new data on gro wth forecas ts and /or facility pla ns become availabl e. Note that decreases in index value will result in decreases to fee amounts.

While fee updates us ing inflationary indices are ap propriate for periodic updates to ensu re that fee revenues k eep up with inc reases in the cos ts of public facil ities, the City will also need to conduct more exten sive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.

Reporting Requirements
The City will comply with the annua l and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of t hese non-fee revenues is essenti al. Identification of the timing o f receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.

Table 11.1 summarizes the an nual and five-year reporting req uirements i dentified in the Mitigation Fee Act.
196
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

56 Table 11.1: Mitigation Fee Act - Annual and Five-year Administrative Requirements CA Gov't Code
Section Timing Reporting Requirements 1
Recommended
Fee Adjustment
66001.(d)
The fifth fiscal year following the
first deposit into the account or
fund, and every five years
thereafter
(A) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. (B) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete improvements.
(D) Designate the approximate dates on which supplemental funding is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.

Comprehensive
Update
66006. (b) Within 180 days after the last
day of each fiscal year
(A) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund. (B) The amount of the fee.
(C) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund. (D) The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned. (E) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended including share funded by fees.
(F) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence.
(G) A description of any potential interfund transfers. (H) The amount of refunds made (if any).

Inflationary
Adjustment
1 Edited for brevity. Refer to the government code for full description.

Sources: California Government Code §6601 and §6606.
197
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 57 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan f or future infrastruct ure needs.

The CIP identifies costs and phasing fo r specific capital p rojects. The use of the CIP i n this manner docu ments a rea sonable rela tionship between new development and the us e of those revenues.

The City may d ecide to alter t he scope of the plann ed projects o r to substitute new projects if those new projects contin ue to represe nt an expansion of the City’s facilities and provide benefit to new development. If the total cost of facilities var ies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly. 198

58 12. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees ar e one-time fees typically paid w hen a building pe rmit is issued a nd imposed on development p rojects b y loc al age ncies responsible f or regulating lan d use (c ities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of publ ic facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee A ct (the Act) with Assembly Bi ll 1 600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs.

The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.

The fiv e s tatutory finding s required for ad option o f the public facilities fees docum ented in this report are pres ented in th is chapter and sup ported i n detail by the preceding chapte rs. All statutory references are to the Act.

Purpose of Fee
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).

Development imp act fees are designed t o ensure that new development will not b urden th e existing service population wit h the cost of fac ilities requi red to accom modate g rowth. The purpose of the f ees documented by th is re port is to provide a funding so urce fro m new development for capital improv ements to serve that develo pment. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.

Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which t he fees will be p ut. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identif ied. That i dentification may, but nee d not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or sp ecific plan requi rements, or ma y be made in other public docu ments that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).

Fees documented in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility c ategories: parks and recreation faci lities community center and aquatic facilities, police facilities, fire protection facilities, library facilities, storm drain facilities, and sewer facilities.

Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable re lationship between the fe es' us e and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).

The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities, infrastructure and buildings, and purch ase of related equi pment, furnishings, ve hicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expec ted to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers assoc iated with new devel opment.

Under the A ct, fe es are not inten ded to fund planned f acilities ne eded to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees. 199
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 59 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilitie s and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).

Facilities need is base d on a facili ty standard that re presents the demand ge nerated by new development for th ose facilities. For each facility category, demand is meas ured by a s ingle facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable rela tionship to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associa ted with re sidential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a singl e, per capita stand ard, one wor ker is wei ghted differently than one residen t base d on an analysis of the relat ive use demand between residential and non -residential development. For other facility categories demand is e xpressed in terms of sewer flow generation or the increase in impervious surface associated with various types of development.

The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if planned fa cilities will partially serve the existin g service population by cor recting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fa ir share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairl y burden new development with t he cost of facilities a ssociated with serving the existing service population.

Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of ho w service population an d gr owth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standard sections of each facility category chapter.

Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a r easonable relationship b etween the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).

The reasonable relationship betw een each facilities fee for a spe cific new development pr oject and t he cost of the fac ilities a ttributable t o t hat project is bas ed on the estimated new development growth th e project wil l accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee rev enue th an sma ller projects in the same land use classification. Th us, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.

See Chapter 2, Gro wth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service pop ulations or other factors are determined for diffe rent types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facili ty category chapter for a presentation of the maximum justified facilities fees.
200

1 RESOLUTION NO. -23

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ESTABLISHING A

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR SERVICES RENDERED BY CITY DEPARTMENTS AND

ESTABLISHING A FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT COST RECOVERY, WHICH 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 to enact a Master Fee Schedule which updates the fees assessed by the City depart ments to reflect the actual cost associated with providing the service, as supported by the analysis 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 that can be utilized as the basis for the future fee adjustments based 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 E xhibit 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 unconstitutional or invalid, such a d ecision 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 t hat it would have adopted each of the fees individually set forth in the Master Fee Schedule irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any particular or specified fee.

--------------------------
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 September 26, 2023, by the following vote:
201

2 AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

____________________________________
City Clerk of the City of Richmond
(SEAL)

Approved:

______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

______________________________
City Attorney
202
Development Impact Fee Update Study
City of Richmond
September 26, 2023
203
What is a Development Impact Fee?
1One-time charge
Imposed at building permit stage
Imposed on all development projects
within a defined geographic area
Funds facilities to serve new development
2 204
Mitigation Fee Act Findings (Govt. Code §66001)
 Key findings
 Need: Development creates need for facilities
 Benefit: Development use of revenue
 Rough Proportionality: Fee amount development’s
share of facility costs
 Other findings
 Purpose of fee
 Use of fee revenue
3 205
Impact Fees – Basic Methodology

ESTIMATE

EXISTING

DEVELOPMENT

AND FUTURE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY FACILITY

STANDARDS

DETERMINE NEW

FACILITY NEEDS

AND COSTS

ALLOCATE SHARE
TO

ACCOMMODATE
GROWTH

IDENTIFY

ALTERNATIVE

FUNDING NEEDS

CALCULATE FEE BY

ALLOCATING

COSTS PER UNIT
OF NEW

DEVELOPMENT
4 206
Impact Fee Categories
Sewer Facilities
Parks
Community / Aquatic Center
Police Facilities
Fire Protection Facilities
Library Facilities
Storm Drains
**Note that Richmond Traffic Impact Fees are not being updated at this time. 207
Growth Projections
2023 2040 Increase
Residents 111,924 164,220 52,296
Dwelling Units 40,871 59,968 19,097
Employment 27,587 61,815 34,228
Sources: CA DOF; ABAG; US Census’ OnTheMap Application
6 208
Cost Allocation Methods:

WHAT Facilities Serve WHO

PLANNED FACILITIES
Planned Facilities
New Demand

SYSTEM PLAN
Existing + Planned Facilities
Existing + New Demand

EXISTING INVENTORY
Existing Facilities
Existing Demand
209
Cost Allocation Methodologies
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Facility Demand Facility Needs
Existing
Demand
Future
Demand
Existing Inventory Method
New
Facilities
Existing
Facilities
Fee $
System Plan Method
(Increase Service Level)
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
Growth
Share
Existing
Deficiency
Existing
Demand
Existing
Facilities
Facility Needs
New
Facilities
Facility Demand
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
110
120
130
140
150
Future
Demand
New
Facilities
Demand Facility Needs
Planned Facilities Method
8 210
Fee Program Methodologies
Parks
Libraries
Fire Protection Facilities
Existing Standard
Police Facilities
System Plan
Sewer
Community / Aquatic
Centers
Storm Drain
Planned Facilities
9 211
Sewer
 Various Improvements at the WWTP
based on WWTP Master Plan
Community / Aquatic Centers
 Martin Luther King Jr. Community
Center
Police Facilities
 New Police Station
Storm Drain
 Various improvements
Fire Protection
 Training Tower
 Station 64 Apparatus Storage Building
 Restrooms at Station 66
Parks
 Land and improvements to maintain
standard
Library Facilities
 Library Reconfiguration
 FF&E
 Courtyard Improvements
Major Planned Facilities
10 212
Projected Impact Fee Revenue
Fee Category
Fee Calculation
Methodology Net Project Cost
Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Sewer Facilities Planned Facility Standard $ 584,149,500 $ 228,891,385 $355,258,115 Parks1 Existing Facility Standard 303,328,000 303,328,000 - Community / Aquatic Center Planned Facility Standard 16,000,000 16,000,000 - Police Facilities System Standard 80,000,000 32,771,000 47,229,000 Fire Protection Facilities Existing Facility Standard 17,714,400 17,714,400 - Library Facilities Existing Facility Standard 6,910,000 7,687,512 - Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,587,773 3,359,227 Total $1,014,048,900 $ 608,980,070 $405,846,342
Note: For facility categories calculated using the existing facility standard, the projected fee revenue is equal to the cost of planned facilities needed to serve new development. 1 Fee revenue shown if all development is infill development. Refer to study for projections of Quimby in-lieu fee revenue.
11 213
Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule
Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Sewer
Facilities1
Pa rks -
Quimby
(Subdivisions)2
Pa rks
(Infill)2
Community /
Aquatic
Center
Police
Facilities
Fire
Protection
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Storm
Drains
Total -
Subdivisions
Total -
Infill
Residential - per Sq. Ft. 7.99$ 11.32$ 11.03$ 0.58$ 0.99$ 0.46$ 0.28$ 0.03$ 21.66$ 21.37$ Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial 3.55$ -$ -$ -$ 0.35$ 0.32$ -$ 0.06$ 4.28$ 4.28$ Office 4.44 - - - 0.54 0.49 - 0.07 5.54 5.54 Industrial 7.10 - - - 0.19 0.18 - 0.11 7.58 7.58 Warehousing 7.10 - - - 0.06 0.05 - 0.11 7.32 7.32 1 Only charged w ithin Richmond Municipal Sew er District Boundaries.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.7, 5.7, 6.6, 7.9, 8.8 and 9.5.
2 A development project either pays the Quimby fee of the park infill fee, not both. Development not occurring in subdivisions is subject to the infill fee. Development in subdivisions is subject to the Quimby fee.
12 214
Staff Recommendation: Residential – Phase In Increases Over Four Years Residential - Four Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4
Parks - Quimby (Subdivisions) 4.39$ 6.12$ 7.86$ 9.59$ 11.32$ Parks (Infill) 4.39 6.05 7.71 9.37 11.03 Community / Aquatic Center 1.05 0.58 0.58 0.58 0.58 Police Facilities 0.25 0.43 0.62 0.80 0.99 Fire Protection Facilities 0.30 0.34 0.38 0.42 0.46 Library Facilities 1.19 0.28 0.28 0.28 0.28 Storm Drains 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Sewer Facilities 2.29 3.72 5.14 6.57 7.99 Total (Subdivisions) 9.92$ 12.86$ 15.79$ 18.72$ 21.66$ Total (Infill) 9.92$ 12.78$ 15.64$ 18.51$ 21.37$ 13 215
Staff Recommendation: Nonresidential – Phase In Increases Over Two Years Nonresidential - Two Year Phase In
Current Year 1 Year 2
Office
Police Facilities 0.30$ 0.42$ 0.54$
Fire Facilities 0.26 0.38 0.49
Library 0.42 - -
Storm Drainage 0.74 0.07 0.07
Sewer 2.32 3.38 4.44
Total 4.04$ 4.25$ 5.54$
Industrial
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.15$ 0.19$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.18 0.18
Library 0.18 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.11 0.11
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.10
Total 2.41$ 4.56$ 7.58$
Warehousing
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.06$ 0.06$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.05 0.05
Library 0.05 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.11 0.11
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.10
Total 2.29$ 4.34$ 7.32$
14 216
Comparison: Single Family Residential – 1,600 Sq. Ft.
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
Oakland
(Low)
Berkeley Oakland
(High)
Concord
(Low)
Richmond
(Current)
Concord
(High)
San
Leandro
(Low)
Hayward Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
San
Leandro
(High) 15
217
Comparison: Multifamily – 20 Units
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
$500,000
Oakland
(Low)
Berkeley
(Low)
Oakland
(High)
San
Leandro
(Low)
San
Leandro
(High)
Concord
(Low)
Hayward Richmond
(Current)
Concord
(High)
Richmond
(Draft)
16 218
Comparison: Commercial – 15,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
$-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
Hayward Oakland San Leandro
(Low)
Concord Berkeley Richmond
(Current)
San Leandro
(High)
Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
17 219
Comparison: Industrial – 100,000 Sq. Ft.
$-
$100,000
$200,000
$300,000
$400,000
$500,000
$600,000
$700,000
$800,000
$900,000
$1,000,000
San Leandro
(Low)
Oakland Concord Berkeley Richmond
(Current)
Hayward San Leandro
(High)
Richmond
(Maximum
Justified)
18 220
Credit Policy
• A public facility or improvement must be included on the current adopted list of public improvements and facilities for the applicable to be considered eligible for credits toward future Impact Fees.
• Fee Credits will apply only to the “cost of the improvements,” not the related financing costs.
• Costs incurred for work not directly related to improvement of a thoroughfare will not be eligible for credit. Specifically excluded from credit calculations are costs of contaminated soils removal or remediation. • Credits shall be awarded only upon receipt of satisfactory documentation that
(i) the improvement is completed; or
(ii) land has been conveyed to and accepted by the City; or (iii) that funds for the improvement are in escrow; or
(iv) that a construction contract for the improvement has been executed; or (v) that a performance bond approved by the City Attorney has been posted to ensure completion.
19 221
Questions
20 222