Agenda — Richmond City Council, March 5, 2024 (part 5 of 6)

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Information in this section is based on the TIS prepared by W-Trans on July 1, 2022 (Appendix G). 711
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

188 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Emergency response vehicles would be able to access the site via the project street from Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed street would be approximately 22 feet wide, which exceeds the minimum width of 20 feet for fire access required by the Richmond Municipal Code. Based on the proposed site plan and Fire Access Plan, access and on-site circulation would be adequate to accommodate turning movements for emergency vehicles. While the proposed project would be expected to result in a minor increase in delay for traffic on Brickyard Cove Road, emergency response vehicles have lights and sirens to bypass queued traffic and minimize the effects of intersection delay; therefore, the proposed project would be expected to have a negligible effect on emergency response times.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new impacts related to inadequate emergency access beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project MM 3.14-1 Future projects shall incorporate project-specific mitigation measures to reduce traffic impacts.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding transportation remain unchanged.

The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively, related to transportation.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
712
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 189
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

713
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

190 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.18 Utilities and Service Systems
Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or
construction of new or expanded water,
wastewater treatment or stormwater
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could
cause significant environmental effects?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project and reasonably
foreseeable future development during
normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or
local standards, or in excess of the capacity
of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair
the attainment of solid waste reduction
goals?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
e) Comply with federal, State, and local
management and reduction statutes and
regulations related to solid waste?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater Facilities
Would the project: Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The Final General Plan FEIR evaluated the necessity of construction of new water or water treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities and concluded that the EBMUD 2040 Demand Study demonstrated that sufficient water supply would be available to General Plan buildout development.

It was also determined that the EBMUD would meet the City’s water demand (230 million gallons per day [mgd] by year 2040), that the existing water supply would provide sufficient water supply 714
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 191
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx capacity, and that EBMUD would provide verification of adequate water supplies for subsequent projects. The General Plan EIR also determined that increased urban development as part of General Plan buildout could increase stormwater generation and the need for stormwater drainage facilities.

However, with the implementation of standard construction measures and BMPs, impacts to stormwater infrastructure and facilities would be less than significant. However, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of the General Plan could require the construction or expansion of wastewater treatment facilities or collection systems that could cause significant environmental impacts, absent project-specific mitigation measures. Thus, the Final General Plan included adopted MM 3.13-3, which requires all future project to incorporate project-specific mitigation to reduce impacts from construction of new wastewater facilities. With the implementation of adopted MM

3.13-3, impacts would be less than significant.

The General Plan EIR did not address the potential need for new telecommunication facilities. It found that the implementation of the General Plan would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas but would not require or result in the construction of new energy production or transmission facilities, the construction of which could cause a significant environmental impact. This was considered a less than significant impact.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Water
The proposed project would include new potable water line which would connect to the existing potable water line located within Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan land use designation and as such, water demand for the project site was included in the EBMUD 2040 Demand Study. The General Plan EIR determined that the City’s water supplier, EBMUD, would be able to meet citywide water demand at buildout, taking potential drought conditions into consideration. Additionally, the General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would further reduce impacts on water supplies by promoting water conservation, requiring new development fees, and water recycling. As a result, the City would have sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project and would not require new or expanded water treatment facilities. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or more serve impacts related to water treatment facilities expansion beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Wastewater
The project site is located within the Richmond Municipal Sewer District.53 Wastewater from the proposed project would be collected via new sewer lines throughout the project site that would connect to an existing sanitary sewer line along the project site’s western boundary. The City conveys all flows to its WWTP located on Canal Boulevard. According to the General Plan EIR, the WWTP has a dry-weather treatment capacity of 24 mgd and wet weather capacities for primary/secondary treatment and primary treatment of 24 mgd and 40 mgd, respectively. Wastewater generated on the project site would continue to comply with all provisions of the San Francisco Bay RWQCB NPDES

53 City of Richmond. 2013. Municipal Sewer System. Website: http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/5627/COR-Sewer- District-Map?bidId=. Accessed August 24, 2022.
715
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

192 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx permit system and would not exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements. The proposed project would increase wastewater generation compared to existing conditions. As analyzed in the City of Richmond’s Sewer Collection System Master Plan, Medium-Density Residential uses in the project area generates approximately 1,600 gallons of wastewater per acre per day. The proposed project is expected to generate 9,600 gallons of wastewater per day, or 0.0096 mgd. However, the proposed project would be required to pay sewer service fees that would be used to fund any required improvements to wastewater treatment facilities, and thus would not result in a significant effect and adopted MM 3.13-3 is not applicable to the proposed project. Because the proposed project would develop as intended in the General Plan, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Stormwater
New storm drain lines would be located throughout the site that would convey runoff to two on-site bioretention areas located in the southern portion of the site along the Brickyard Cove Road frontage of the project site. The drainage calculations for the project indicate that the site would produce stormwater drainage equivalent to 6,370 square feet, which would be accommodated by the two bioretention areas, in accordance with C.3 requirements to ensure that there would be no net increase in off-site stormwater flow above existing conditions. The bioretention basins would connect to an existing stormwater drainage line contained within Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed project would also be required to obtain all applicable permits related to stormwater generation during construction, which would include the completion of a Stormwater Control Plan. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to stormwater system capacity beyond what was previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR.

Natural Gas, Electricity, and Telecommunications
Buildings would comply with the City of Richmond Municipal Code Chapter 6.02.100 (Richmond Reach Code) by being all-electric with no natural gas or propane plumbing installed. Electricity may be obtained through on-site solar panels or from PG&E or Marin Clean Energy (MCE). There are existing power lines on-site along the project frontage with Brickyard Cove Road. The proposed project would not result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded natural gas, electricity, or telecommunication facilities. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to natural gas, electricity, or telecommunication facilities beyond what was previously evaluated in the General Plan EIR.
b) Water Supply
Would the project: Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years? 716
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 193
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary of the General Plan EIR
As discussed above, the General Plan EIR assessed whether the EBMUD would have adequate water supplies for the City at buildout. The EBMUD prepared its 2040 Demand Study, which estimated future water demand for the EBMUD’s service area taking into account future developments within each different jurisdiction, including demands generated by the Richmond General Plan 2030. The General Plan EIR determined that the EBMUD would meet the City’s water demand (230 mgd by year 2040), that the existing water supply would provide sufficient water supply capacity, and that EBMUD would provide verification of adequate water supplies for subsequent projects. The General Plan EIR concluded that implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions would further reduce water consumption within the City by promoting water conservation methods and requiring new development pay fees for future infrastructure improvements to provide water conveyance and capacity increases. Therefore, as indicated in the General Plan EIR, the City would have adequate water supply, including existing and additional supply, to meet planned future development demands plus the maximum anticipated demands from the General Plan.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
As previously discussed, although the proposed project would increase water demand compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would be consistent with General Plan land use designations and would be within the allowable density for Medium-Density Residential development. As such, the proposed water demand is included in the overall water demand based on General Plan buildout. The General Plan EIR determined that the EBMUD would meet the City’s water demand (230 mgd by year 2040), that the existing water supply would provide sufficient water supply capacity, and that EBMUD would provide verification of adequate water supplies for subsequent projects. In addition, the proposed project would include drought-tolerant landscaping, which would further reduce water demand. Therefore, the effects of the proposed project were anticipated in the General Plan EIR and there are no project-specific effects that were not analyzed in the General Plan EIR. The proposed project would not result in any new or substantially more severe impacts related to water supply beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. c) Wastewater Treatment Capacity
Would the project: Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that implementation of General Plan would generate additional demand on the existing sewer system from increased sewage flows. The General Plan could result in a net increase of residential and nonresidential developments by the proposed General Plan horizon year of 2030. The City’s contribution to the daily wastewater received by the treatment facilities resulting from the implementation of the General Plan would increase from the current City’s daily wastewater flow. The General Plan EIR concluded that any request for service resulting from new development would be subject to a site- specific evaluation of the existing wastewater system’s capacity to service the development. If improvements to the existing wastewater system are 717
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

194 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx required or additional facilities are needed, the property developer would be required to pay its fair share of the cost of the needed improvements. Impacts would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Because the proposed project would develop as intended in the General Plan, implementation of the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to wastewater treatment capacity beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. As described above, the proposed project would be required to pay sewer service fees that would be used to fund any required improvements to wastewater treatment facilities, and thus would not result in a significant effect. As such, no additional analysis is required. d) Solid Waste Reduction Goals Consistency
Would the project: Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR concluded that West County met the 50 percent waste diversion goal in 2006, and West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority (RecycleMore) continues to work to maintain this level of diversion. The California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) estimates an average per capita solid waste disposal rate for the City of Richmond to be 0.36 tons per resident per year; business waste disposal rates estimated by the CIWMB range from 0.3 ton per year for general merchandise stores to 3.1 tons per year for restaurants. To meet and maintain the 50 percent diversion rate, Richmond Sanitary Services has established residential and commercial co- mingled recycling collection and green waste collection services within its service area. Additionally, the General Plan EIR stated that expansion of the Potrero Hills Landfill would ensure the City would have adequate landfill capacity and existing landfill facilities are adequate to serve the City through the General Plan horizon year 2030. Therefore, impacts related to solid waste reduction goals would be less than significant.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would be consistent with the land use and density assumed for the site in the General Plan and, therefore, the proposed project’s potential impact on solid waste disposal capacity was already addressed in the General Plan EIR. The project would be served by Republic Services, which must comply with State and local waste diversion requirements. Each project resident would be provided with separate bins for recycling, trash, and compost to implement diversion requirements. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to solid waste reduction goals beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR. 718
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 195
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx e) Solid Waste Regulations Consistency
Would the project: Comply with federal, State, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that the City, as part of RecycleMore, met the 50 percent waste diversion goal in 2006. Furthermore, the General Plan EIR determined implementation of General Plan Policies would reduce impacts related to solid waste regulations to a less than significant level by regularly reviewing waste management plans, promoting recycling and composting, and developing a construction and demolition ordinance.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
Consistent with the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would comply with General Plan Policies as well as City and RecycleMore waste diversion measures. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to solid waste regulations beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project None
Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding utilities and services systems remain unchanged.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. 719
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

196 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

720
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 197
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.19 Wildfire
If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated
No No No No
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other
factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or
the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Require the installation or maintenance of
associated infrastructure (such as roads,
fuel breaks, emergency water sources,
power lines or other utilities) that may
exacerbate fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
d) Expose people or structures to significant
risks, including downslope or downstream
flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage
changes?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Emergency Response/Evacuation Plan Consistency
Would the project: If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR identified two thresholds for emergency vehicle response: (1) design features that accommodate emergency vehicle access and circulation; and (2) travel speeds on primary emergency response routes. The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan Policies and Actions would ensure emergency vehicle access would be accommodated but roadway congestion may increase due to population and job growth such that travel speeds may drop and impact emergency vehicle response. To reduce potential impacts, the City adopted Final General Plan MM 3.14-6, requiring coordination among City departments and other agencies in planning for emergency access and response routes, and establishing periodic review and updates to its emergency access 721
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

198 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx and response route planning. The General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of General Plan Policies and Actions implementation of adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.14-6, impacts to emergency response would be less than significant
Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project is not located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and does not propose permanent road closures or lane narrowing that would impact an emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The proposed project would develop a total of 94 multi-family homes consistent with the existing General Plan land use designation policies and regulations. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to emergency response plans beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
b) Expose Project Occupants to Pollutant Concentrations from Wildfire Would the project: If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that General Plan buildout would occur within the city limits and consist primarily of infill development. The General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan Policies, including Action SN2.D, Fire Prone Area Designation, requires the City to designate areas particularly prone to fire hazards and to consider adopting wildfire development guidelines for development adjacent to fire prone areas. Therefore, the General Plan EIR determined that implementation of these policies would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is not located adjacent to unmanaged open space or a recognized fire prone area.

The State has not designated any Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones on or in proximity to the site.

As a result, the proposed project is not located on a project site classified as a Very High Fire Severity Zone with severe slopes or high prevailing winds that would further exacerbate wildfire risk.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to exposure of project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
c) Infrastructure that Exacerbates Fire Risk
Would the project: If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
722
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 199
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that new development would be primarily infill and within the City limits near existing urban infrastructure and already served by the RFD. The RFD is responsible for emergency medical services, fire suppression, mitigation of disasters, and rescue activities. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development would implement General Plan Policies that would regulate the development of infrastructure that could exacerbate fire risk and infrastructure; the General Plan EIR concluded implementation of these policies would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The proposed project would not include the installation of emergency water sources or overhead power lines. There is sufficient emergency water to serve the project and the surrounding area.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts related to infrastructure that exacerbates fire risk beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.
d) Flooding and Landslide Hazards Due To Post-fire Slope Instability/Drainage Changes Would the project: If located in or near State responsibility areas or lands classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones, expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Summary of the General Plan EIR
The General Plan EIR determined that new development would potentially increase wildland fire risk and that the City contains areas that are susceptible to landslides. The General Plan EIR did not assess impacts due to wildfires as a separate topic but considered these potential impacts under Public Services. General Plan Policies SN2.2, Level of Service, SN2.3, Fire Safety, SN3.1, Emergency and Disaster Preparedness would ensure the RFD could provide adequate fire protection services to future development. Action SN1.B, regarding Building Structure Safety Standards, would ensure Building Structure Safety Standards are regularly updated to protect people and property from fire hazards. The General Plan EIR concluded that new development would implement General Plan Policies designed to reduce impacts to fire protection services from increased fire hazard, and implementation of these General Plan Policies would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Brickyard Cove Project Analysis and Conclusion
The project site is located within a flat, highly urbanized area of the City that has not experienced wildfire. Additionally, the project site is not located near unmanaged open space or dense natural vegetation prone to wildfires. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in new or substantially more severe impacts related to post-fire slope instability or drainage changes beyond what was previously analyzed in the General Plan EIR.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding wildfire remain unchanged. 723
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

200 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx The proposed project is consistent with the development evaluated in the General Plan and the analysis in the certified General Plan EIR and would not result in any new impacts or increase the severity of any previously identified impacts as compared to what was already identified and disclosed, either individually or cumulatively, related to wildfire.

Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

724
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist Environmental Checklist

FirstCarbon Solutions 201
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Environmental Issues
CEQA Section 15168 Criteria
Prior General
Plan EIR
Determination
Effect
Peculiar to
Project or
Site?
New
Significant
Effect?
New
Significant
Off-site,
Cumulative
Impact?
New
Information,
More Severe
Adverse
Impact?

4.20 Mandatory Findings of Significance
a) Does the project have the potential to
substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate
a plant or animal community, substantially
reduce the number or restrict the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal, or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than
significant
impact with
mitigation
incorporated

No No No No
b) Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No
c) Does the project have environmental
effects, which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Less than
significant
impact
No No No No

a) Potential Degradation to Environment and Examples of California History or Prehistory Does the project: Have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? The proposed project may result in impacts associated with biological resources and cultural resources that would be significant if left unmitigated. Adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.15-1, MM

3.15-2a, MM 3.15-2b, MM 3.15-2c, and MM 3.15-2d and uniformly applied federal and State measures would ensure compliance with General Plan Policies and would reduce all potential impacts to less than significant levels. With the implementation of these mitigation measures and compliance with applicable rules and regulations, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts.
725
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Environmental Checklist Consistency Checklist

202 FirstCarbon Solutions
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx b) Cumulatively Considerable Impacts
Does the project: Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? All cumulative impacts related to the project are either less than significant after mitigation or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Given the scope of the proposed project and its impacts and mitigation measures, the incremental effects of this proposed project are not considerable relative to the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. As discussed previously, the proposed project is within the buildout anticipated by the General Plan and does not have any new or substantially more severe significant cumulative impacts than disclosed in the General Plan EIR. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. Impacts would be less than significant.
c) Adverse Effects on Human Beings?
Does the project: Have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
All impacts identified in this Consistency Checklist are either less than significant after mitigation, or less than significant and do not require mitigation. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in environmental effects that cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly. Impacts would be less than significant.

General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures Applicable to the Proposed Project Implement the following General Plan EIR Mitigation Measures: MM 3.15-1, MM 3.15-2a, MM 3.15- 2b, MM 3.15-2c, MM 3.15-2d, MM 3.3-1c, MM 3.3-2a, MM 3.3-2c, MM 3.3-3c, MM 3.3-3d, MM 3.5- 1, MM 3.5-2a, MM 3.5-2b, MM 3.6-1a, MM 3.6-1b, MM 3.6-1c, , MM 3.6-1j, MM 3.6-1k, MM 3.6- 1m, MM 3.6-1n, MM 3.6-1o, MM 3.10-1, and MM 3.14-1
Implement the following project-specific Implementation Measures and Conditions of Approval: IM AIR-1, IM BIO-1a, IM BIO-1b, IM BIO-2, IM BIO-3, IM BIO-4, IM BIO-5, IM BIO-6; IM CUL-1, IM CUL-2; COA ENER-1; and IM NOI-1.

Conclusion
The conclusions from the General Plan EIR regarding the potential impacts discussed above remain unchanged. No further analysis is required.

FirstCarbon Solutions 203
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx Further environmental analysis is not required because:
• No peculiar impacts have been identified as a result of the proposed project or its site.

Implementation of relevant previously approved General Plan mitigation measures, uniformly applied General Plan policies and standards along with regulations of the City of Richmond and County of Contra Costa and incorporation of identified project design features ensure impacts are below the level of significance.
• There are no potentially significant impacts that were not analyzed as significant in the certified General Plan EIR. There are no potentially significant off-site and/or cumulative impacts that were not discussed by the Certified General Plan EIR. • No substantial changes are proposed in the project which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. • No substantial changes have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the certified General Plan EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects.
• There is no new information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the certified General Plan EIR was certified as complete.

727

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
728
City of Richmond—Brickyard Cove Project
Consistency Checklist List of Preparers

FirstCarbon Solutions 205
Https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN -JN)/2121/21210024/Consistency Checklist/21210024 Richmond Brickyard Cove Consistency Checklist.docx SECTION 5: LIST OF PREPARERS
FirstCarbon Solutions
2999 Oak Road, Suite 250
Walnut Creek, CA 94597
Phone: 925.357.2562
Fax: 925.357.2572
Project Director ....................................................................................................................... Mary Bean Project Manager .......................................................................................................... Elizabeth Johnson Assistant Project Manager ........................................................................................... Rachel Krusenoski Legal Counsel ................................................................................................................... Megan Starr, JD Director of Cultural Resources .......................................................................... Dana DePietro, PhD, RPA Lead Biologist............................................................................................................ Bernhard Warzecha Director of Noise and Air Quality .............................................................................. Phil Ault, LEED® AP Analyst ............................................................................................................................... Maddie Dolan Analyst .................................................................................................................................. Jenn Vitanza Publications Manager ............................................................................................................ Susie Harris Document Specialist ....................................................................................................... Melissa Ramirez GIS/Graphics ................................................................................................................ Karlee McCracken Technical Subconsultant
W-Trans
414 13
th Street, 5th Floor
Oakland, CA 94621
729
Exhibit A-2_Checklist Appendices

Due to the ﬁle size, appendices are available for review at the Planning Division Counter during regular business hours.
730

Page No: 1 of 12

Exhibit B to Planning Commission Resolution No. 23-09
Conditions of Approval for the Brickyard Cove Residential Project (PLN22-144)

Standard Conditions of Approval:

1. Substantial Conformance: The Project shall be completed in substantial conformance with the Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Map in Exhibit C, submitted to and received by the Planning Division on December 16, 2022, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval for the Project. Failure to abide and faithfully comply with any and all conditions associated with the Project Approvals shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said approvals by the Planning Commission.

2. Conditions of Approval on Plans: All conditions of approval shall be printed on the informational page of the final construction plans submitted for building permits, along with annotations by the Applicant of where the conditions have been met on the drawings. All conditions of approval shall be on all grading and construction plans, which shall always be kept on the Project site.

3. Responsibility to Inform : The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the construction crew, all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, and other business entities providing services related to the Project are aware of and adhere to all the conditions of approval.

4. Changes to Design: Prior written approval from the Community Development Director or their designee shall be received by the Applicant before any minor changes are made to the site design, grade, building design, building colors or materials, or related design elements. Major changes shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board or Planning Commission at the Community Development Director’s discretion.

5. Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Law Requirements : The Project shall comply with Article 15.04.603 of the Zoning Ordinance and requirements of state Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). At least ten percent (10%) of the housing units in the Project shall be restricted to lower income households (if the project is offered for rent) or at least ten percent (10%) of the housing units will be restricted to moderate income households. Prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of a final or parcel map, whichever is earliest, the Applicant shall enter into and record a written agreement with the City as specified in RMC Section 15.04.603.110.

6. Transportation Demand Management: The Applicant shall adhere to the transportation demand management program provided in compliance with RMC Section 15.04.612.

7. Public Art : The Project shall meet the requirements of RMC Chapter 12.62 by either including on- site publicly accessible art valued at one percent (1%) of the Building Development Cost or by paying an in-lieu contribution of one percent (1%) of the Building Development Cost to the City’s Public Art Project account as set forth in RMC Section

12.62.050. The Building Development Cost shall be as defined in the RMC Chapter 12.62.

8. P rohibition of Natural Gas in New Buildings: Project shall comply with RMC Chapter 9.64, which prohibits use of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings. 731

Page No: 2 of 12

9. Composting and Recycling: Consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, the Applicant shall have a “three-bin” recycling program for garbage, recycling, and compost.

10. Refuse, Recycling, and Green Waste Storage Areas: All solid waste and recycling areas shall comply with locational and design criteria in Section 15.04.601.090 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC).

11. Lighting: Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designed and located so that all direct light is confined to the property and is satisfactory to the Community Development Director or their designee.

Fixtures shall be appropriate to the style and scale of the architecture. No lights shall be greater than 3,000k LED.

12. Construction Storm Water Management: During construction activities, the Applicant shall reduce or prevent to the maximum extent practicable the direct or indirect discharge of any dust or pollutant into the stor m drain system using best management practices contained in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities. Construction activities include but are not limited to: watering operations; roadwork and paving operations; concrete and painting; structure construction; construction material storage and handling; construction waste/debris storage and disposal; and construction equipment/vehicle cleaning, maintenance and fueling operations. The Applicant shall also be responsible for training all contractors and subcontractors on the best management practices identified in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities which shall be made available by the Applicant at the pre-construction meeting for the Project.

13. Encroachment Permit Required: The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Richmond Public Works Department for all work within the public right-of-way.

All curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement shall conform to City of Richmond standards.

Should any infrastructure be damaged or destroyed as a result of the construction of the Project, the Applicant shall be responsible for returning the infrastructure to an acceptable condition as determined by the City’s Public Works Director.

14. Maintenance: The Applicant, shall, at all times, keep the property in good order. This includes repair and maintenance of all structures, fences, signs, walks, driveways, painting, etc. as may be necessary to preserve a high-quality environment. All landscaped areas shall be maintained free of litter, debris, and weeds. All plantings shall be permanently maintained in a healthy growing condition, and whenever necessary, replaced with equivalent planting materials to ensure continued conformance with approved plans. Every sign shall be kept up and maintained in a secure and safe condition. Signs shall be kept free of rust, corrosion, peeling paint, cracks, fading, and other surface deterioration.

15. Major Design Review Permit Expiration: Major Design Review approval shall expire when the Tentative Map expires, unless made permanent by issuance of building permits and the commencement of construction. If the use(s) or structure(s) in the Project Approvals are not established within such period of time, the Project Approvals shall be terminated and shall, thereafter, be null and void, unless the Applicant applies for an extension of 732

Page No: 3 of 12

time prior to expiration of the Project Approvals.

16. Indemnification: The Applicant agrees, on behalf of themself, their successor(s)-in-interest and assigns, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, Design Review Board, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter "City") from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter "Proceeding") brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City's actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans , general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to CEQA, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to acts or omissions in any way connected to the Applicant's Original or Revised Project(s), but excluding any approvals governed by Government Code Section 66474.9. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney’s fees and other costs, liabil ities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by the Applicant or City. If the Applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City.

Project-Specific Conditions of Approval (Design Review Board):

17. Removal of Opaque Panels: The Applicant shall remove the opaque panels located under the bathroom/closet windows shown on the third floor of several building elevations.

18. Building Colors: Each building shall have a single color hue, with possible variations in shade. The building colors shall be consistent with those shown on the Project Plans, but with reduced color saturation.

19. Reduction of Fill: The Applicant shall continue to make best efforts to reduce the proposed amount of fill, which at the time of Design Review Board consideration stood at 68,100 cubic yards of imported fill.

20. Metal Finishes: All exposed metal materials shall have a Kynar coating, be stainless steel, or other non-corrosive material appropriate for a marine environment.

Project-Specific Conditions of Approval (Other):

21. Implementation Measures: The Applicant shall comply with the following measures which are intended to implement the General Plan EIR mitigation measures applicable to the Project (MM 3.15-1, 3.15-2a, 3.15-2b, 3.15-2c, 3.15-2d, 3.3-1c, 3.3-2a, 3.3-2c, 3.3-3c,

3.3-3d, 3.5-1, 3.5-2a, 3.5-2b, 3.6-1a, 3.6-1b, 3.6-1c, 3.6-1j, 3.6-1k, 3.6-1m, 3.6-1n, 3.6- 1o, 3.10-1, and 3.14-1):

a. IM AIR -1: During construction activities, all off -road equipment with engines greater than 100 horsepower shall meet either United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resources Board (ARB) Tier 4 Final off- road emission standards, and all off-road equipment with engines equal to or less than 100 horsepower shall be electric -powered. The construction contractor shall 733

Page No: 4 of 12

maintain records concerning its efforts to comply with this requirement, including equipment lists. Off-road equipment descriptions and information may include but are not limited to equipment type, equipment manufacturer, equipment identification number, engine model year, engine certification (Tier rating), horsepower, and engine serial number.

b. IM BIO-1a: A qualified botanist shall conduct protocol -level rare plant surveys to establish the presence/absence of rare plants within the Project Site. Rare plant surveys shall be conducted following the Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special Status Native Plant Populations and Sensitive Natural Communities. The results of the rare plant surveys shall be summarized in a rare plant report following the CDFW requirements defined in the protocol, and shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and CNPS within 60 days after completion of the late-season survey.

c. IM BIO-1b: If a special -status or rare plant species is found, the Applicant shall prepare and implement a compensatory mitigation plan submitted and approved by CDFW and CNPS to offset any losses at a minimum of 1:1 ratio.

d. IM BIO-2: If tree removal takes place during the overwintering season (generally November to February), pre- construction surveys for overwintering monarch butterfly shall be conducted monthly by a qualified Biologist during October and November. The methods and res ults shall be submitted to the City, CDFW, and USFWS. In case overwintering monarch butterflies are present, the project shall avoid all direct and indirect impacts, report presence to USFWS and CDFW, and follow all recommendations provided by USFWS and CDFW.

e. IM BIO-3: If any tree removal is necessary, then it shall occur outside the nesting season between September 1 through January 31, if feasible. If trees cannot be removed outside the nesting season, then pre- construction surveys shall be conducted no more than 7 days prior to tree removal to verify the absence of active nests if the removal of any trees is scheduled between February 1 and August 31.

If a protected active nest is located during pre- construction surveys, construction activities shall be restricted as necessary to avoid disturbance and nest abandonment. Restrictions may include establishment of exclusion zones (no ingress of personnel or equipment) or alteration of the construction schedule.

If the active nest belongs to State or federally listed species, then United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) (as appropriate) shall be notified regarding the status of the nest.

A qualified Biologist shall determine an appropriately-sized buffer around the active nest depending on the species. The A pplicant shall implement the buffer using environmentally sensitive area fencing, pin flags, and or yellow caution tape. The buffer zone shall be maintained around the active nest site(s) until the young have fledged and are foraging independently.

f. IM BIO-4: A qualified Biologist shall conduct surveys for roosting bats during the 734

Page No: 5 of 12

appropriate time of day to maximize detectability to determine whether bat species are roosting near the work area no less than 7 days and no more than 14 days prior to beginning ground disturbance and/or construction. Survey methodology may include visual surveys of bats (e.g., observation of bats during foraging period), inspection for suitable habitat, bat sign (e.g., guano), or use of ultrasonic detectors (Anabat, etc.).

Visual surveys will include trees within 500 feet of project construction activities, where accessible. Not more than two weeks prior to tree removal, the applicant shall ensure that a qualified Biologist (i.e., one familiar with the identification of bats and signs of bats) survey trees proposed for removal for the presence of roosting bats or evidence of bats. If no roosting bats or evidence of bats are found in the trees, demolition may proceed. If the Biologist determines or presumes bats are present, the Biologist shall exclude the bats from roosting cavities by installing one- way exclusion devices. After the bats vacate the cavity, the Biologist shall close off the cavity to prevent recolonization. Tree removal shall only commence after the Biologist verifies 7 to 10 days later that the exclusion methods have successfully prevented bats from returning. To avoid impacts on non- volant (i.e., nonflying) bats, the Biologist shall only conduct bat exclusion and eviction from May 1 through October 1. Exclusion efforts may be restricted during periods of sensitive activity (e.g., during hibernation or while females in maternity colonies are nursing young).

g. IM BIO-5: The Applicant shall implement the General Plan EIR requirements related to sensitive communities, including coordination with CDFW and East Bay Parks to ensure that impacts on these resources are mitigated to a less than significant level. If CDFW is unable res pond to a request for coordination, the Applicant shall compensate for the loss of 0.37 acre of toyon woodland at a minimum 1:1 ratio by establishing and maintaining a minimum of 0.37 acre of toyon woodland within the Pt. Richmond watershed area; or alternatively, contribute to a similarly valuable native plant restoration project at Miller/Knox Shoreline Park as determined by East Bay Parks.

h. IM BIO-6: The Applicant shall have a qualified Biologist continue to monitor the onsite depression throughout the 2022/2023 rainy season. If a qualified Biologist finds that the on- site depression has sufficient characteristics to potentially be a jurisdictional wetland, the Applicant shall obtain jurisdictional determinations from the USACE and RWQCB regarding the extent of jurisdictional waters of the United States and/or State on the project site. Following the jurisdictional determination, the Applicant shall obtain all required Clean Water Act and/or Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act permits if jurisdictional waters or wetlands are proposed to be impacted.

i. IM CUL-1: An Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology shall conduct a pedestrian survey following removal of asphalt and ground cover at the site, and prior to trenching and grading. This may be fol lowed by regular periodic or “spot -check” archaeological monitoring as determined by the Archaeologist. In the event a potentially significant cultural resource is encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all construction activities wi thin a 100- foot radius of the find 735

Page No: 6 of 12

shall cease and workers should avoid altering the materials until an Archaeologist who meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology has evaluated the find. The Applicant shall include a standard inadvertent discovery clause in every construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. The qualified Archaeologist shall make recommendations to the lead agency on the measures that shall be implemented to protect the discovered resources, including but not limited to excavation and evaluation of the finds in accordance with Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. Potentially significant cultural resources include, but are not limited to, stone, bone, glass, wood, or shell artifacts or features, including hearths, structural remains, or historic dumpsites. Any previously undiscovered resources found during construction within the project site shall be recorded on appropriate Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523 forms and will be submitted to the City of Richmond, the Northwest Information Center (NWIC), and the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), as required.

j. IM CUL-2: In the event of an accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains, Public Resource Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 must be followed. In this instance, once project -related earthmoving begins and if there is acciden tal discovery or recognition of any human remains, the following steps shall be taken:

(1) There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the Contra Costa County Coroner is contacted to determine whether the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required. If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American, the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the NAHC shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the “most likely descendant” of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendant may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resource Code Section 5097.98, or

(2) Where the following conditions occur, the landowner or his/her authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the project area in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: (a) The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendant, or the most likely descendant failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission; (b) The descendant identified fails to make a recommendation; or (c) The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant, and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner.

k. IM ENER-1: In accordance with Richmond Municipal Code Section 9.64.040 Prohibition of Natural Gas Infrastructure in Newly Constructed Buildings ban, the proposed project shall not incorporate the use of natural gas and shall, at a minimum have sufficient electric capacity, wiring and conduit to facilitate future full 736

Page No: 7 of 12

building electrification.

l. NOI-1: In compliance with adopted General Plan EIR MM 3.10- 1, the following project specific construction noise minimization and mitigation plan shall be implemented during all phases of construction where off -road construction equipment would be operating on the project site:

(a) All equipment driven by internal combustion engines shall be equipped with mufflers, which are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.

(b) The construction contractor shall utilize “quiet” models of air compressors and other stationary noise sources where technology exists.

(c) At all times during project grading and construction, stationary noise-generating equipment shall be located as far as practicable from sensitive receptors and placed so that emitted noise is directed away from residences.

(d) Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines shall be prohibited.

(e) Construction staging areas shall be established at locations that will create the greatest distance between the construction- related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction activities, to the extent feasible.

(f) The required construction- related noise mitigation plan shall also specify that haul truck deliveries are subject to the same hours specified for construction equipment.

(g) Neighbors located adjacent to the construction site shall be notified of the construction schedule in writing.

(h) The construction contractor shall designate a “noise disturbance coordinator” who will be responsible for responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance coordinator shall be responsible for determining the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early, poor muffler, etc.) and instituting reasonable measures as warranted to correct the problem. A telephone number for the disturbance coordinator shall be conspicuously posted at the construction site.

(i) Noise -generating construction activities, including truck traffic coming to and from the construction site for any purpose, shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. No noise- generating construction shall occur on weekends or City holidays.

(j) No impact pile driving shall be permitted.

22. Tribal Consultation Condition: The Applicant shall have a tribal representative and archaeologist on site. A Cultural Sensitivity Training for those involved in the Project shall 737

Page No: 8 of 12

be provided. The Applicant shall use California native vegetation as much as feasible. The Applicant shall acknowledge the history of the land through public art or a plaque.

23. Geotechnical Report: Applicant shall implement the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation by Cornerstone Earth Group dated April 25, 2022.

24. B icycle Parking : The applicant shall provide on- site secured bicycle parking options consistent with the City’s Bicycle Plan and Transportation Mobility Management Plan to be reviewed by the City’s Department of Transportation for design prior to installation.

25. Turning Radius: The Applicant shall provide turning radius details on construction plans to ensure compliance with Fire Department standards.

26. Street Improvements: The Applicant shall have street improvement plans prepared for all work in the public right of way by a licensed civil engineer and obtain Department of Public Works approval prior to the construction of any subdivision improvement.

27. Rehabilitation of Westbound Lanes: Development shall be responsible for rehabilitation of westbound lanes of Brickyard Cove Road to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.

28. P
rivate Improvements : All streets, sidewalks, sanitary sewers, and storm drains within the Project shall be private and shall be the responsibility of Applicant or HOA to maintain.

29. P avement Conditions Assessment: The Applicant shall complete a Pavement Conditions Assessment for each road used by trucks delivering materials to the site. These assessments shall be completed in accordance with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s guidelines. This evaluation shall be completed before and after construction to determine the change in the Pavement Conditions Index. The Applicant shall be responsible for paying their pro rata share of pavement restoration for any decrease in the Pavement Conditions Index (PCI) to restore the roadway to a PCI rating of 100. For example, if the pre and post PCI is 60 and 40 respectively, there is a 20-point decrease. Therefore, the permittee would be responsible for paying the City 20% of the cost to re store the roadway to a PCI rating of 100. This fee shall be collected prior to issuing the final certificate of occupancy for the development. The cost of restoring the roadway shall be based upon the City’s current pavement conditions report.

30. R
oadway Pavement Distress : If during the work, any roadway’s pavement exhibits significant distress, the Applicant shall immediately repair the roadway as directed by the Public Works Director. This condition does not waive the Applicant’s responsibility for constructing, repairing, and/ or rehabilitating any roadways required to complete the Project.

31. P
erformance Bonds : The applicant shall post performance bonds for all public and private site development improvements prior to commencing grading activities. The bond’s value shall be based upon an agreed value with the Public Works Director.

32. A
dditional Safety Measures at Site Entry: The following additional traffic safety measures shall be added near the Project Site’s entry driveway:

a. A stop sign and a stop pavement marking for vehicles exiting the driveway. 738

Page No: 9 of 12

b. Left turn lane from the median into the project site.

33. Median Landscaping: Applicant shall landscape the proposed median.

34. Repair of Damaged Sidewalk & Pavement Improvements : The Applicant shall repair all damaged sidewalk, pavement, existing curb and gutter along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to occupancy.

35. Replacement of Damaged Infrastructure: The Applicant shall replace any damaged landscaping, improvements, or street improvements caused by the installation of utility services and construction of the P roject to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

36. Undergrounding: All new electrical lines and connections to the site shall be under grounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

37. Relocation of Existing Improvements : Any relocation of existing improvements or public utilities shall be accomplished under the direction of the City or impacted utility company’s requirement at no expense to the City or utility company.

38. Bay Trail Re -Pavement: The Applicant shall repave the existing Bay Trail segment that passes through the Project S ite. These Bay Trail improvements shall merge seamlessly with the existing trail segments adjacent to the Project Site. In addition, the Applicant shall fund and construct the connection to the Bay Trail as show in Sheet L.4 of the Project Landscape Plans. A condition shall be included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement requiring the Applicant to complete these improvements prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the residential project.

39. M
aintenance of Bay Trail Improvements : The Bay Trail improvements that the Applicant installs adjacent to the Project site frontage shall be maintained by the Homeowners Association or by another City-approved funding mechanism, such as contributing funds to a Lighting and Landscaping District, if formed.

40. I
nterpretive Panel : The Applicant shall create and install an interpretative panel along the Bay Trail, prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy. The design of the interpretative panel shall be done in collaboration with Trails for Richmond Action Committee ( TRAC) and shall be consistent with the design of Bay Trail interpretative panels installed along the Bay Trail in Richmond.

41. G
round Water & Runoff : Ground water and/or stormwater runoff from the Project shall not be allowed to flow from the site across the Bay Trail’s shoulder or pavement.

42. B ay Trail Construction. The design of the Bay Trail will be reviewed by the City for conformity with applicable engineering standards before construction permits are issued, including paving thickness, DG thickness and compaction, drainage, root barriers, and header boards.

739

Page No: 10 of 12

43. Bay Trail Landscaping. Landscaping adjacent to the Bay Trail shall be non- spreading to minimize or avoid plants encroaching upon trail shoulders.

44. Tie-in to Brickyard Cove Road : The Applicant shall seal the manhole and cut back the pipe in the channel when they tie in to the existing main on Brickyard Cove Road.

45. Co mpliance with Municipal Regional Permit : The Project shall comply with all Municipal Regional Permit C.3 requirements.

46. D rain Inlets and Catch Basins: The Project shall retrofit all existing and new drain inlets and catch basins on- site and adjacent offsite with full -trash capture devices per RMC

12.22.090(a). The Applicant shall include detail s of the chosen device on construction drawings and indicate the locations where they will be installed. As part of the SWCP the project shall be listed in the text for the trash inserts within the “Source Control Measures” and Section VI “Stormwater Facility Maintenance” Section of the SWCP.

47. O&M Plan and Agreement: The Applicant shall s ubmit an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan and an O&M Agreement per the City of Richmond Templates for the storm water quality facilities. After approval of the O&M Plan and Agreement by the Water Resource Recovery Department the following shall occur:

a. The property owner must sign and notarize the Agreement first.

b. Then submit it to the City along with a Legal description of the property.

c. City officials will sign and notarize the Agreement.

d. The executed Agreement is recorded with the County by the City.

e. The City will provide Property Owner a copy of the recorded Agreement.

48. Video of Storm & Sewer Pipes: The Project shall video all storm and sewer pipes on the property and up to the connection points to the City systems. The videos shall be provided to the Water Resource Recovery Department for review prior to finalizing project utility plan. In addition, video of pipes constructed shall be completed prior to occupancy of the units.

49. Cleanouts, Overflow Protection Devices, and Backflow Devices: The Project will install a two-way cleanout, overflow protection device, and a backflow device for each unit/connection. The Applicant shall coordinate number of connections with MEP consultant.

50. Storm Drain Standards : The Project shall comply with minimum storm drain standards set forth in City of Richmond Standards Plans and in the RMC. Documentation provided in support of proposed Storm Drain improvements shall include, but is not limited, to:

a. The Project shall provide as -built drawing to the City of Richmond ECIP Department for all improvements constructed onsite and off -site as part of the project. The as-built drawings must be stamped by the engineer of record for the project.
740

Page No: 11 of 12

b. The Project shall comply with the City’s Storm drain design standards in RMC Section 15.08.570. Storm Drain Design Criteria shall follow the City of Richmond’s RMC “§12.44.060(f) - Design standards and grading regulations (Regulations for Drainage).

51. C.3 Standards and BMPs: The Project shall conform to the latest C3 standards and Best Management Practices (BMPs).

52. W ater Supply : An approved on-site water supply capable of supplying the required fire flow for on-site fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings are constructed. When any portion of a building is in excess of 150 feet from a water supply on a public street, as measured by an approved route around the exterior of the building, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow shall be provided when required by the Fire Marshal.

53. F ire Hydrant & Mains : Fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying 2,500 gallons per minute @ 20 p.s.i. residual pressure shall be provided in approved locations. On-site fire hydrants shall be located so vehicle travel is no greater than 300 ft. between hydrants. Fire hydrants shall be installed by the Applicant and made serviceable prior to any combustible building materials being delivered or stored on the site and during the time of construction. There shall be no more than 300 feet between public/private fire hydrants located along the public/private street.

54. A ccess Roads: Access roads with a minimum unobstructed width of 20 feet shall be provided to the front and rear of structures. A minimum vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches shall be provided. Access roads shall be engineered to support the imposed load of ladder truck apparatus which weigh 35 tons and shall be designed per the City Public Work's Department Standards. An access road shall be provided to within 150 feet of all exterior walls of the first floor of the building/s. The route of the access road shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.

55. F ire Access During Construction: Every building shall be accessible to Fire Department apparatus by way of all-weather access roadways during the time of construction. These roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 20' and shall be required to have a minimum 'first lift' of pavement applied which shall support the imposed load of a fire apparatus which is typically 37 tons. The Applicant shall be required to provide the Fire Marshal with a site plan showing the location, width, grades, and cross section of the proposed access roads to be used during construction. Permits shall not be issued and combustible construction shall n ot be allowed on the site until this site plan is reviewed and approved and stamped by the Fire Department.

56. F ire Lanes and No Parking Zones : The Fire Marshal shall identify on the final site development plans all Fire Lanes and areas where parking shall be restricted. The location of these lanes, si gnage, and curb painting shall be determined at the sole discretion of the Fire Marshal.

57. A utomatic Sprinkler System : Subject to the review and approval of the Fire Marshal, an Automatic Fire Sprinkler System shall be installed in accordance with N.F.P.A. 13R. Any 741

Page No: 12 of 12

fire sprinkler system with over twenty-five (25) heads shall be monitored for water flow by a central station approved by the Fire Marshal.

58. Signal Devices: When multiple control valves and Fire Department Connections (F.D.C. ) are installed in close proximity to one another, a signal device shall be installed on each (F.D.C.) which will be audible or visual upon activation to clearly define which system has specifically been activated. The type of signal device shall be approved by the Fire Marshal.

59. M anual Fire Alarm System : A Manual Fire Alarm System, including a fire alarm control panel and all other associated equipment and devices according to the applicable standards published by N.F.P.A. shall be installed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal.

The fire alarm panel shall clearly identify the location of the specific alarm within the building. Codes to silence the alarm system shall be provided within the fire alarm panel or Knox Box. Plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation.

60. Loc ation of Portable Fire Extinguishers : The Fire Marshal shall approve the location, number, and sizes of all portable fire extinguishers prior to the issuance of any building permits.

61. Co mpliance with NFPA : All fire protection systems including, but not necessarily limited to, fire sprinkler systems , fire alarm systems, and fixed fire extinguishing systems must comply with the most recent adopted standards published by the National Fire Protection Association , (NFPA), except where specifically amended modified by Fire Department policy or ordinance.

62. Re view of Fire System Plans : Plans and specifications for the installation of any new fire protection and/or detection systems or any modification to an existing system shall be submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval prior to installation. This includes all underground civil plans pertaining to all on-site fire protection.

63. Re view Private Fire System Plans: All detailed plans and specifications for private fire protection and or detection systems shall be submitted separately to the Fire Marshal for review and approval. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building p ermits, the applicant shall integrate the approved plans for fire protection and detection systems into the plans submitted to the Community Development Department for all civil improvements.

64. F ire and Building Code Changes : The Project shall be subject to any Fire and Building code changes effective January 1, 2023.

65. T rash Enclosures : All dumpsters or trash containers with an individual capacity of 1.5 cubic yards or more shall not be stored in buildings or placed within five (5) feet of combustible walls, openings, or combustible roof eave lines unless protected by an automatic sprinkler system approved by the Fire Marshal.

66. The streets used to bring dirt into the site between Brickyard Cove Road and Interstate 580 on-ramps shall be cleaned with a street sweeper on a daily basis where mud or dirt are visible.
742

Page No: 13 of 12

67. The project applicant shall coordinate emergency ingress and egress with the Richmond Police Department and Richmond Fire Department to ensure adequate access during construction and grading activities.

68. City staff and applicant shall work together with the BNSF Railroad to minimize blockages at the rail crossings near the project site during construction. 743

C O V E R S H E E T

D E S I G N R E V I E W P E R M I T

B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R E S I D E N T I A L P R O J E C T

R I C H M O N D , C A L I F O R N I A
0 0 50 10025
SCALE: 1" = 50'-0"
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a
B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 2 9 . 2 2
J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_COVER SHEET 1.DWG
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7
CS
GENERAL NOTES:

1. OWNERPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION 245 MARKET STREET, N10A, ROOM 1015
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94177

2. APPLICANT:REPUBLIC URBAN PROPERTIES
84 WEST SANTA CLARA STREET, SUITE 600
SAN JOSE, CA 95113
TEL: (408)292-1601
CONTACT: MELISSA DURKIN

3. CIVIL ENGINEER;RUGGERI-JENSEN-AZAR
4690 CHABOT DRIVE, SUITE 200
PLEASANTON, CA 94588
TEL: (925)227-9100
CONTACT: DAVID TERHUNE

4. ARCHITECT:BASSENIAN LAGONI
2031 ORCHARD DRIVE, SUITE 100
TEL: (949)553-9100
CONTACT: CINDY TEALE

5. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: HMH
1570 OAKLAND ROAD
SAN JOSE, CA 95131
TEL: (669)295-2303
CONTACT: SHAWN TAYLOR
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LAND AS DESCRIBED IN BOOK 1324 OR 291 (PTR TRACT ONE - PARCEL ONE), AND

THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRAND PER
DOCUMENT 2019-0199690 (PTR TRACT TWO - PARCEL
TWO), APN 560-340-039
APN: 560-340-043-2 & 560-340-039
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DESIGNATION:

MUILTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-1
TOTAL HOMES:94
RECREATION CENTER: 1
GROSS SITE AREA: ± 6.00 ACRES
GROSS DENSITY: ± 15.6 HOMES/ACRE
NET SITE AREA: ± 6.00 ACRES
TOTAL BUILDING AREA:
± 205,594 SQ. FT.

FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.786
Exhibit C-1
LOT 2
LOT 4
LOT 6
LOT 8
LOT B
LOT C
LOT A
LOT 1
LOT 3
LOT 5
LOT 7
LOT 10
LOT 12
LOT 14
LOT 16
LOT 18
LOT D
LOT 9
LOT 11
LOT 13
LOT 15
LOT 17
LOT 19
744

R E N D E R I N G
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_COVER SHEET 2.DWG
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 R1
745

S T R E E T S C E N E
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_COVER SHEET 3.DWG
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 R2
746
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
R3
747
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DR 4 S I T E C R O S S S E C T I O N S

NOT TO SCALE
748
SITE SUMMARY:PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: THAT CERTAIN PORTION OF LAND AS DESCRIBED INBOOK 1324 OR 291 (PTR TRACT ONE - PARCEL ONE),AND THAT PORTION OF LAND DESCRIBED IN GRANDPER DOCUMENT 2019-0199690 (PTR TRACT TWO -PARCEL TWO), APN 560-340-039APN: 560-340-043-2 & 560-340-039GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: MR (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL)ZONING DESIGNATION: MUILTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RM-1TOTAL HOMES: 94RECREATION CENTER: 1 GROSS SITE AREA: ± 6.00 ACRESGROSS DENSITY: ± 15.6 HOMES/ACRENET SITE AREA: ± 6.00 ACRESTOTAL BUILDING AREA: ± 205,594 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA RATIO: 0.786 RESIDENTIAL PARKING PROVIDED:PROJECT SUMMARY:3-STORY TYPE V-B RESIDENTIAL R-3 TOWNHOME,RECREATION CENTER A-3, BUSINESS B, UTILITY USHEET INDEX:CSCOVER SHEETR1RENDERINGR2STREETSCENER3SITE PLANR4SITE CROSS SECTIONSPD 1PROJECT DATA AND SHEET INDEXPD 2PROJECT DATA AND SHEET INDEXCIVIL:TM-0COVER SHEETTM-1SECTIONS & DETAILSTM-2EXISTING CONDITIONS PLANTM-3PRELIMINARY LOTTING PLANTM-4PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND CONTEXTUAL MAPTM-5PRELIMINARY GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANTM-6PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONSTM-7PRELIMINARY GRADING SECTIONSTM-8PRELIMINARY UTILITY PLANTM-9PRELIMINARY STORMWATER TREATMENT PLANARCHITECTURAL:A1.1BUILDING A - 1ST FLOOR & 2ND FLOORA1.2BUILDING A - 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA1.3BUILDING A - FRONT ELEVATIONA1.4BUILDING A - REAR ELEVATIONSA1.5BUILDING A - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA1.6BUILDING A - BUILDING SECTIONSA2.1BUILDING B - 1ST FLOOR & 2ND FLOORA2.2BUILDING B - 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA2.3BUILDING B - FRONT ELEVATIONA2.4BUILDING B - REAR ELEVATIONA2.5BUILDING B - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA2.6BUILDING B - BUILDING SECTIONSA3.1BUILDING C - 1ST FLOOR & 2ND FLOORA3.2BUILDING C - 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA3.3BUILDING C - FRONT ELEVATIONA3.4BUILDING C - REAR ELEVATIONA3.5BUILDING C - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA3.6BUILDING C - BUILDING SECTIONSA4.1BUILDING D - 1ST FLOOR & 2ND FLOOR PLANA4.2BUILDING D - 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA4.3BUILDING D - FRONT ELEVATIONA4.4BUILDING D - REAR ELEVATIONA4.5BUILDING D - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA4.6BUILDING D - BUILDING SECTIONS PARKING SUMMARY:PARKING PROVIDED:GARAGE SPACES 188 STALLSGUEST PARKING:ONSITE STREET 18 STALLSRECREATION CENTER - UNCOVERED 4 STALLSRECREATION CENTER - ACCESSIBLE 2 STALLSTOTAL PROVIDED 212 STALLS INCLUDING 2 ACCESSIBLE STALLS INCLUDING 2 EV STALLS TOTAL205634RECREATIONCENTER162516251 TOTAL # OFBLDG. GEXTENDEDPORCH11128511285TOTAL # OFBLDG. G11124311243TOTAL # OFBLDG. F31229136873TOTAL # OFBLDG. E11331913319TOTAL # OFBLDG. D41021540860TOTAL # OFBLDG. C41084443376TOTAL # OFBLDG. B3822324669TOTAL # OFBLDG. A2887917758# OFBLDG.GROSS S.F.PER BLDG.TOTALGROSS S.F.ON SITE SHEET INDEX:A5.1BUILDING E - 1ST FLOORA5.2BUILDING E - 2ND FLOORA5.3BUILDING E - 3RD FLOORA5.4BUILDING E - ROOF PLANA5.5BUILDING E - FRONT ELEVATIONA5.6BUILDING E - REAR ELEVATIONSA5.7BUILDING E - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA5.8BUILDING E - BUILDING SECTIONSA6.1BUILDING F - 1ST FLOORA6.2BUILDING F - 2ND FLOORA6.3BUILDING F - 3RD FLOORA6.4BUILDING F - ROOF PLANA6.5BUILDING F - FRONT ELEVATIONA6.6BUILDING F - REAR ELEVATIONA6.7BUILDING F - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA6.8BUILDING F - BUILDING SECTIONSA7.1 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 1ST FLOOR & 2ND PLANA7.2 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA7.3 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 FRONT ELEVATIONA7.4 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 REAR ELEVATIONSA7.5 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA7.6 ABUILDING G - BLDG #1 BUILDING SECTIONSA7.1 BBUILDING G - 1ST FLOOR & 2ND PLANA7.2 BBUILDING G - 3RD FLOOR & ROOF PLANA7.3 BBUILDING G - BLDG #4 FRONT ELEVATIONA7.4 BBUILDING G - BLDG #4 REAR ELEVATIONSA7.5 BBUILDING G - BLDG #4 LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA7.6 BBUILDING G - BLDG #4 BUILDING SECTIONSA8.1RECREATION CENTER - 1ST FLOOR PLANA8.2RECREATION CENTER - LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLANA8.3RECREATION CENTER - ROOF PLANA8.4RECREATION CENTER - FRONT ELEVATIONA8.5RECREATION CENTER - FRONT & REAR ELEVATIONSA8.6RECREATION CENTER - LEFT & RIGHT ELEVATIONSA8.7RECREATION CENTER - BUILDING SECTIONSLANDSCAPE:L 1LANDSCAPE PLANL 2TREE EVALUATION SUMMARYL 3LANDSCAPE PLANL 4BAY TRAIL ENLARGEMENTL 5ENTRY MONUMENT ENLARGEMENTL 6FRONTAGE LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENTL 7TYPICAL LANDSCAPE PASEO ENLARGEMENTL 8EVA LANDSCAPE DESIGN ENLARGEMENTL 9PLANTING PALETTEL 10PLANTING DETAILSL 11HYDROZONE PLANL 12IRRIGATION DETAILSL 13IRRIGATION DETAILSL 14LIGHTING AND SIGN PLANL 15ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN DETAILELECTRICAL:E 1PHOTOMETRICS AND LIGHTING SCHEDULE RECREATIONCENTER99'-11"45'-10.5"3,518 S.F. BLDG. GEXTENDEDPORCH116'-11"38'-6"4,098 S.F.BLDG. G116'-11"35'-0"3,816 S.F.BLDG. F149'-3"29'-10"4,192 S.F.BLDG. E154'-3"32'-0"4,569 S.F. BLDG. D127'-11"29'-10"3,526 S.F. BLDG. C126'-7"32'-0"3,745 S.F. BLDG. B105'-9"29'-10"2,845 S.F. BLDG. A105'-7"32'-0"3,054 S.F.LENGTHWIDTHFOOTPRINTS.F.

P R O J E C T D A T A
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 2 9 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_PROJECT DATA.DWG
Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 PD 1
749
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT. 23 SQ. FT.23 SQ. FT.

STORAGE36 SQ. FT.
105'-7"
29'-0"3'-0"6'-0"
UNIT 1UNIT 2
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
32'-0"

UTILITY

UTILITY
3'-0"
PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
99'-7"
UNIT 7
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

UTILITY

UTILITY
PORCH9'-1" CLG.UP17 R UP17 RUP17 R UP17 RR.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T. STORAGE200 CU. FT.

W/H
W/HW/HW/H STORAGE79 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.

R.O.T.

STORAGE13 SQ. FT.STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE13 SQ. FT.

UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING12090X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 7
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120105X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R
UP17 RUP17 RUP17 RUP17 R
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1154 SQ. FT.PORCH154 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE479 SQ. FT.TOTAL1655 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR790 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR725 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR139 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 95 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1655 SQ. FT.UNIT 7 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG A FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G AF i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
A 1.1
750
UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109107X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM153132X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 391099X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2113113X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DW/D
UNIT 7
DN17 RDN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109107X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 1
PRIMARYBEDROOM1410147X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 391199X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2102103X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1154 SQ. FT.PORCH154 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE479 SQ. FT.TOTAL1655 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR790 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR725 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR139 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 95 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1655 SQ. FT.UNIT 7BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE ROOF PLAN3/16"=1'-0" PITCH: 10:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

4.5:12
6:126:12
6:126:128:12
6:126:12PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG A FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G AT h i r d & R o o f P l a n3RD FLOOR

ROOF PLAN
A 1.2
751
S C H E M E 1
A 1.3
752
A 1.4
753
A 1.5
754
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG A SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G AS e c t i o n sSECTION A-AA 1.6

SECTION B-B
755
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1595 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR674 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR719 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1595 SQ. FT.UNIT 6 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT.22 SQ. FT.STORAGE44 SQ. FT.

STORAGE42 SQ. FT.
39 SQ. FT.
105'-9"
29'-0"±10"5'-6"
UNIT 4UNIT 5
33'-6"UTILITY

UTILITY
1'-6"
99'-5"
UNIT 6
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R UP17 R
±10"
3'-0"
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
UNIT 4
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R

UTILITY
T.R.O.

R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T. LAUNDRY
W/H
W/HW/HW/H STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.

GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.

STORAGE351 CU. FT.

STORAGE10 SQ. FT. STORAGE10 SQ. FT.44 SQ. FT.

DECK 110'-1" CLG.

KIT.10'-1" CLG.

ENTRY10'-1" CLG.

KIT.10'-1" CLG.

LIVING150156X10'-1" CLG.

DECK 110'-1" CLG.

PDR.10'-1" CLG.

ENTRY10'-1" CLG.

UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6
DN17 R
UP17 R UP17 R
DECK 110'-1" CLG.

KIT.10'-1" CLG.LIVING /DINING1732311X10'-1" CLG.

PDR.10'-1" CLG.

ENTRY10'-1" CLG.

UNIT 4
UP17 R
DECK 110'-1" CLG.

KIT.10'-1" CLG.

LIVING214160X10'-1" CLG.PDR.10'-1" CLG.

ENTRY10'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DINING110100X10'-1" CLG.

DECK 210'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DN17 RLIVING /DINING1732311X10'-1" CLG.

PDR.10'-1" CLG.

UP17 R

HOMEMANAGEMENT/ STORAGE
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG B FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G B 4 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LF i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
A 2.1
756
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1595 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR674 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR719 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1595 SQ. FT.UNIT 6 PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 2100110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DPRIMARYBEDROOM114120X9'-1" CLG.

W/D
UNIT 4UNIT 5UNIT 6
PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.

W/D
UNIT 4
DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R
BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM154113X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 210090X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 3107139X9'-1" CLG.

ROOF PLANPITCH: 7:12 RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT CONCRETE TILE U.N.O.

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:126:12
6:126:12
6:126:12
6:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG B FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G B 4 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LT h i r d & R o o f P l a n3RD FLOOR A 2.2
757
S C H E M E 2
A 2.3
758
A 2.4
759
A 2.5
760
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG B SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G BS e c t i o n sSECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 2.6
761
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.

STORAGE66 SQ. FT.
43 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.
126'-7"
9'-7"3'-0"6'-0"
UNIT 1UNIT 2
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
32'-0"

UTILITY

UTILITY
22'-5"PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
120'-7"
UNIT 3
GARAGE224204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

UTILITY

UTILITY
PORCH9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
UP17 R
UP17 R UP17 R
UNIT 1
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
R.T.O.

R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T.

W/HW/H
STORAGE385 CU. FT.

STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT. W/HW/HW/H STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE13 SQ. FT.STORAGE13 SQ. FT.

UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING12090X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 3
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING176180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING138156X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
DN17 R
UP17 R
DN17 R DN17 R
UP17 R
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
DN17 R
DN17 R
5'-0"
6'-0"2'-0"
2'-0"
UP17 R UP17 R UP17 R
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 176 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE522 SQ. FT.TOTAL1758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR750 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR791 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 385 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =122 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1758 SQ. FT.UNIT 3 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG C FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
F i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
B U I L D I N G C 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 3.1 762
UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM152132X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 3100910X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2113100X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DW/D
UNIT 3
DN17 RDN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN18 R
UNIT 1
PRIMARYBEDROOM121140X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 311097X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 21081110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 1
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 176 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE522 SQ. FT.TOTAL1758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR750 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR791 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 385 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =122 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1758 SQ. FT.UNIT 3BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE ROOF PLAN3/16"=1'-0" PITCH: 4:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE6:12PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE 6:12
6:126:12 6:126:12
8:12
8:12
6:12PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG C FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T h i r d & R o o f P l a n3RD FLOOR

ROOF PLAN
B U I L D I N G C 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 3.2 763
A 3.3
764
A 3.4
765
A 3.5
766
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG C SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G CS e c t i o n sSECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 3.6
767
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 165 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1603 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR677 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR724 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1603 SQ. FT.UNIT 8 STORAGE42 SQ. FT.
39 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT.22 SQ. FT.STORAGE44 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT. 127'-11"
29'-0"±10"5'-6"
UNIT 4UNIT 5
33'-6"UTILITY

UTILITY
1'-6"
121'-7"
UNIT 8
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R UP17 R
±10"
3'-0"
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
UNIT 4
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R

UTILITY

UTILITY
UTILITY T.R.O.

R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T.

STORAGE351 CU. FT.

W/H

W/HW/HW/HW/H
STORAGE200 CU. FT. STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.LAUNDRY STORAGE10 SQ. FT.44 SQ. FT. STORAGE10 SQ. FT. STORAGE10 SQ. FT.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150156X9'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

HOMEMANAGEMENT /STORAGE
UNIT 4UNIT 5 UNIT 8
DN17 R
UP17 R UP17 R
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 4
UP17 R
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 4
UP17 R KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING214160X9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UP17 R
DINING110100X9'-1" CLG.

DECK 29'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DN17 R
DN17 R
PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING90160X9'-1" CLG.

R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG D FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G D 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LF i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n1ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
A 4.1
77 768
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 165 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1603 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR677 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR724 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1603 SQ. FT.UNIT 8 PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 2100110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DPRIMARYBEDROOM114120X9'-1" CLG.

W/D
UNIT 4UNIT 5 UNIT 8
PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.

W/D
UNIT 4
PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.

W/D
UNIT 4
DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R
BEDROOM 210090X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 3107139X9'-1" CLG.BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM154113X9'-1" CLG.
6:126:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE
ROOF PLANPITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: COMPOSITE SHINGLE ROOF 6:126:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:126:126:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG D FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G D 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LT h i r d & R o o f P l a n3RD FLOOR A 4.2
77 769
S C H E M E 4
A 4.3
770
A 4.4
771
A 4.5
772
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG D SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G DS e c t i o n sSECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 4.6
773
STORAGE66 SQ. FT.
43 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE45 SQ. FT.
154'-3"6'-0" 148'-3"
9'-7"3'-0"
UNIT 1UNIT 2
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
32'-0"

UTILITY

UTILITY
22'-5"PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 3
GARAGE224204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
UP17 R
UP17 R UP17 R
UNIT 1
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
R.T.O.

GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UTILITY UTILITY
O.R. ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
UNIT 2R.O.T. R.O.T. R.O.T. R.O.T.

T. STORAGE200 CU. FT.

STORAGE385 CU. FT.

STORAGE200 CU. FT.

W/H
W/HW/HW/HW/HW/HSTORAGE200 CU. FT. STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 176 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE522 SQ. FT.TOTAL1758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR750 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR791 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 385 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =122 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1758 SQ. FT.UNIT 3 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG E FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
F i r s t F l o o r P l a n
1ST FLOOR
B U I L D I N G E 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 5.1 774
STORAGE13 SQ. FT.STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE16 SQ. FT. STORAGE16 SQ. FT.STORAGE13 SQ. FT.

STORAGE13 SQ. FT.

UNIT 2
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING12090X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING12090X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 3
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING176180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING138156X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
DN17 R
UP17 R
DN17 R DN17 R
UP17 R
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120106X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 1
DN17 R
DN17 R
5'-0"
6'-0"2'-0"
2'-0"
UP17 R UP17 R UP17 R
UP17 R
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 176 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE522 SQ. FT.TOTAL1758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR750 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR791 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 385 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =122 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1758 SQ. FT.UNIT 3 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG E FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n
2ND FLOOR
B U I L D I N G E 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 5.2 775
UNIT 2
BEDROOM 3100910X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 2113100X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UNIT 1UNIT 2
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM152132X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 3100910X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2113100X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 3
DN17 RDN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

DN18 R
UNIT 1
PRIMARYBEDROOM121140X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 311097X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 21081110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109108X9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UNIT 1
PRIMARYBEDROOM152132X9'-1" CLG.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 242 SQ. FT.DECK 164 SQ. FT.PORCH42 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE452 SQ. FT.TOTAL1423 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR600 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR671 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR152 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 83 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1423 SQ. FT.UNIT 1 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1218 SQ. FT.PORCH166 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE455 SQ. FT.TOTAL1636 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR788 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR694 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR153 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 80 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1636 SQ. FT.UNIT 2 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 176 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE522 SQ. FT.TOTAL1758 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR750 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR791 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR217 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 385 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =122 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1758 SQ. FT.UNIT 3 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG E FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T h i r d F l o o r P l a n
3RD FLOOR
B U I L D I N G E 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 5.3 776
ROOF PLAN3/16"=1'-0" PITCH: 4:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE FLAT TILE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
6:126:12 6:126:12
8:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
6:126:12
6:126:12 6:126:12
8:12

ROOF LINEBUILDINGWALL LINE
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG E FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
R o o f P l a n

ROOF PLAN
B U I L D I N G E 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 5.4 777
S C H E M E 1
A 5.5
778
A 5.6
779
A 5.7
780
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG E SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G ES e c t i o n sSECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 5.8
781
22 SQ. FT.

STORAGE44 SQ. FT.
22 SQ. FT.STORAGE44 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT. 22 SQ. FT.STORAGE52 SQ. FT.

STORAGE42 SQ. FT.
39 SQ. FT.
149'-3"
29'-0"±10"
5'-6"
33'-6"1'-6"
142'-11"
UNIT 6

UTILITY

UTILITY
±10"
3'-0"
T.R.

GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
UNIT 5

UTILITY
UNIT 4UNIT 5

UTILITY

UTILITY
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R UP17 RR.O. R.O. R.O. R.O.

UNIT 4
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
UNIT 4
GARAGE2142110X9'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
R.T.O.

LAUNDRY
O.

T.T.T.T.

STORAGE200 CU. FT.W/H
W/H
W/HSTORAGE200 CU. FT.W/HSTORAGE200 CU. FT.W/HSTORAGE200 CU. FT.W/H STORAGE200 CU. FT.

STORAGE351 CU. FT.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1595 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR674 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR719 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1595 SQ. FT.UNIT 6 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG F FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
F i r s t F l o o r P l a n
1ST FLOOR
B U I L D I N G F 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LA 6.1 782
44 SQ. FT.
44 SQ. FT.STORAGE10 SQ. FT. STORAGE10 SQ. FT. STORAGE10 SQ. FT.

UNIT 4UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 4UNIT 4UNIT 5
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150156X9'-1" CLG.

DECK 110'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

HOMEMANAGEMENT
DN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

UP17 R
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150156X9'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UP17 R UP17 R
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING /DINING214160X9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING214160X9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
UP17 R
DINING110100X9'-1" CLG.

DECK 29'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.DECK 19'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
DN17 R
DN17 R
PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING98126X9'-1" CLG.DINING90160X9'-1" CLG.

DINING90160X9'-1" CLG.

HOMEMANAGEMENT/ STORAGE
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1595 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR674 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR719 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1595 SQ. FT.UNIT 6 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG F FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n
2ND FLOOR
B U I L D I N G F 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LA 6.2 783
UNIT 4UNIT 5 UNIT 6UNIT 4UNIT 4UNIT 5
BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 2100110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM114120X9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R
PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.

BEDROOM 2100110X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM114120X9'-1" CLG. PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM160124X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2124110X9'-1" CLG.

DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R DN17 R
BEDROOM 210090X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 3107139X9'-1" CLG.BA. 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.PRIMARYBEDROOM154113X9'-1" CLG.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE496 SQ. FT.TOTAL1413 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR601 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR637 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR175 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 84 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1413 SQ. FT.UNIT 4 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 276 SQ. FT.DECK 143 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE444 SQ. FT.TOTAL1521 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR699 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR633 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR189 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE =110 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1521 SQ. FT.UNIT 5 NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 175 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE501 SQ. FT.TOTAL1595 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR674 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR719 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR202 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 351 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 81 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATH1595 SQ. FT.UNIT 6 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG F FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T h i r d F l o o r P l a n
3RD FLOOR
B U I L D I N G F 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LA 6.3 784

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE
ROOF PLANPITCH: 4:12 RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: FLAT CONCRETE TILE U.N.O. 6:126:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:126:12
6:126:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG F FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
R o o f P l a n

ROOF PLAN
B U I L D I N G F 6 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - D O W N H I L LA 6.4 785
S C H E M E 2
A 6.5
786
A 6.6
787
A 6.7
788
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG F SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G FS e c t i o n sSECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 6.8
789
STORAGE44 SQ. FT.STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. 116'-11"6'-0"
UNIT 9UNIT 10
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
110'-11"
UP18 R UP18 R
UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG. PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.
9'-7"3'-0"38'-6"

UTILITY

UTILITY
23'-5"PORCH9'-1" CLG.
8'-6"
5'-6" UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
PORCH9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

R.O.
8'-6"
UP17 RUP18 R
T.R.O.T.R.O.T.R.O.T.R.T.
-6"0"
SLOPE
SLOPE
W/HW/HW/HW/HW/HO.

STORAGE15 SQ. FT.STORAGE13 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT.

UNIT 9UNIT 10
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120100X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG. DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DN18 R
UP17 R
DN18 R DN18 R DN17 R4'-8"
UP17 R UP17 R UP17 R DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DN17 R4'-8"
UP17 R
STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 265 SQ. FT.DECK 165 SQ. FT.PORCH119 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE477 SQ. FT.TOTAL1464 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR622 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR693 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 59 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1464 SQ. FT.UNIT 9A - ACCNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1190 SQ. FT.PORCH172 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE481 SQ. FT.TOTAL1682 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR817 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR716 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 57 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1682 SQ. FT.UNIT 10A - ACC R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
F i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n a t B u i l d i n g # 11ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
B U I L D I N G G 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L L - W I T H E X T E N D E D P O R C HA 7.1A 790
UNIT 9UNIT 10
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2113110X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 RDN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
PRIMARYBEDROOM153132X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.W/D
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 265 SQ. FT.DECK 165 SQ. FT.PORCH119 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE477 SQ. FT.TOTAL1464 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR622 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR693 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 59 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1464 SQ. FT.UNIT 9A - ACCNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1190 SQ. FT.PORCH172 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE481 SQ. FT.TOTAL1682 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR817 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR716 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 57 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1682 SQ. FT.UNIT 10A - ACC ROOF PLAN3/16"=1'-0" PITCH: 4:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
6:126:12 6:126:12
8:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G FLOOR PLAN.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T h i r d & R o o f P l a n a t B u i l d i n g # 13RD FLOORB U I L D I N G G 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L L - W I T H E X T E N D E D P O R C HA 7.2A 791
S C H E M E 1
A 7.3A
792
A 7.4A
793
A 7.5A
794
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G SECTIONS.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G G - U P H I L L - W I T H E X T E N D E D P O R C H S e c t i o n s a t B u i l d i n g # 1SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 7.6A
795
STORAGE44 SQ. FT.STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. STORAGE44 SQ. FT. 116'-11"6'-0"
UNIT 9UNIT 10
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

PORCH9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.
110'-11"
UP18 R UP18 R
UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG. PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.PORCH9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.
9'-7"3'-0"33'-0"

UTILITY

UTILITY
23'-5"PORCH9'-1" CLG. T.R. T.R.
5'-0"
UNIT 9
GARAGE214204X9'-1" CLG.

ENTRY9'-1" CLG.UP17 R
PORCH9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

T.R.
5'-0"
UP17 RUP18 R
-6"0"
SLOPE
SLOPE
O.O.O.T.R.O.T.R.O. W/HW/HW/HW/HW/H
STORAGE15 SQ. FT.STORAGE13 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT. STORAGE15 SQ. FT.

UNIT 9UNIT 10
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150180X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120100X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.PDR.9'-1" CLG.

DECK 19'-1" CLG. DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DN18 R
UP17 R
DN18 R DN18 R DN17 R5'-0"
UP17 R UP17 R UP17 R DECK 19'-1" CLG.

KIT.9'-1" CLG.

LIVING150166X9'-1" CLG.

DINING120116X9'-1" CLG.

PDR.9'-1" CLG.

UNIT 9
DN17 R5'-0"
UP17 R
STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.STORAGE200 CU. FT.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 270 SQ. FT.DECK 190 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE477 SQ. FT.TOTAL1464 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR622 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR693 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 59 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1464 SQ. FT.UNIT 9B - ACCNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1224 SQ. FT.PORCH172 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE481 SQ. FT.TOTAL1682 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR817 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR716 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 57 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1682 SQ. FT.UNIT 10B - ACC R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G FLOOR PLAN-NO PORCH.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
F i r s t & S e c o n d F l o o r P l a n a t B u i l d i n g # 41ST FLOOR 2ND FLOOR
B U I L D I N G G 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 7.1B 796
UNIT 9UNIT 10
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 31001010X9'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2113110X9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 RDN17 R
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
PRIMARYBEDROOM153132X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.W/D
DECK 29'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBATH9'-1" CLG.

PRIMARYBEDROOM178120X9'-1" CLG.

BA. 29'-1" CLG.BEDROOM 2109118X9'-1" CLG.

W/DDN17 R
UNIT 9
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 270 SQ. FT.DECK 190 SQ. FT.PORCH70 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE477 SQ. FT.TOTAL1464 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR622 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR693 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 59 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE2 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1464 SQ. FT.UNIT 9B - ACCNOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATIONDECK 1224 SQ. FT.PORCH172 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE481 SQ. FT.TOTAL1682 SQ. FT.3RD FLOOR817 SQ. FT.2ND FLOOR716 SQ. FT.1ST FLOOR149 SQ. FT.FLOOR AREA TABLEENCLOSED STORAGE = 200 CU. FT.PERSONAL STORAGE = 57 SQ. FT.2 - CAR GARAGE3 BEDROOMS / 2.5 BATHS1682 SQ. FT.UNIT 10B - ACC ROOF PLAN3/16"=1'-0" PITCH: 4:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: CONCRETE 'S' TILE

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
6:126:12 6:126:12
8:12

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE

PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
6:12
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 \\DRONE\J_DRIVE\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G FLOOR PLAN-NO PORCH.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
T h i r d & R o o f P l a n a t B u i l d i n g # 43RD FLOORB U I L D I N G G 5 P L E X C O M P O S I T E P L A N - U P H I L LA 7.2B 797
A 7.3B
798
A 7.4B
799
A 7.5B
800
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821227\DESIGN\1227 DES_BLDG G SECTIONS - NO PORCH.DWG Copyright 2022 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 2 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
B U I L D I N G G - U P H I L LS e c t i o n s a t B u i l d i n g # 4SECTION A-A

SECTION B-B
A 7.6B
801
NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FLOOR AREA TABLEENTRY LOBBY260 SQ. FT.CLUBROOM843 SQ. FT.FITNESS827 SQ. FT.OFFICES362 SQ. FT.MAINTENANCE / STORAGE147 SQ. FT.1ST FLR. RESTROOMS277 SQ. FT.LOWER LEVEL RESTROOMS328 SQ. FT.SHOWER AREA55 SQ. FT.M.E.P. ROOM129 SQ. FT.PUMP ROOM858 SQ. FT.POOL EQUIPMENT257 SQ. FT.1ST FLR. CIRCULATION308 SQ. FT.LOWER LEVELCIRCULATION546 SQ. FT.TOTAL INDOOR AREA5,196 SQ. FT.ENTRY PORCH83 SQ. FT.OUTDOOR FIREPLACE188 SQ. FT.TERRACE726 SQ. FT.TOTAL6,193 SQ. FT.

K-4972-RSTANWELLC_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINAK-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA
CLUB ROOM290262X12'-0" CLG.HALL24854X10'-0" CLG.

DN21 R
WHEEL CHAIRLIFT ORELEVATORENTRYLOBBY156162X12'-0" CLG.

OFFICE 2102140X12'-0" CLG.

ENTRYPORCH15686X12'-0" CLG.

TERRACE516110X
DN22 RWOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOM
OFFICE 1124140X12'-0" CLG. OUTDOORFIREPLACE2101810X
MAIL66140X12'-0" CLG.

O.R.W.

R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821277\DESIGN\1277 DES_REC CENTER FLR.DWG
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 7 70 248 R E C R E A T I O N C E N T E RF l o o r P l a n

FIRST FLOOR
A8.1
802
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4972-RSTANWELLC_URINALSVITREOUS CHINA
K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA K-4301HIGHCRESTC_TOILETSVITREOUS CHINA MAINTENANCE /STORAGE13696X9'-1" CLG.

LOWER LEVELHALL34054X10'-0" CLG.

WOMEN'SRESTROOMMEN'SRESTROOM
UP21 R
FITNESSROOM300258X9'-1" CLG.

M.E.P /ELEVATOR EQUIP.ROOM90124X9'-1" CLG. POOLEQUIPMENT212112X9'-1" CLG.SHOWER UP22 R
99'-11"
45'-10 1/2"
40'-4 1/2"

PLANTERS

POOL FENCE

PLANTERS

WHEEL CHAIRLIFT ORELEVATOR
DIESELSTORAGE7252X9'-1" CLG.

PUMP ROOM356227X9'-1" CLG.

GENERATOR96138X9'-1" CLG.

NOTE: SQUARE FOOTAGE MAY VARY DUE TO METHOD OF CALCULATION FLOOR AREA TABLEENTRY LOBBY260 SQ. FT.CLUBROOM843 SQ. FT.FITNESS827 SQ. FT.OFFICES362 SQ. FT.MAINTENANCE / STORAGE147 SQ. FT.1ST FLR. RESTROOMS277 SQ. FT.LOWER LEVEL RESTROOMS328 SQ. FT.SHOWER AREA55 SQ. FT.M.E.P. ROOM129 SQ. FT.PUMP ROOM858 SQ. FT.POOL EQUIPMENT257 SQ. FT.1ST FLR. CIRCULATION308 SQ. FT.LOWER LEVELCIRCULATION546 SQ. FT.TOTAL INDOOR AREA5,196 SQ. FT.ENTRY PORCH83 SQ. FT.OUTDOOR FIREPLACE188 SQ. FT.TERRACE726 SQ. FT.TOTAL6,193 SQ. FT.

LOWER LEVEL
A8.2
803
ROOF PLAN1/4"=1'-0" PITCH: 8:12 U.N.O.RAKE: 6"EAVE: 12"ROOF MATERIAL: COMPOSITE SHINGLES

BUILDING WALL LINEROOF LINE
6:12
4:12
4:12
4:124:124:124:12 PROPOSEDSOLAR ZONEPROPOSEDSOLAR ZONE
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821277\DESIGN\1277 DES_REC CENTER ROOF.DWG Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 7 70 248 R E C R E A T I O N C E N T E RR o o f P l a nA8.3
804
± 38'-0"
1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2
805
A8.5
± 38'-0"
8'-0"10'-1"
HDR. HT.PLATE HT.

FINISHED GRADE
± 38'-0"
OVERALL BLDG. HT. AT HIGHEST RIDGE
8'-0"11'-1"
PLATE HT.HDR. HT.
1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2
806
8'-0"10'-1"
HDR. HT.PLATE HT.

FINISHED GRADE
± 38'-0"
OVERALL BLDG. HT. AT HIGHEST RIDGE
8'-0"11'-1"
PLATE HT.HDR. HT.
8'-0"10'-1"
HDR. HT.PLATE HT.

FINISHED GRADE
± 38'-0"
OVERALL BLDG. HT. AT HIGHEST RIDGE
8'-0"11'-1"
PLATE HT.HDR. HT.
1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2
807
8'-0"10'-1"
HDR. HT.PLATE HT.

FINISHED GRADE
± 39'-1"
OVERALL BLDG. HT. AT HIGHEST RIDGE
8'-0"11'-1"
PLATE HT.HDR. HT.

LOWER LEVELHALL FITNESSROOM PUMPROOM

CLUB ROOMHALL ENTRYLOBBY OUTDOORFIREPLACE

FITNESSROOM

ENTRYLOBBYENTRYPORCH TERRACE
8'-0"10'-1"
HDR. HT.PLATE HT.

FINISHED GRADE
± 34'-2"
T.O.R
8'-0"11'-1"
PLATE HT.HDR. HT.

R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i aB R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D1 1 . 0 7 . 2 2 J:\GROUP21\86821277\DESIGN\1277 DES_REC CENTER SECT.DWG Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 2 7 7 0 3612 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
R E C R E A T I O N B U I L D I N GF r o n t & R e a r S e a s i d e R a n c h S e c t i o n sA8.7 808
1 2
3 4
6 5
7 8
9 10
11 12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
2021
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 2930
31 32
33 34
35 36
37 38
39 40
41 42
45 44
46 43
47 48
49 50
51 60
52 53
54 5556
5758
59 R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a
11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7

B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A D
L 1

T R E E S U R V E Y P L A N
0 30 6015
SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"

TREE REMOVAL NARRATIVE

MOST TREES ARE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED BASED ON THE PROPOSED CUT AND FILL GRADING NEEDED TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORING SITES AND ALLOW ACCESSIBILITY TO SPECIFIC AREAS OF THE SITE. THE PROPOSED

GRADING IMPROVEMENT TAKES ADVANTAGE OF VIEWS OF THE BAY, ALLOWS FOR POSITIVE STORM WATER FLOW FOR

TREATMENT AND BALANCES THE GRADE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORING SITES, MAKING UP ANY OFFSET WITH RETAINING WALLS.

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

TREE TO BE REMOVED

TREE PROTECTION LEGEND

DESCRIPTIONSYMBOL
Exhibit C-2
809
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 2 T R E E E V A L U A T I O N S U M M A R Y S C A L E : A S N O T E D
810
RCTR
BBQBBQ
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 3 L A N D S C A P E P L A N 0 306015SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"

LANDSCAPE LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMESYMBOL
ENTRY MONUMENTENLARGEMENT,SEE SHEET L5
FRONTAGE LANDSCAPEENLARGEMENT,SEE SHEET L6TYPICAL PASEOENLARGEMENT,SEE SHEET L7

PISTACHIA CHINESIS

ARBUTUS 'MARINA'

LAGERSTROEMIA INDICA

ACER PALMATUM 'BLOODGOOD'

QUERCUS AGRIFOLIACALLISTEMON CITRINUS

ACER RUBRUM 'ARMSTRONG'

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD
BIOTREATMENT, TYPICALBAY TRAIL ENLARGEMENT,SEE SHEET L4

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY A

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
BUILDING 1BUILDING 3BUILDING 5BUILDING 7BUILDING 9BUILDING 11BUILDING 13BUILDING 15BUILDING 17BUILDING 19 BUILDING 2BUILDING 4BUILDING 6BUILDING 8BUILDING 10BUILDING 12BUILDING 14BUILDING 16BUILDING 18

STREET A
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVETHE NEIGHBORHOOD LANDSCAPE SCHEME IS INSPIRED BY THE POINT RICHMOND NAUTICAL SHORELINE AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL. ALL OF THE SITEELEMENTS, MATERIALS, PLANT PALETTE, AND AMENITIES HAVE BEEN INSPIRED BY THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND CULTURE OF POINT RICHMOND.THE PLANTING SCHEME CONSISTS OF NATIVE AND ADAPTED LOW WATER USE PLANTS THAT ARE INSPIRED BY THE POINT RICHMOND SHORELINE. PLANTINGPATTERNS ARE ORGANIC TO FOLLOW THE SHORELINE AND NAUTICAL THEME. RECREATIONAL AND SOCIAL SPACE DESIGNS HAVE BEEN CREATED THROUGHTHE COMMUNITY NEEDS AND THE SURROUNDING TRAIL AND NEIGHBORHOOD. THESE SPACES OFFER ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OPPORTUNITIES SUCH ASGATHERING, EXERCISING, GARDENING, PLAY AND REST. EACH OF THESE AREAS HAVE BEEN ENVISIONED TO BE A BENEFIT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD,PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ACTIVE LIFESTYLE.

COMMON AREA LANDSCAPEBIOTREATMENT LANDSCAPE

VEHICULAR (FIRE TRUCK)RATED GRASS PAVERWITH GROUNDCOVER AESCULUS CALIFORNICAEVA LANDSCAPE DESIGNENLARGEMENT, SEE SHEETL8 811
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 4 B A Y T R A I L E N L A R G E M E N T 0 10205SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

TRAIL CROSSING SIGNS

BAY TRAIL PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DECORATIVEPAVEMENT

BIOTREATMENT

INTERPRETIVE SIGNGABION BENCH, TYPICAL
BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE AND TRAIL CROSSING SIGNS, TYP.

INTERPRETIVE SIGN

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

STREET TREE, TYPICAL

KEY MAPSTREET A

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
L5L6L7ALLEY A
L4L8

CONCEPT IMAGERY

BAY TRAIL PEDESTRIANCROSSING WITH HIGHVISIBILITY
A
A

BAY TRAIL SIGNAGESECTION A-A

STREET TREES

LANDSCAPE STRIPSHOULDERDECOMPOSEDGRANITE

SHARED USETRAIL

PLAZA WITHGABION BENCH

VEHICLE TRAVELLANE

GABION BENCH
VARIES4'-0"3'-0"12'-0"3'-0"VARIESVARIES

STREET A
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVETHE FRONT OF THE PROJECT CONNECTS TO THE LARGER SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL. THE BAY TRAIL OFFERS ACCESS TO COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL ANDRESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS; POINTS OF HISTORIC, NATURAL AND CULTURAL INTEREST; AND RECREATIONAL AREAS LIKE BEACHES, MARINAS, FISHINGPIERS,AND BOAT LAUNCHES. IN OUR DESIGN, THE TRAIL IS WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE EXPECTED FUTURE LEVELS AND TYPES OF USE, AND TOPROVIDE ADEQUATE CAPACITY IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE CONFLICTS BETWEEN TRAIL USERS AND ACCOMMODATES ALL.THE BAY TRAIL ALSO INCLUDESESSENTIAL PUBLIC AMENITIES SUCH AS BENCHES TO SIT ON WITH CLEAR AND VISIBLE SIGNAGE AT THE FRONT INTERSECTION OF THE PROJECT. AHISTORICAL PLAQUE IN FRONT OF THE BENCHES WAS INCLUDED TO DEMONSTRATE THE HISTORICAL PIECE OF POINT RICHMOND THAT USERS CAN ABSORBWHILE THEY REST AS THEY CONTINUE ALONG THE TRAIL. WITH THIS CONNECTION IT FACILITATES TRANSPORTATION, RECREATION, HEALTH, NATURALRESOURCES, AND TOURISM TO THE LARGER RICHMOND COMMUNITY.

INTERPRETIVE SIGNGABION BENCH

BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE
KEYSTONE RETAINING WALLPOST LIGHT, TYPICAL. SEE SHEETL14 FOR LIGHTING PLANSTOP SIGN

SHOULDERDECOMPOSEDGRANITE

LANDSCAPE STRIP
SEE SHEET L14 FOR SIGNAGE PLAN
SEE SHEET L14 FOR SIGNAGE PLANKEYSTONE RETAINING WALL
812
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 5 E N T R Y M O N U M E N T E N L A R G E M E N T 0 10205SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

BIOTREATMENT

BIOTREATMENT PLANTING

ACCENT PLANTING

RETAINING WALL WITH TERRACED PLANTING CONCEPT

BAY TRAIL

ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN CONCEPT

ENTRY MONUMENT SIGNWITH TERRACEDRETAINING WALLSTERRACED PLANTINGAREA

BAY TRAIL ALONGBRICKYARD COVE

BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ACCENT PLANTING

KEY MAPSTREET A

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
L5L6L7ALLEY A
L4L8

CONCEPT IMAGERY

BAY TRAIL PEDESTRIANCROSSING DECORATIVEPAVEMENT, TYPICAL BUILDING 1

STREET A

KEYSTONE RETAININGWALL
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVETHE ENTRY MONUMENT IS THE MAIN FOCAL POINT UPON ENTERING BRICKYARD COVE. THE BAY TRAIL RUNS ACROSS THEFRONT AS USERS GET A GLANCE AT THE FRONT ENTRY OF THE PROJECT. THE PLANTING RUNS ALONGSIDE THE TRAIL AS ITMAKES ITS WAY UP TOWARDS THE MONUMENT SIGN. THE TERRACED RETAINING WALL PLANTING WITH THE GRAND ENTRYMONUMENT SIGN IS A STATEMENT PIECE AS THE GRADUAL HEIGHT OF THE PLANTING RISES HIGHER. THE SIGN DISPLAYS THETHEME OF THE THEMED BRICK WITH A MODERN LOOK OF THE STONE VENEER AND KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL.

ACCESSIBLE RAMPWITH CABLE RAILING,SEE ARCHITECTURALAND CIVIL SHEETSFOR ADDITIONALDETAIL

CAREX DIVULSA

SHRUB LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMESYMBOLACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'TERRA COTTA'ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUSBOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA

FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIAH BLUE'

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIAFESTUCA CALIFORNICA

LAVATERA MARTIMALEUCANDENDRON SALIGNUM 'WINTER RED'

GROUNDCOVER LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMEARCHOTSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSIFRAGARIA CHILOENSISHYDROSEED

CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM 'EL CAMPO'
SYMBOL

SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMEVINE LEGENDCAMPSIS RADICANS

LIMONIUM PEREZII

CEANOTHUS 'CELESTIAL BLUE'

MIMULUS AURANTIACUSPENSTEMON SPECTABILISPHORMIUM 'AMAZING RED'RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA

BIOTREATMENT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAME

BACCHARIS PILUARIUS 'PIGEONS POINT'
POST LIGHT,TYPICAL. SEESHEET L14 FORLIGHTING PLAN
813
RCTR
BBQBBQ
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 6 F R O N T A G E L A N D S C A P E E N L A R G E M E N T 0 10205SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"
POOL AND SPA WITH 6' HIGH GLASS FENCE

TABLES AND CHAIRSUMBRELLA TABLES

SHADE SAILS

CABANAS

WOODEN PLAY STRUCTURE

BIOTREATMENT

BBQ GRILL, TYPICALSHADE SAILSGAME TABLE, TYPICAL

BBQ GRILLS

HYDROSEED AREAAND SLOPE STABILIZINGPLANTING
6' HIGH GLASS POOLFENCERETAINING WALL PERCIVIL ENGINEER

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

STREET TREE,TYPICAL

KEY MAPSTREET A

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
L5L6L7ALLEY A
L4L8

BOULDERS, TYPICAL

CONCEPT IMAGERY

SPECIMEN OAK TREE

ALLEY ABAY TRAIL SIGNAGE

LOUNGE CHAIR

CLUBHOUSEPARKING GAME TABLE

LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE

BOULDERS
THE LANDSCAPE OF THE CLUBHOUSE OFFERS ACTIVE AND PASSIVE SPACES INTENDED TO BENEFIT RESIDENCES BY OFFERING GATHERING AREAS, ACTIVE AMENITIES AND RECREATIONALOPPORTUNITIES. THIS SCHEME INCLUDES A SWIMMING POOL, HOT TUB SPA, CHAISE LOUNGE CHAIRS, LOUNGE FURNISHINGS, CABANAS, GAME TABLES; GIVING THE RESIDENTS AN OPPORTUNITYFOR RETREAT AS WELL AS GATHERING AND ENTERTAINING. THE ADJACENT SPACES OFFER PICNIC, BARBEQUE, DINING AND FLEXIBLE SEATING. SHADE SAILS, CABANAS AND UMBRELLA TABLESOFFER OPTIONAL SHADE FROM SUN EXPOSURE. FURNISHINGS WILL COMPLEMENT THE ARCHITECTURE AND TIE INTO THE OVERALL SITE TO REINFORCE THEMING AND IDENTITY PLACEMAKING.THE MAIN ROUNDABOUT WILL INCLUDE AN EYE CATCHING SPECIMEN TREE AND THE SURROUNDING PERMEABLE PAVERS WILL HELP REDUCE SITE RUNOFF. STORMWATER WILL BE TREATED WITHA SYSTEM OF BIOTREATMENT SWALES AND PLANTERS, PLANTED WITH C3 APPROVED NATIVE AND ADAPTED PLANTS.PERMEABLE PAVERS

DECORATIVE PAVEMENT

POOL AND SPALOUNGE CHAIR, TYPICAL

WOODEN PLAYSTRUCTURE

INTERPRETIVE SIGNGABION BENCH, TYPICAL

UMBRELLA TABLE, TYPICAL

BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE ANDTRAIL CROSSING SIGNS
4' HIGH CLEAR VIEWMETAL FENCE

ACCENT TREE, TYPICALPERMEABLE PAVERS,SEE CIVIL ENGINEERSHEETS FOR MOREDETAIL

BAY TRAIL PEDESTRIANCROSSING DECORATIVEPAVEMENT

DECORATIVEPEDESTRIAN PAVING
POST LIGHT, TYPICAL.SEE SHEET L14 FORLIGHTING PLAN
2 BIKE RACKS,4 TOTAL BIKE SPACES
4' HIGH METAL FENCE

BIKE RACKS

BIKE RACKS, TYPICAL
IN HERRINGBONE PATTERNSEE SHEET L14 FORSIGNAGE PLAN
814
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 7 0 10205SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

T Y P I C A L L A N D S C A P E P A S E O E N L A R G E M E N T

ACCENT TREE

ACCENT PLANTING

CONCRETE PAVEMENT

GABION BENCH

CABLE RAILING

PLANTING AREA

ACCESSIBLE RAMP WITHCABLE RAILING, SEEARCHITECTURAL AND CIVILSHEETS FOR ADDITIONALDETAIL POST LIGHTS, TYPICALSEE SHEET L14 FORLIGHTING PLAN

GABION BENCH

CAREX DIVULSA

SHRUB LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMESYMBOLACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'TERRA COTTA'ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUSBOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA

FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIAH BLUE'

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIAFESTUCA CALIFORNICA

LAVATERA MARTIMALEUCANDENDRON SALIGNUM 'WINTER RED'

GROUNDCOVER LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMEARCHOTSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSIFRAGARIA CHILOENSISHYDROSEED

CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM 'EL CAMPO'
SYMBOL

SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMEVINE LEGENDCAMPSIS RADICANS

LIMONIUM PEREZII

CEANOTHUS 'CELESTIAL BLUE'

MIMULUS AURANTIACUSPENSTEMON SPECTABILISPHORMIUM 'AMAZING RED'RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA

BIOTREATMENT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAME

BACCHARIS PILUARIUS 'PIGEONS POINT'

ACCENT TREE, TYPICALPERMEABLE PAVERS,SEE CIVIL SHEETS FORADDITIONAL DETAILKEY MAPSTREET A

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
L5L6L7ALLEY A
L4L8

STREET TREE, TYPICALBOULDER, TYPICAL

CONCEPT IMAGERY

DECORATIVEPEDESTRIAN PAVING,TYPICAL

RETAINING WALL,SEE CIVIL SHEETSFOR ADDITIONALDETAIL

ALLEY A ALLEY C

STREET A
BUILDING 4BUILDING 2

DECORATIVE PAVING

LANDSCAPE NARRATIVE

STAIRS, TYPICAL

HYDROSEED AREAAND SLOPESTABILIZINGPLANTING
THE RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPE THEME COMPLIMENTS THE ARCHITECTURE WITH A PLANT PALETTE INSPIRED BY THE SURROUNDING HARBOR AND CULTURAL HISTORY OF POINTRICHMOND. THE PLANT PALETTE CONSISTS OF ADAPTIVE OR NATIVE, PREDOMINANTLY LOW WATER USE GROUNDCOVER, SHRUB, AND TREE PLANTS. A HIERARCHY OF GRASSES ARECOMBINED WITH ADAPTED AND NATIVE SHRUBS TO CREATE ENHANCED PLANTING AREAS. ORGANIC PATTERNS OF THE PLANTING ARRANGEMENT ARE TO LET THE EYES WANDER ANDCREATE A VISION OF THE WATER OF THE SHORELINE WITH POPS OF COLORED SHRUBS. EACH INTERSECTION WILL INCLUDE DECORATIVE PEDESTRIAN PAVING FOR SAFETY WHENCROSSING THE STREET. WHEN SPACE ALLOWS, THERE WILL BE GABION SEATING NOOKS FOR RESIDENTS TO STEP OUT AND SIT AT IN EACH PASEO AREA.RESIDENCES ARE LINKED TO COMMON AREAS THROUGH A NETWORK OF WALKWAYS THAT SHALL BE LIGHT IN COLOR TO REFLECT LIGHT MINIMIZING RADIANT HEAT EFFECT. ENHANCEDPAVING PATTERN INLAYS WILL BE USED AT COMMON WALK INTERSECTIONS AS A REINFORCEMENT OF COMMUNITY IDENTITY, ADDING TO PLACEMAKING ELEMENTS THROUGHOUT THECOMMUNITY.

VEHICULAR RATEDPEDESTRIAN CROSSINGDECORATIVE PAVEMENT
815
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 8 E V A L A N D S C A P E D E S I G N E N L A R G E M E N T 0 10205SCALE: 1" = 10'-0"

ACCENT PLANTING

ARCHITECTURAL SHOTCRETE WALL

RETAINING WALL WITH TERRACED PLANTING CONCEPT

BOULDERS

NDS TURF BLOCK

GABION SEAT WALL

CONCEPT IMAGERY

KEY MAPSTREET A

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
L5L6L7ALLEY A
L4L8

CAREX DIVULSA

SHRUB LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMESYMBOLACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'TERRA COTTA'ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUSBOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICA

FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIAH BLUE'

MUHLENBERGIA RIGENS

HETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIAFESTUCA CALIFORNICA

LAVATERA MARTIMALEUCANDENDRON SALIGNUM 'WINTER RED'

GROUNDCOVER LEGENDBOTANICAL NAMEARCHOTSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSIFRAGARIA CHILOENSISHYDROSEED

CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM 'EL CAMPO'
SYMBOL

SYMBOLBOTANICAL NAMEVINE LEGENDCAMPSIS RADICANS

LIMONIUM PEREZII

CEANOTHUS 'CELESTIAL BLUE'

MIMULUS AURANTIACUSPENSTEMON SPECTABILISPHORMIUM 'AMAZING RED'RHAMNUS CALIFORNICA

BIOTREATMENT LEGENDBOTANICAL NAME

BACCHARIS PILUARIUS 'PIGEONS POINT'
LANDSCAPE NARRATIVEAT THE TERMINUS OF THE MAIN DRIVE AISLE AND HIGH POINT OF THE DEVELOPED SITE, THE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS AREA BECOMES AUSABLE COMMON OPEN SPACE. THIS PERVIOUS GREEN SPACE PLAZA TAKES ADVANTAGE OF ONE OF THE BEST VIEWS THE SITE HAS TO OFFER,WHILE PROVIDING ADDITIONAL FLEX SPACE AND ACCOMMODATES EMERGENCY ACCESS WHEN NECESSARY. THE DESIGN UTILIZES A NATURALISTICHILLSIDE SHOTCRETE ROCK WALL, ORGANIC PATHWAYS, GABION SEAT WALL, SURROUNDED BY SCULPTURAL BOULDERS AND ACCENT PLANTS TOCREATE AN INTIMATE EXPERIENCE.

ORGANIC LANDSCAPEDESIGN TO TRANSITIONINTO HILLSIDE NDS TURF BLOCK

ADAPTIVE TREESBOULDERS, TYPICAL

EVA OUTLINE

DECORATIVEPEDESTRIANPAVEMENT

RETAINING WALL PERCIVIL ENGINEER

GRANITE-CRETEPAVEMENT

ARCHITECTURAL SHOTCRETEWALL

GABION SEAT WALL

EVA LANDSCAPE DESIGN
816
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 9 P L A N T I N G P A L E T T E S C A L E : A S N O T E D

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTESHRUBS

GROUNDCOVERS
VINES
PT. REYES MANZANITA1 GALLON
SYMBOLQTY.BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEMINIMUMCONTAINER SIZEHxWWUCOLS FRAGARIA CHILOENSIS HYDROSEEDSAND STRAWBERRY1 GALLON1 GALLON BIO TREATMENT AREA PLANTINGCAREX DIVULSA BERKELEY SEDGE CHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM 'EL CAMPO' DWARF CAFE 225 LML
LL
M
PLANTING PLAN NOTESCONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT NECESSARY TO FURNISH AND INSTALL PLANT MATERIAL AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND ASDESCRIBED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS.UNLESS DESIGNATED ON THE DRAWINGS OTHERWISE, STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS AND HARDSCAPE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS.PLANT LIST ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE ONLY. CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKEOFF AND VERIFY SIZES AND QUANTITIES BY PLAN CHECK.A SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED BY LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR AND SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE FOLLOWED PER THE REPORT. PHYSICAL COPIES OF THESOIL MANAGEMENT REPORT SHALL BE PROVIDED TO THE CLIENT, PROJECT LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AND LOCAL AGENCY AS REQUIRED. THE SOIL MANAGEMENT REPORTSHALL CONFORM TO STATE AB1881 WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO) OR LOCAL AGENCY ADOPTED WELO. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A SOILS MANAGEMENT REPORT AFTER GRADING OPERATIONS AND PRIOR TO PLANT INSTALLATION.SAMPLES OF FERTILIZERS, ORGANIC AMENDMENT, SOIL CONDITIONERS, AND SEED SHALL BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO INCORPORATION. CONTRACTOR SHALL FURNISH TO THEOWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE A CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE FOR SUCH FURNISHED MATERIALS.ALL WORK ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM, INCLUDING HYDROSTATIC, COVERAGE, AND OPERATIONAL TESTS AND THE BACKFILLING AND COMPACTION OF TRENCHES SHALL BEPERFORMED PRIOR TO PLANTING OPERATIONS.LOCATIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE REVIEWED ON SITE BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.TREES SHALL BE PLANTED NO CLOSER THAN TEN FEET (10') FROM UTILITIES.TREES PLANTED WITHIN FIVE FEET (5') OF HARDSCAPE OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A ROOT BARRIER AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S AUTHORIZEDREPRESENTATIVE.CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT THE CITY OF RICHMOND ARBORIST TO VERIFY SPECIES (EVEN IF SHOWN ON THE PLANS), LOCATIONS, AND QUANTITIES OF ALL STREET TREESPRIOR TO ORDERING MATERIAL. IF STREET TREES ARE TO BE PLANTED IN TREE WELLS, FINAL LOCATION OF TREE WELLS SHALL BE DETERMINED BY THE ARBORIST PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF SIDEWALK.ALL PLANTING AREAS TO RECEIVE 3" THICK BARK MULCH LAYER. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE SAMPLE OF PROPOSED BARK MULCH FOR APPROVAL. BARK MULCH SHALL BELYNGSO SMALL FIR BARK (3/4" TO 1-1/2") OR APPROVED EQUAL.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE SELECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK (ANSI Z60.1)FOR STANDARD FORM TREES, CALIPER SIZE SHALL BE MEASURED 6" ABOVE THE SOIL LINE FOR CALIPERS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN 4" FOR CALIPERS GREATER THAN 4",CALIPER SHALL BE MEASURES 12" ABOVE THE SOIL LINE. FOR MULTI-TRUNK TREES THE CALIPER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED BY TAKING THE AVERAGE OF THE CALIPER OF THETWO LARGEST TRUNKS. CALIPER IS MEASURED 6” ABOVE ORIGINATION POINT OF THE SECOND LARGEST TRUNK OR 6” ABOVE GROUND IF ALL TRUNKS ORIGINATE FROM THE SOIL.

CAMPSIS RADICANSTRUMPET VINE1 GALLONL

ARCHOTSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI
330ACHILLEA MILLEFOLIUM 'TERRA COTTA'COMMON YARROW1.5' X 2'5 GALLONL 50ANIGOZANTHOS FLAVIDUSKANGAROO PAW3' X 5'5 GALLONL 460BOUTELOUA GRACILIS 'BLONDE AMBITION'BLUE GAMMA3' X 3'5 GALLONL 30ARTEMISIA CALIFORNICACALIFORNIA SAGE BUSH4' X 4'5 GALLONL 150MUHLENBERGIA RIGENSDEER GRASS4' X 4'5 GALLONL 100TOYONHETEROMELES ARBUTIFOLIA8' X 5'1 GALLON 520FESTUCA CALIFORNICACALIFORNIA FESCUE1' X 2'1 GALLON
L
L 2700FESTUCA GLAUCA 'ELIJAH BLUE'BLUE FESCUE1' X 1'5 GALLONL 20LAVATERA MARITIMATREE MALLOW6' X 6'5 GALLONL 120LEUCANDENDRON SALIGNUM 'WINTER RED'CONE BUSH4' X 6'5 GALLONL 300LIMONIUM PEREZIISEA LAVENDAR2' X 6'5 GALLONL 110CEANOTHUS 'CELESTIAL BLUE'CEANOTHUS5' X 5'5 GALLONL
30MIMULUS AURANTIACUSSTICKY MONKEY FLOWER4' X 4'5 GALLONL 360PHORMIUM 'AMAZING RED'NEW ZEALAND FLAX1' X 2'1 GALLONL 20RHAMNUS CALIFORNICACOFFEE BERRY5' X 5'5 GALLONL 170PENSTEMON SPECTABILISSHOWY PENSTEMON3' X 3'1 GALLONL 675

PROPOSED PLANT PALETTETREES
15 GALLONCHINESE PISTACHEPISTACHIA CHINESIS 35'X35'
15 GALLONMARINA STRAWBERRY TREEARBUTUS 'MARINA'40'X40' 17 16
SYMBOLQTY.BOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEMINIMUMCONTAINER SIZEHxWWUCOLS L
L
15 GALLONCRAPE MYRTLELAGERSTROEMIA INDICA
15 GALLONJAPANESE MAPLEACER PALMATUM 'BLOODGOOD'
20'X20'
25'X20' 27
53 M
L
15 GALLONCOAST LIVE OAKQUERCUS AGRIFOLIA60'X50'
15 GALLONLEMON BOTTLEBRUSHCALLISTEMON CITRINUS25'X25'
22 11
2 L
L
15 GALLONTRIDENT MAPLEACER BUERGERIANUM30'X25' 32M
CALIPER SIZES STANDARDS:15 GALLON: 0.75-1.25"24" BOX: 1.25-2"36" BOX: 2-3.5"48" BOX: 3.5-5"60" BOX: 4-6"WATER NEEDS CATEGORY BASED ON WUCOLS IV(JANUARY 2014) LANDSCAPE COEFFICIENT METHOD:CATEGORYPERCENTAGE OF ETo(H) HIGH:0.7-0.9(M) MEDIUM:0.4-0.6(L) LOW:0.1-0.3(VL) VERY LOW:<0.1 2' X 2'3 X 4'
15 GALLONCALIFORNIA BUCKEYEAESCULUS CALIFORNICA30'X30'VLBACCHARIS PILULARIUS 'PIGEONS POINT'DWARF COYOTE BUSH1 GALLONL 817
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 10 P L A N T I N G D E T A I L S S C A L E : A S N O T E D
A B C
D
HARDSCAPE EDGE.SEE PLANS.TREE TRUNKROOT BARRIER
2'-0"2'-0"
PLANTER AREATREE CANOPYNOTES:1. ROOT CONTROL BARRIER SHALL BE USED WHEN TREE ISLOCATED 10' OR LESS FROM WATER, STORM, AND SEWERUTILITIES.2. INSTALL AN 18" DEEP 'DEEP ROOT' CONTROL BARRIER ATEDGE OF SIDEWALK.3. INSTALL A 24" DEEP 'DEEP ROOT' CONTROL BARRIER ATBACK OF CURB OR INSTALL A 36" DEEP 'DEEP ROOT'CONTROL BARRIER AT BACK OF CURB WHEN WITHIN 6' FROMWATER AND SEWER LATERAL LINES.4. NO ROOT CONTROL BARRIERS SHALL BE WITHIN 5' FROMWATER AND SEWER LINES.

VARIES
CL
ROOT BARRIERSCALE: N.T.S.
45 1
123
12345
SHRUBSCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
NOTES:1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONSPRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFPLANT MATERIALS.2.ROOT BALL CROWN SHALLEXTEND 1" ABOVE FINNISHGRADE. 2x DIAMETEROF ROOT BALLSECTION
2134
5 6
6"
NATIVE GRADE234SHRUB567AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS,3 PER SHRUB2" DEEP BASIN AROUNDROOT BALL

FOOT TAMP BASEBACKFILL, PUDDLE ANDSETTLE PRIOR TO PLANTINGSHRUBROOT BALL 1 7
SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
2" DEEP BASIN AROUNDROOT BALL, TREES PLANTEDIN TURF SHALL NOT HAVEBASINS

NATIVE GRADE

CINCH TIE
TREE
1 98
FOOT TAMP BASE2BACKFILL, PUDDLE ANDSETTLE PRIOR TO PLANTINGTREE3AGRIFORM PLANT TABLETS,3 PER 15 GALLON, 6 PER 24"BOX, AND 8 FOR 36" BOX4TREE5ROOT BALL6PINE LODGE POLE STAKE, 2"DIAMETER, PLACED ONWINDWARD SIDES OF TREEAND OUTSIDE OF ROOT BALL7 NOTES:1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONSPRIOR TO INSTALLATION OFPLANT MATERIALS.2.ROOT BALL CROWN SHALLEXTEND 1" ABOVE FINNISHGRADE.3.TREE INSTALLED IN TURFAREAS SHALL BE INSTALLEDWITH 'ARBOR-GUARD' AT BASEOF TRUNK. 2x DIAMETEROF ROOT BALLSECTION
2134
5 6
78 6"
9 SCALE: 1" = 1'-0"
21 GROUNDCOVER

EDGE OF PLANTING AREAPLANT, SPACING VARIES, SEEPLANTING LEGEND 1 NOTES:1.SEE PLANTING SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO INSTALLATIONOF PLANT MATERIALS.2.SPACING SHALL BE TRIANGULATED UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED.3.INFILL PLANTS AS REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN SPACING ATIRREGULAR EDGES. 2 EQUALEQUAL
1/2 PLANTSPACINGPLUS 6"EQUALEQUAL

PLAN VIEW
818
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 11 H Y D R O Z O N E P L A N 0 306015SCALE: 1" = 30'-0"
IRRIGATION ZONE LEGEND:

1.FINAL DESIGN SHALL CONFORM TO AB1881 OR CITY ADOPTED WATER EFFICIENTLANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.2.ALL PLANTING AREAS SHOWN WILL BE COMMONLY MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER ANDIRRIGATED BY AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM.3.IRRIGATION SYSTEMS WILL BE PERMANENT BELOW GROUND AUTOMATED SYSTEMSADEQUATE FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL PLANT MATERIAL.THESE SYSTEMS WILL BE INSTALLED AS SOON AS PRACTICAL AFTER GRADING ANDPRIOR TO PLANT MATERIAL INSTALLATION AND HYDROSEEDING.4.ALL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE DESIGNED, MAINTAINED AND MANAGED TO MEETOR EXCEED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY.5.ALL IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT SHALL BE SCREENED APPROPRIATELY FROM VIEW INPUBLIC AREAS TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE.6.THE FINAL IRRIGATION PLAN SHALL ACCURATELY AND CLEARLY IDENTIFY:A.LOCATIONS AND SIZES OF WATER POINTS OF CONNECTION.B.LOCATION, TYPE AND SIZE OF ALL COMPONENTS OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM,INCLUDING AUTOMATIC CONTROLLERS, MAIN AND LATERAL LINES, VALVES, RAINSWITCHES, AND QUICK COUPLERS.C.STATIC WATER PRESSURE AT THE POINTS OF CONNECTION.D.FLOW RATE (GALLONS PER MINUTE), REMOTE CONTROL VALVE SIZE, AND DESIGNOPERATING PRESSURE (PSI) FOR EACH STATION.E.HYDROZONE INFORMATION TABLE.F.WATER USE CALCULATIONS.8.NEW IRRIGATION WATER METER SHALL BE INSTALLED AS PART OF LANDSCAPEIMPROVEMENTS, LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED.9.THIS SITE IS NOT PART OF A RECYCLED WATER PROGRAM AND WILL BE IRRIGATEDWITH AN EFFICIENT, AUTOMATED, CLIMATE MONITORING, DRIP IRRIGATION SYSTEMWITH POTABLE WATER.

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR LANDSCAPE AREASLOW VOLUME BUBBLERS FOR TREES IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIA:

DRIP IRRIGATION FOR BIOTREATMENTIRRIGATION

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY A

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 5
BUILDING 7BUILDING 9
BUILDING 11BUILDING 13
BUILDING 15BUILDING 17
BUILDING 19
BUILDING 2BUILDING 4
BUILDING 6BUILDING 8
BUILDING 10BUILDING 12BUILDING 14BUILDING 16
BUILDING 18

STREET A
819
A B
C
D
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 12 I R R I G A T I O N D E T A I L S S C A L E : A S N O T E D
SCALE: N.T.S.

NOTES:1.NIPPLES AND FITTINGS TO BE SAME IPTSIZE AS BACKFLOW ASSEMBLY.2.INSTALL GREEN WEATHER GUARDBACKFLOW BLANKET OR APPROVEDEQUAL.3.DISSIMILAR METALS SHALL BESEPARATED BY AN APPROVEDDIELECTRIC FITTING.4.ENCLOSURE SHALL BE STRONG BOXLOW PROFILE SMOOTH TOUCHSBBC-30CR OR SBBC-45CR, COLORDARK GREEN OR APPROVED EQUAL.ENCLOSURE SHALL BE SIZED BASEDON BACKFLOW DEVICE SIZE. CONTACTMANUFACTUER V.I.T. PRODUCTS1-800-729-1314.

SCH. 80 PVC COUPLING- 2 TOTALSCH. 80 PVC 90° ELBOW-2 TOTAL (TxTCONNECTION)PVC MAIN LINE TO POINT OF CONNECTIONBUSH AS NECESSARY FOR SIZE TRANSITION PVC MAIN LINE TO IRRIGATION SYSTEMSCH. 80 PVC NIPPLE-2 TOTALFINISHED GRADEPOURED CONCRETE BASE-6" MIN.THICKNESS-EXTEND 4" BEYOND OUTSIDEDIMENSIONS OF ENCLOSURECONCRETE SUPPORT BLOCKSCH. 80 PVC MALE ADAPTER-2 TOTAL SCH.40 GALVANIZED STEEL NIPPLES-2 TOTAL

REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW DEVICEENCLOSURE AND BLANKET
BACKFLOW ENCLOSURE-SEE NOTE 4.ANCHOR ROD (TYPICAL)

ENCLOSURE
2345678
1091415
9101112131413
REDUCED PRESSURE BACKFLOW ASSEMBLYPER IRRIGATION LEGEND1 BACKFLOW BLANKET15
1 FLOW

SEEIRRIGATIONLEGEND

BACKFLOW DEVICE
13 234812 6
109
57 115
11 8"MIN.PERCODE
INSTRUCTIONS:1. CENTER VALVE BOX OVER REMOTE CONTROL VALVE TOFACILITATE SERVICING VALVE.2. SET BOXES 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADE OR MULCH COVER INGROUND COVER/SHRUB AREA AND FLUSH WITH FINISH GRADEIN TURF AREA.3. SET RCV AND VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY IN GROUNDCOVER/SHRUB AREA WHERE POSSIBLE. INSTALL IN LAWNONLY IF GROUND COVER DOES NOT EXIST ADJACENT TOLAWN.4. SET BOXES PARALLEL TO EACH OTHER ANDPERPENDICULAR TO EDGE OF LAWN, WALK, FENCE, CURB,ETC.5. AVOID HEAVILY COMPACTING SOIL AROUND VALVE BOXESTO PREVENT COLLAPSE AND DEFORMATION OF VALVE BOXSIDES.6. INSTALL EXTENSION BY VALVE BOX MANUFACTURER ASREQUIRED TO COMPLETELY ENCLOSE ASSEMBLY FOR EASYACCESS.7. NEVER INSTALL VALVE BOX IN HARDSCAPE8. INSTALL BOXES IN MULCH AREAS WITH BROWN COLOREDLID. EXCEPT FOR RECYCLED WATER VALVES IN WHICH THELID SHOULD BE PURPLE.

FINISHED GRADEPROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 2" CLEARBETWEEN PIPESPROVIDE A 3" MINIMUM SANDENVELOPE AROUND ALL MAINLINESNAKE SOLVENT WELD PLASTICPIPING IN TRENCH AS SHOWNTIE A 24" LOOP IN WIRING ATCHANGES OF DIRECTION 30 DEGREESOR GREATER. UNTIE AFTER ALLCONNECTIONS HAVE BEEN MADEINSTALL WIRING BENEATH ANDBESIDE MAINLINE. TAPE AND BUNDLEAT 10 FOOT INTERVALS NOTE:SLEEVE BELOW ALL HARDSCAPE ELEMENTSWITH THE SLEEVING TWICE THE DIAMETEROF WIRE BUNDLE CONTAINED IN IT.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR MINIMUMCOVER.

MAINLINE, LATERAL SAME TRENCH& WIRING IN THE MAINLINE PIPELATERAL PIPE SCALE: N.T.S.INSTALLATION DIAGRAMS
16" x 25" RECTANGULAR VALVE BOXFOR EMITTER MANIFOLD ASSEMBLY.14" x 19" RECTANGULAR VALVE BOX.QUICK COUPLING VALVEEDGE OF LAWN, WALK, FENCE, CURB,ETC. 12"12"12"12"
12"TYP
1"

SECTION

PLAN VIEW

TOP VIEW
12345678910 12
34 157 8910
WIRING IN CONDUIT(SLEEVE AT ALL HARDSCAPECROSSINGS) SCALE: N.T.S. 24 VOLT CONTROL WIRING

FINISHED GRADE

PEDESTAL MOUNT CONTROLLER
2-1" PVC CONDUITS FOR 120VOLT A.C. AND SIGNAL WIRECONCRETE PAD-6" THICK (MIN.)EXTEND 6" BEYOND EACH SIDEAND BACK AND 24" IN FRONTPLASTIC VALVE BOX SEESPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE8' LONG COPPER GROUND ROD4" PVC SWEEP ELL ROUND

IRRIGATION CONTROLLER-SEEIRRIGATION LEGEND FORSPECIFICATION

GROUND WIRE
24"
112"
NOTE:1.VERIFY POWER SOURCE WITH PROJECTELECTRICIAN.2.ALL ELECTRICAL WORK MUST CONFORM TOLOCAL CODES. REFER TO PRODUCTLITERATURE FOR ADDITIONAL INSTALLATIONREQUIREMENTS. THIS DRAWING IS PROVIDEDFOR REFERENCE ONLY. INDIVIDUAL PROJECTREQUIREMENTS AND LOCAL CODES MAYDICTATE DIFFERENCES IN INSTALLATIONPROCEDURES THAT ARE NOT IDENTIFIED ONTHIS DETAIL. 12345678934658
9 2
1 7 E
FSCALE: N.T.S.FLOW SENSOR
NOTES:1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION2.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONSFLOW SENSOR1RECTANGULAR VALVE BOXW/ BLACK BOLT DOWNCOVER. HEAT BRAND VALVE"FS" ON LID IN 2" HIGHCHARACTERS2CONDUIT BACK TO DECODERAT CONTROLLER34TO IRRIGATION POINT OFCONNECTION5FINISH GRADE6 105 PER MANUFACTURERPER MANUFACTURERNO PIPE RESTRICTIONS, FITTINGS,COUPLINGS OR OTHER SPLICES TO OCCURIN THE PIPE RUNS OF LENGTHS GIVEN PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6"DEEP7
1 6"6"2 6
7 4 89189BRICK SUPPORT, 1 PERCORNER3
3M DBY WIRE CONNECTOR
10MASTER VALVECONTROL AND COMMON WIRETO DESIGNATED AUTOMATICCONTROLLER N.T.S.MASTER VALVE
NOTES:1.DO NOT LOCATE REMOTE VALVE IN TURF2.COMPACT SOIL AROUND BOX TO SAME DENSITY ASADJACENT UNDISTURBED SOIL BUNDLE AND TAPECONTROL WIRE TO MAINLINE EVERY 10'3.SPLICES IN CONTROL WIRE ARE NOT ALLOWEDBETWEEN CONTROLLER AND VALVE4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENTSPECIFICATION5.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS1 MASTER VALVE-SEE LEGEND1CARSON #1324 RECTANGULARVALVE BOX WITH BLACK BOLTDOWN COVER, OR APPROVEDEQUAL. HEAT BRAND "MV" ON LIDIN 2" HIGH LETTERS2FINISHED GRADE3FROM POINT OF CONNECTION-ADAPT AS REQUIRED4SCH. 80 TOE NIPPLE- LENGTHAS REQUIRED5PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN 6" DEEP63M DBY WIRE CONNECTOR7CONTROL AND COMMON WIRE TODESIGNATED AUTOMATICCONTROLLER8FLOW SENSOR CABLE WITHINCONDUIT9BRICK SUPPORT, 1 PERCORNER10 6"6"2 3
45 6
7 8
910TO FLOWSENSOR
SCALE: N.T.S.QUICK COUPLING VALVE
10" ROUND PLASTIC VALVEBOX WITH BOLT DOWN LID1 1/4" x 1 1/4" x 3/16" ANGLEIRON 30" LONG, 2 STAINLESSSTEEL STRAPS3" LONG SCHEDULE 80 PVCTHREADED NIPPLE NOTE:1.NIPPLES AND FITTINGSTO BE SAME SIZE ASVALVE IPT INLETTHREAD SIZE2.SEE IRRIGATIONLEGEND FORSPECIFICATION3.INSTALL ALL INACCORDANCE WITHMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS 10" LONG SCH 80 PVCTHREADED NIPPLESCH 80 PVC THREADED 90DEGREE ELLQUICK COUPLING VALVEFINISHED GRADESEEIRRIGATIONLEGENDSIDE VIEW

TOP VIEW
111 410 29 5123
PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6"DEPTH3
4 56
MAINLINE FITTING7
7910 11
2" MAX.
5 11
12 BRICK SUPPORTS, 2 TOTAL12 PVC MAINLINE6
820
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 13 I R R I G A T I O N D E T A I L S S C A L E : A S N O T E D
A
B
C
D
E
F

SECTION/ELEVATION
1''
SCALE: N.T.S.DRIPLINE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE,PRESSURE REGULATOR AND FILTER PVC MAINLINEPLASTIC VALVE BOX. HEATBRAND STATION NUMBERON LID IN 2" CHARACTERS.FINISHED GRADEVALVE, SEE LEGENDCONTROL WIRES WITH 36"SERVICE COIL ANDWATERPROOF WIRECONNECTIONS, SEE LEGEND.PRESSURE REGULATOR,SEE LEGENDSCHEDULE 80 UNIONPVC LATERALFILTER, SEE LEGEND1 CU. FT. PEA GRAVEL SUMPBRICK SUPPORTS 1234567891011 10
NOTES:1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENTSPECIFICATION.2.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITHMANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

NATIVE GRADE12BARK MULCH / PLANTING(1" BELOW VALVE LID)13 23 135 46791 118
12 SEE SPECIFICATIONS FOR DEPTHFINISHED GRADE
SCALE: N.T.S.DRIPLINE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF LATERAL
NOTES:1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOREQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION.2.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITHMANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS.DRIPLINE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE INVALVE BOX AT HIGHEST POINTSPLUMBED TO TUBINGPVC CROSS TO DRIPLINE COMPRESSIONADAPTERS (TYPICAL)DRIPLINE (TYPICAL)DRIPLINE BLANK TUBING (TYPICAL)

ISOMETRIC VIEW
12345612 13456
DRIPLINE CENTER - FEED LAYOUTSCALE: N.T.S.

FV
AV
FV

DRIPLINE AUTOMATIC FLUSHVALVE PLUMBED TO FLUSHMANIFOLD AT LOW POINTPVC FLUSH MANIFOLDDRIPLINE MANIFOLD-TO-ELBOWCONNECTIONREMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITHFILTER AND PRESSURE REGULATORPVC SUPPLY MANIFOLD

DRIPLINE MANIFOLD-TO-TEECONNECTION
DRIPLINE LATERALAIR/VACUUM RELIEF LATERALDRIPLINE BLANK TUBINGCENTERED ON MOUND OR BERMDRIPLINE AIR / VACUUM RELIEFVALVE PLUMBED TO DRIPLINE BLANKTUBING AT EACH HIGH POINTPERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4"FROM EDGE

ZONE PERIMETERDRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATOR
NOTE:1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION2.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS3.THE TOTAL LENGTH OF ALL INTERCONNECTED DRIP LINESHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM RUN LENGTH PLAN
123456789101112
12374910111285
6 FV
AV
SCALE: N.T.S.DRIPLINE END-FEED LAYOUT

REMOTE CONTROL VALVE WITH FILTERAND PRESSURE REGULATORDRIPLINE MANIFOLD- TO-ELBOWCONNECTIONPVC SUPPLY MANIFOLDDRIPLINE DRIPLINE AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVEPLUMBED TO DRIPLINE BLANK TUBINGAT EACH HIGH POINT (TYP)AIR/VACUUM RELIEF LATERAL DRIPLINEBLANK TUBING CENTERED ON MOUNDOR BERM (TYP)PERIMETER LATERALS 2" TO 4" FROMEDGE

AREA PERIMETERPVC FLUSH MANIFOLD

DRIPLINE OPERATION INDICATORDRIPLINE AUTOMATIC FLUSH VALVEPLUMBED TO FLUSH MANIFOLD AT LOWPOINT NOTES:1.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION.2.INSTALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

PLAN
1234567891011101163987254 1
SCALE: N.T.S.GATE VALVE
BRICK SUPPORT, 2 TOTAL
VALVE BOX (CARSON 910-12B) OR EQUALFINISHED GRADE/ BEFORE PLANTINGGATE VALVE: SEE LEGEND FOR MAKEAND MODEL - LINE SIZESCH 40 PVC MALE ADAPTORPVC SCH 40 MIN 8" LONGPVC SCH 40PVC MAINLINE PIPEPEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6" DEEP NOTES:1.PLACE AGGREGATE PRIOR TOINSTALLATION OF VALVE BOX2.INSTALL VALVE BOX SO TOP OF BOX ISFLUSH WITH ADJACENT HARDSCAPEPVC 45 FITTING SCH 40 (TYP.) 18" MIN.10" MIN.
123456789101 2
10987654 36"
SCALE: N.T.S.REMOTE CONTROL VALVE
NOTES:1.DO NOT LOCATE REMOTE CONTROL VALVE IN LAWN2.COMPACT SOIL AROUND BOX TO SAME DENSITY ASADJACENT UNDISTURBED SOIL BUNDLE AND TAPECONTROL WIRE TO MAINLINE EVERY 10'3.SPLICES IN CONTROL WIRE ARE NOT ALLOWED BETWEENCONTROLLER AND VALVE4.SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND FOR EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATION5.INSTALL ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURER'SRECOMMENDATIONS SCOTCH LOK #3577CONNECTOR SEALINGPACK OR EQUALVALVE BOX: CARSONSPECIFICATION GRADE,NDS PRO SERIES, OREQUALREMOTE CONTROL VALVE:SEE IRRIG. LEGEND PEA GRAVEL SUMP, MIN. 6"DEEP

ID TAG FOR VALVESTATION NUMBER
PVC SCH 80 NIPPLE(CLOSE)TOP OF MULCH

LATERAL LINE
18" LENGTH EXPANSIONLOOP
PVC SCH 40 MIN 8" LONGPVC 45 FITTING SCH 40PVC SCH 40S X S FITTINGPVC MAINLINE PIPEBRICK SUPPORT-1 PERCORNER 123456789101112131415
91011121314
8765 3 1
15 4 26" 3" MIN.
821
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a11 . 11 . 2 2
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects8 6 8 . 2 1 1 2 7 B R I C K Y A R D C O V E R O A DL 14 L I G H T I N G A N D S I G N P L A N 0 408020SCALE: 1" = 40'-0"

LIGHTING LEGENDPOST LIGHTSBOLLARD LIGHTSWALL MOUNTED LIGHTS

SIGN LEGENDENTRY MONUMENT SIGN

ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN CONCEPT

BRICKYARD COVE ROAD

ENTRY MONUMENT SIGN

BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE
BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE ANDTRAIL CROSSING SIGN, TYP.

WALL WASHER LIGHTBAY TRAIL SIGNAGE

WALL WASH LIGHTS

POST LIGHTSALLEY B

ALLEY D

ALLEY F

ALLEY H

ALLEY J

ALLEY A

ALLEY C

ALLEY E

ALLEY G

ALLEY I

STREET A
BUILDING 1
BUILDING 3
BUILDING 5
BUILDING 7BUILDING 9
BUILDING 11BUILDING 13
BUILDING 15BUILDING 17
BUILDING 19
BUILDING 2BUILDING 4
BUILDING 6BUILDING 8
BUILDING 10BUILDING 12BUILDING 14BUILDING 16BUILDING 18

CONCEPT IMAGERY
(PER ARCHITECT)

INTERPRETIVE SIGN

INTERPRETIVE SIGN
2’ X 3’ INTERPRETATIVE PANEL ABOUT THE FORMER PG&E NATURAL GASSTORAGE FACILITY SHALL BE CREATED AND INSTALLED IN A NATIONALPARK SERVICE LOW PROFILE FRAME ALONG THE BAY TRAIL. THE PANELLOCATION AND DESIGN SHALL BE DONE IN COLLABORATION WITH TRACAND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DESIGN OF BAY TRAIL INTERPRETATIVEPANELS INSTALLED ELSEWHERE ALONG THE BAY TRAIL IN RICHMOND.BAY TRAIL SIGNAGE AND TRAIL CROSSING SIGNS ALERTING MOTORVEHICLES TO TRAIL TRAFFIC LOCATED AT:- STREET A EXIT- BEFORE THE RIGHT TURN FROM WESTBOUND BRICKYARD COVE ROAD- AT THE LEFT TURN FROM EASTBOUND BRICKYARD COVE ROADSIGNS SHALL BE COMPLIANT WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF THECALIFORNIA MANUAL OF UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES AT THETIME OF PERMIT.

TRAIL CROSSING SIGNS

BOLLARDSFESTOON LIGHTS

FESTOON LIGHTS
822
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-0
PT. NO. NORTHING EASTING ELEVATION DESCRIPTION
2 2160191.29 6020388.02 94.59 FND_CLMON W/ PUNCH LS 6630 121 2100692.79 6012242.17 54.58 RTCM3224 (CORS STATION) 122 2093738.85 5981860.69 95.85 RTCM3248 (CORS STATION) 405 2160371.43 6019485.54 37.84 FOUND MONUMENT W/PUNCH RCE 12791 661 2159781.48 6019349.67 12.64 FOUND MONUMENT W/PUNCH_RE-7826 Exhibit C-3
823
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-1
824
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-2
825
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-3
826
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-4
827
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-5
828
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-6
829
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-7
830
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-8
831
Job #211054
R i c h m o n d , C a l i f o r n i a

P O I N T R I C H M O N D
11 . 08 . 22
Copyright 2021 Bassenian | Lagoni Architects
TM-9
LEGEND
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879

Page 1 of 4 ends

March 5, 2024

Finance Department

DATE: March 5, 2024
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:

Ordinance Creating New Business Activity Classification, Class P – Wholesale, and the Corresponding Rates
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact of creating this new classification and rate structure will result in a decrease of
approximately $10,000 in Business Tax Revenue in the
General Fund.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The proposed Ordinance will create a new Business
Activity, Class P – Wholesale, and the corresponding
rates.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

INTRODUCE an ordinance (first reading) amending
Chapter 7.04.103 of the Richmond Municipal Code by
creating a new Business Activity Classification, Class P – Wholesale, and the corresponding rates – Finance
Department (Nickie Mastay/Andrea Miller/Mubeen
Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620-6741). This item was
continued from the February 27, 2024, meeting.

AGENDA
REPORT
880

Page 2 of 4 ends

March 5, 2024
DISCUSSION:

City Council placed Measure U on the November 3, 2020, ballot that was approved by the voters. The Measure changed the business tax calculation methodology to be based on gross receipts instead of the prior methodology that was based upon the number of employees employed by a business.

This item was originally scheduled on the December 19, 2023 City Council agenda but was removed and postponed pending more outreach to wholesalers in Richmond. Staff mailed and e-mailed 18 Richmond businesses who have listed wholesaling as their primary businesses and invited them to an online meeting held on January 25, 2024.

Staff presented the situation and reasons behind the proposed changes to the Business Tax Ordinance. Participants understood the need for a new class for wholesalers, but also raised concerns about the rates postulating that they should be lower. Additionally, they inquired about possibly making any change retroactive, meaning some businesses would be due a refund.

Measure U (Richmond Municipal Code 7.04) contains fifteen (15) Business Activity Classifications but does not include wholesale as a business activity classification class.

City staff is requesting to amend the Ordinance by adding, Wholesale, in section

7.04.130) of the Richmond Municipal Code as follows:

7.04.130 Business Activity Classifications Class

Class Industry
A Retail Sales
B Grocers
C Automobile Sales, Manufacturing
D Recreation and Entertainment
E Hotel/Motel
F Construction contractor
G Business and personal services
H Professional/semi-professional service
I Administrative headquarters (payroll based, not gross receipts) J Miscellaneous
K Residential and Commercial Rentals
L Cannabis
M Firearms Ammunition
N Taxi and limousine service
O Transportation, trucking
P Wholesale

Additionally, this new Wholesale class will be assigned a new business tax at the rate provided below following an amendment of the ordinance to include this section after

7.04.205 (J):
881

Page 3 of 4 ends

March 5, 2024

7.04.205 Tax Rates for Class A through Class J, and Class P —Progressive Rates

K. Class P. Business engaged in Class P business activities shall pay a business tax as follows:

If annual gross is: Then the business tax is:

A wholesale classification was inadvertently omitted from the original voter approved ordinance. City s taff attempted to correct this oversight via an Administrative Ruling placing Wholesale businesses in the same classification as Retail Sales businesses. The issue with this approach is that the definition of “Retail Sales” in the approved Ordinance excludes the resale of items such as with wholesalers:

“Retail sales” means the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise for any purpose other than resale in the regular course of business, including restaurants and peddlers. (emphasis added)

Other communities have a wholesale category in their ordinances and the City has businesses that could be classified as “wholesale.” The definitions in the ordinance excluding wholesale from retail and vice versa create legal confusion which could make the Ordinance subject to challenge.

The new classification clarifies both the Business Class and the respective Business Tax Rate structure for Wholesale businesses. Currently, staff classifies Wholesale businesses as part of “Class J – Miscellaneous” which has significantly higher rates than “Class A – Retail Sales”.

AMENDMENT PROCESS

While any amendment to Measure U that would increase the rate of taxation is subject to approval by a vote of the voters, the City Council has the authority to adopt modifications that decrease the rate of taxation, which applies to this action. 882

Page 4 of 4 ends

March 5, 2024

BUSINESS TAX UPDATE

City staff recently mailed out the 2024 renewal notices for both rental property businesses and non-rental businesses. The due date for the rental properties is March 1, 2024, while the due date for the non-rentals is April 1, 2024. The Finance Department is providing augmented business tax services to the Richmond business community in person, via phone calls, through our online payment portal, and through virtual online appointments.

The community can leave questions for City staff on the business tax hotline at 510-620- 5555 or email to [email protected].

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Administrative Ruling No. 1
Attachment 2 – Redline Ordinance
Attachment 3 – Final Ordinance
Attachment 4 – Presentation
883

CITY OF RICHMOND

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
FINANCE DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE RULING NO. 1
ADMINISTRATIVE RULING AND INTERPRETATION (1.0)

Authority. Pursuant to Section 7.04.670 of the City of Richmond Gross Receipts Business Tax Measure U, the Director of Finance, upon delegation from the City Manager, hereby adopts the following administrative rulings:

PURPOSE

This Administrative Ruling clarifies certain sectio ns of the Measure U Gross Receipts Tax Ordinance approved by Richmond voters in November 2020.

BACKGROUND

The rulings herein promulgated provides specific ap portionment criteria to be used by the City of Richmond staff and the taxpayer in determining application if the Business Tax of gross receipts.

RULING OF THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE

The following guidelines shall be used to determine the percentage of gross receipts to be used for the tax base:

A. Administrative Ruling - Definitions and Classifications (Section

7.04.100)

1) If a business operator has earned gross receipts in Richmond, and provides other services where the gross receipts is earned outside of Richmond, such as trucks, water or rail transportation, the tax will be calculated on the gross receipts from sales in Richmond.

2) “Wholesale Sales” is defined as “the sale of go ods, wares, or merchandise for the purpose of resale in the regular course of business. However, it is not included in any of the Business Activity Classifications. Businesses categorized as Wholesale Sales will fall under Business Activity Classification of Class A – Retail Sales with the following rates:
884

If annual gross receipts are: Then the business tax is:

Not over $1,000,000 $1.20 per $1,000 of annual gro ss receipts Over $1,000,000 but not over $2,500,000 $1,200, plus $1.60 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts over $1,000,000
Over $2,500,000 but not over
$25,000,000
$3,600, plus $2.00 per $1,000 of annual
gross receipts over $2,500,000
Over $25,000,000 but not over
$50,000,000
$48,600, plus $2.40 per $1,000 of annual
gross receipts over $25,000,000
Over $50,000,000 $108,600, plus $3.20 per $1,000 o f
annual gross receipts over $50,000,000

3) Any business that is not otherwise defined nor i ncluded in the various classifications will fall under Business Activity Classification of Class J – Miscellaneous.

Limitation. This Ruling and Interpretation is intended to give general guidance and should not be viewed as providing a definite answer to all factual situations, as the exact application of the tax will depend on the nature of the service, the manner in which it is billed ( e.g., bundled or unbundled), and other factors.

City of Richmond, Director of Finance

______________________________
Belinda Brown

Date: November 2, 2021
885
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AMENDING CHAPTER 7.04 TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “BUSINESS LICENSES”

The City Council of the City of Richmond do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 7.04.130 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

7.04.130 Business Activity Classifications Class
Class Industry
A Retail Sales
B Grocers
C Automobile Sales, Manufacturing
D Recreation and Entertainment
E Hotel/Motel
F Construction contractor
G Business and personal services
H Professional/semi-professional service
I Administrative headquarters (payroll
based, not gross receipts)
J Miscellaneous
K Residential and Commercial Rentals
L Cannabis
M Firearms Ammunition
N Taxi and limousine service
O Transportation, trucking
P Wholesale

SECTION 2. Section 7.04.205 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

7.04.205 Tax Rates for Class A through Class J, and Class P —Progressive Rates

886
K. Class P. Persons engaged in Class I business activities shall pay a business tax as follows:

If annual gross receipts are: Then the business tax is:

SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the remaining portions of this Ordinance shall remain in full force and effect. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed each section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance irrespective of the unconstitutionality or invalidity of any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase.

SECTION 4.

This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

*****************************
(This section to be completed by Clerk’s Office)

First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on _____________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on ___________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)

887
Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney
888
ORDINANCE NO. N.S.

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AMENDING CHAPTER 7.04 TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED “BUSINESS LICENSES”

The City Council of the City of Richmond do ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. Section 7.04.130 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

SECTION 2. Section 7.04.205 of the City of Richmond Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:

7.04.205 Tax Rates for Class A through Class J, and Class P —Progressive Rates

889
K. Class P. Persons engaged in Class P business activities shall pay a business tax as follows:

If annual gross receipts are: Then the business tax is:

SECTION 4.

This Ordinance becomes effective thirty (30) days after its final passage and adoption.

*****************************
(This section to be completed by Clerk’s Office)

First introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on _____________ and finally passed and adopted at a regular meeting held on ___________ by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

________________________________________
Clerk of the City of Richmond

(SEAL)

890
Approved:

_______________________________
Mayor

Approved as to form:

____________________________
City Attorney
891
Business Tax Update
Ordinance Creating New Business Activity
Classification, Class P – Wholesale, and the
corresponding rates.

FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE
FEBRUARY , 2024
892
Agenda
Background
Business Tax Classifications
Business Tax Rates
Recommended Action
Questions
2 893
Measure U Background
Measure U Approved by Voters in November 2020
Changed the way the tax is calculated
◦ New Methodology is based on the Business Gross Receipts ◦ Tax is a percentage of the Gross Receipts and changes based on the Business Category and the amount of Gross Receipts
◦ Businesses making less than $250,000 pay the Minimum Tax of $100 Per Year 3 894
Wholesale Background
Measure U contained no classification for Wholesalers
Staff created Administrative Ruling 1.0 that categorized Wholesale Businesses under Class A - Retail Sales.

Definition of Retail Sales excludes wholesale sales:
“Retail sales” means the sale of goods, wares, or merchandise for any purpose other than resale in
the regular course of business, including restaurants and peddlers. (emphasis added) Definition of Retail Sales excluding wholesale sales creates need for a new Business Tax Class for Wholesale Businesses
Approximately 15 business in Richmond are wholesalers and financial impact is estimated at $10,000 decrease to the General Fund revenues.

If a business does not fall clearly into any class, they are then placed in Class J - Miscellaneous 4 895
Business Tax Classifications
Class Industry Class Industry
A Retail Sales I Administrative headquarters (payroll
based, not gross receipts)
B Grocers J Miscellaneous
C Automobile Sales, Manufacturing K Residential and Commercial Rentals D Recreation and Entertainment L Cannabis
E Hotel/Motel M Firearms Ammunition
F Construction contractor N Taxi and limousine service
G Business and personal services O Transportation, trucking H Professional/semi-professional service P Wholesale
896
Current Rates For All Classes
6 Class Industry Under $1M $1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$25M
$25M to
$50M Over $50M
A Retail Sales 0.120% 0.160% 0.200% 0.240% 0.320%
B Grocers 0.060% 0.100% 0.130% 0.015% 0.200%
C Automobile Sales, Manufacturing 0.120% 0.220% 0.310% 0.410% 0.500% D Recreation and Entertainment 0.450% 0.460% 0.470% 0.480% 0.500% E Hotel Motel 0.180% 0.280% 0.380% 0.480% 0.500%
F Construction contractor 0.180% 0.210% 0.240% 0.270% 0.300% G Business and personal services 0.180% 0.270% 0.360% 0.500% 0.540% H Professional/semi-professional service 0.360% 0.410% 0.450% 0.500% 0.680% I Administrative headquarters (payroll based, not gross receipts) 0.120% 0.150% 0.190% 0.220% 0.240%
J Miscellaneous 0.240% 0.310% 0.380% 0.450% 0.480%
K Residential and Commercial Rentals 1.081% if 4 properties or less and 2.880% if 5 properties or more L Cannabis 5.000% 5.000% 5.000% 5.000% 5.000%
M Firearms Ammunition 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% N Taxi and limousine service $75 for each ambulance or limousine and $180 for each taxicab permit O Transportation, trucking Tax based on current employee total 897
Proposed Rates for Class P
7 Class P . Persons engaged in Class P business activities shall pay a business tax as follows:

If annual gross receipts are: Then the business tax is:

Not over $1,000,000 $1.20 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts Over $1,000,000 but not over $2,500,000 $1,200, plus $1.50 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts over $1,000,000
Over $2,500,000 but not over $25,000,000 $3,450, plus $1.90 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts over $2,500,000
Over $25,000,000 but not over $50,000,000 $46,200, plus $2.20 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts over $25,000,000
Over $50,000,000 $101,200, plus $2.40 per $1,000 of annual gross receipts over $50,000,000
898
Rates For All Classes including Class P
8 Class Industry Under $1M $1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$25M
$25M to
$50M Over $50M
A Retail Sales 0.120% 0.160% 0.200% 0.240% 0.320%
B Grocers 0.060% 0.100% 0.130% 0.015% 0.200%
C Automobile Sales, Manufacturing 0.120% 0.220% 0.310% 0.410% 0.500% D Recreation and Entertainment 0.450% 0.460% 0.470% 0.480% 0.500% E Hotel Motel 0.180% 0.280% 0.380% 0.480% 0.500%
F Construction contractor 0.180% 0.210% 0.240% 0.270% 0.300% G Business and personal services 0.180% 0.270% 0.360% 0.500% 0.540% H Professional/semi-professional service 0.360% 0.410% 0.450% 0.500% 0.680% I Administrative headquarters (payroll based, not gross receipts) 0.120% 0.150% 0.190% 0.220% 0.240% J Miscellaneous 0.240% 0.310% 0.380% 0.450% 0.480%
K Residential and Commercial Rentals 1.081% if 4 properties or less and 2.880% if 5 properties or more L Cannabis 5.000% 5.000% 5.000% 5.000% 5.000%
M Firearms Ammunition 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% 2.400% N Taxi and limousine service $75 for each ambulance or limousine and $180 for each taxicab permit O Transportation, trucking Tax based on current employee total P Wholesale 0.120% 0.150% 0.190% 0.220% 0.240%
899
Proposed Rates for Class P
9 Current Richmond Rates
Class Industry $250k to
$1M
$1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$25M
$25M to
$50M Over $50M
A Retail Sales 0.120% 0.160% 0.200% 0.240% 0.320%
P Proposed Wholesales 0.120% 0.150% 0.190% 0.220% 0.240% Approved Oakland Rates in 2022 with Measure T - effective 1/1/2023 Industry Under $1M $1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$20M
$20M to
$50M Over $50M
Retail Sales 0.090% 0.110% 0.200% 0.220% 0.240%
Wholesales 0.110% 0.120% 0.180% 0.200% 0.250%
Current San Francisco Rates updated with Proposition F in 2020 Industry Under $1M $1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$20M
$25M to
$50M Over $50M
Retail Sales 0.053% 0.070% 0.095% 0.224% 0.224%
Wholesale Trade 0.105% 0.140% 0.189% 0.224% 0.224%
Current Berkeley Rates
Industry Under $1M $1M to
$2.5M
$2.5M to
$20M
$25M to
$50M Over $50M
Retail Sales 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120%
Wholesale Trade 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120% 0.120%
900
Examples of Business Tax
Proposed Oakland
Gross
Receipts
Class A -
Retail Sales
Class P -
Wholesale
Class J -
Miscellaneous Wholesale
$900,000 $1,080 $1,080 $2,160 $990
$2,000,000 $2,800 $2,700 $5,500 $2,300
$3,000,000 $4,600 $4,400 $8,950 $3,800
$10,000,000 $18,600 $17,700 $35,550 $16,400
$25,000,000 $48,600 $46,200 $92,550 $44,400
$50,000,000 $108,600 $101,200 $205,050 $94,400
901
Recommended Action to
City Council on February 6th Meeting
INTRODUCE an Ordinance (first reading) amending
Chapter 7.04.103 of the Richmond Municipal Code to
create a new Business Activity Classification, Class P – Wholesale, and provide the corresponding rates.
902
Questions?
12 903

Page 1 of 5 ends

March 5, 2024

Finance Department

DATE: March 5, 2024
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:

Proposed Developer Impact Fees Adjustments 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 Fiscal Year 2022-2023, 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, June 6, 2023, June 27, 2023, and
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.

AGENDA
REPORT
904

Page 2 of 5 ends

March 5, 2024
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from the Finance Department
and Willdan Financial Services on the proposed updates
to the Developer Impact Fees in the Master Fee
Schedule – Finance Department (Andrea Miller/Mubeen
Qader/Antonio Banuelos 510-620- 6741).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL MEETINGS:

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

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

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

On September 26, 2023: City Council provided direction to make certain adjustments to the study and to further reach out to stakeholders.

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 an y report before approving the adjustments.

905

Page 3 of 5 ends

March 5, 2024

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 developments. The traffic impact fee section is still pending, and Finance staff will return later this year with those proposed changes.

Willdan’s Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Richmond through 2040 (Attachment 2). 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

On December 13, 2023, City staff and consultants from Willdan Financial Services held a virtual meeting with interested parties to review the impact fees and answer questions.

The presentation can be found here: https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/CivicMedia?VID=30.

The study and fees have been updated based on input received in the meeting and input previously provided by City Council.

Major changes included:

1. Updated library chapter to incorporate $29 million cost of planned facilities.

This version now uses a system standard to calculate higher fees than the previous report.

2. Community/aquatic centers fee updated to use the existing facility standard (and results in a higher fee). The City will have to identify approximately $19 million in additional projects to maintain the existing level of service through the planning horizon.

3. Incorporated current fee fund balances where appropriate.

4. Costs of projects were updated to match latest CIP where appropriate (Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center is now shown as $14 million, new fire facilities, etc.)

906

Page 4 of 5 ends

March 5, 2024
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.

Phase In Approach
Since the proposed increases to the developer impact fees are significant, 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. Subsequent yearly increases 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 is 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.). Staff will return with proposed updates to the developer impact fees focused on the traffic impact fees.
907

Page 5 of 5 ends

March 5, 2024

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 – Master Fee Schedule - Proposed Impact Fees Attachment 2 – Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update Attachment 3 – Presentation
Attachment 4 – State Audit Report – November 2022
908
January 24, 2024

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 1.10 1.14 1.19 1.23 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 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Storm Drains 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Sewer Facilities 2.29 3.71 5.14 6.56 7.98 Total (Subdivisions) 9.92$ 13.08$ 16.24$ 19.39$ 22.55$ Total (Infill) 9.92$ 13.01$ 16.09$ 19.18$ 22.26$ 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 3.37 4.43
Total 4.04$ 4.24$ 5.53$
Industrial
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.15$ 0.19$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.17 0.17
Library 0.18 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.41$ 4.54$ 7.55$
Warehousing
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.06$ 0.06$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.05 0.05
Library 0.05 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.29$ 4.33$ 7.30$
909

CITY OF RICHMOND

DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY
UPDATE

FINAL

JANUARY 24, 2024

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
910

This page intentionally left blank.

911

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 ............................ 26 912
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 30

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 45
Existing Level of Service 45
Future Level of Service 46
Fee Revenue Projection 46
Fee Schedule 47

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
913
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update iii

66016.5. (a) (2) - Level of Service 53
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
914

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 fee s that 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 wil l 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 accommodate 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 calcula te the park and recreation facilities fees, fire prot ection facilities and community and aquatic center facilities 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 915
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 2 a previou sly undeveloped area. This approach is used for the storm drai n, 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 t o calculate the library and 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 acquisition 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 Ci ty 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.

916
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. 7.98$ 11.32$ 11.03$ 1.23$ 0.99$ 0.46$ 0.54$ 0.03$ 22.55$ 22.26$ Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Commercial 3.55$ -$ -$ -$ 0.35$ 0.32$ -$ 0.05$ 4.27$ 4.27$ Office 4.43 - - - 0.54 0.49 - 0.07 5.53 5.53 Industrial 7.09 - - - 0.19 0.17 - 0.10 7.55 7.55 Warehousing 7.09 - - - 0.06 0.05 - 0.10 7.30 7.30 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.
917
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 $ 420.9 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 fundi ng 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$ 228,986,604$ 355,162,896$ Parks1 Existing Facility Standard 303,328,000 303,328,000 - Community / Aquatic Center Existing Facility Standard 33,783,200 33,783,200 - Police Facilities System Standard 80,000,000 32,771,000 47,229,000 Fire Protection Facilities Existing Facility Standard 17,641,200 17,641,200 - Library Facilities2 System Standard 29,933,657 14,747,472 15,186,185 Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,586,945 3,360,055 Total 1,054,782,557$ 633,844,421$ 420,938,136$
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, 8.8, 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.
2 The City has secured $13.9 million in grants to fund the planned facilities. The remainder w ill be funded through the City's General Capital Fund. See Table 8.7 for more detail.

918

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 pr ovides 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 unde rcut the 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 “growth 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 pay s 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 deve lopment leads to increa ses in service demands. This report supports the General Plan finding stated above.

The City collects public facilities fees unde r authority 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.
919
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:
920
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 b e 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 community center/aquatic 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
921
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 par t 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 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 allocat e 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 poli cies 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 library and 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 ide ntify 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
922

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 b ased 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. 923
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 ass umes 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.
924
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 c haracteristics 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. 925
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.

926

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 entir e 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.
927
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. 928
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. 929
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$ 39.2% 4,756,998$
NEAR-TERM PROJECTS 2021-2025

2.1 Level 1 Nutrient Removal Improvements $ 1,712,200 39.2% $ 671,182

2.10 Site Protection from Rock Slides 2,140,200 39.2% 838,958

2.11 Low-Lift Effluent Pump Station 7,847,500 39.2% 3,076,220 LONG-TERM PROJECTS 2026-2045

3.1 Level 2 Nutrient Removal Improvements 195,760,500$ 39.2% 76,738,116$

3.2 Level 3 Nutrient Removal Improvements 120,281,400 39.2% 47,150,309

3.3 Wet Weather Improvements 193,049,500 39.2% 75,675,404

3.4 Digested Sludge Storage (to support dewatering) 8,703,600 39.2% 3,411,811

3.5 Biosolids Post-Processing (Dryer Facility) 42,519,400 39.2% 16,667,605 Total Project Cost 584,149,500$ 228,986,604$
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 228,986,604$
Less Existing Fund Balance 277,985
Net Cost Allocated to New Development 228,708,619$
Growth in EDUs 18,423
Cost per EDU 12,414$
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 930
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update

17 including revenue collection , revenue an d cost accountin g, mandated p ublic reporting , and fee justification analyses.

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 12,414$ 0.92 11,421$ 228$ 11,649$ 7.98$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 12,414$ 0.28 3,476$ 70$ 3,546$ 3.55$ Office 12,414 0.35 4,345 87 4,432 4.43 Industrial 12,414 0.56 6,952 139 7,091 7.09 Warehousing 12,414 0.56 6,952 139 7,091 7.09 1 Fee per average sized 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.

931

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 th e 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. 932
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

933
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 $2 million to acquire and impr ove an acre of park land in Richmond.
934
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 21 Table 4.3: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Standard Park Improvements1
748,000$
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.
935
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 resulting 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 t hat may be incurred depending on t he a mount of development subject to the Quimby Act.

936
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.
937
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.
938
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.
939

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. 940
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).

941
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 14,000,000$
Total Planned Facilities Cost 14,000,000$
Source: City of Richmond.

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. 942
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
Exsting Impact Fee Fund Balance 67,556
Total 72,316,756$
Existing Service Population 111,924
Facility Standard per Resident 646$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3.

Future Level of Service
The approach used to calculate this fee ensures that the existing level of service will be maintained throughout the planning horizon. If implemented at the maximum justified amount, the impact fees would maintain the $646 per capita facility standard through the planning horizon.

Use of Fee Revenue
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 d evelopment. The planned facility is detailed above in Table 5.4. The City will have to identify additional facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service through the planning horizon. The City c an use community center and aquatic facilities fee revenues for the construction or purchase of buildings, land, vehicles and equipment that are par t of the system of community center and aquatic facilities serving new development.

Fee Revenue Projection
Table 5.6 shows a projection of fee revenue needed to maintain the existing level of service.

Additional facilities will have to be identified to maintain the level of service through the planning horizon.
943
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 30 Table 5.6: Community Center and Aquatic
Facilities Projected Fee Revenue
Cost per Capita 646$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 52,296
Fee Revenue 33,783,200$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 14,000,000
Future Facilities to be Identified 19,783,200$
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.4, and 5.5.

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 (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 f und 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.

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 646$ 2.72 1,757$ 35$ 1,792$ 1.23$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.4.
1 Fee per average sized 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.

944

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.
945
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 FY2023-24 through FY2027-28.

This cost per capita is not used in the fee calculat ion, rather i t is shown here for informational purposes only.
946
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 947
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 includ es 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.
948
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 sized 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.
949

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 associ ated 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.
950
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

951
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).

952
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.

953
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
Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance (20,489)
Total 31,086,411$
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 66 475,000$
Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000
Total Planned Facilities Cost 2,475,000$
Source: City of Richmond Capital Improvement Plan FY2023-24 through FY2027-28.

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. 954
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 41 Table 7.7: Fire Protection Facilities Existing Standard Total Value of Existing Facilities 31,086,411$
Existing Service Population 128,800
Cost per Capita 241$
Facility Standard per Resident 241$
Facility Standard per Worker1 147
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 $ 15.2 million in additional planned facilities in order to maintain its existing facility standards.

Table 7.8: Revenue Projection
Cost per Capita 241$
Growth in Service Population (2023- 2040) 73,200
Fee Revenue 17,641,200$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 2,475,000
Future Facilities to be Identified 15,166,200$
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.

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 241$ 2.72 656$ 13$ 669$ 0.46$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial 147$ 2.12 312$ 6$ 318$ 0.32$ Office 147 3.26 479 10 489 0.49 Industrial 147 1.16 171 3 174 0.17 Warehousing 147 0.34 50 1 51 0.05 Sources: Tables 2.2 and 7.7.
1 Fee per average sized 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.

956

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.
957
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).

958
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 main library reconfiguration.

Table 8.5: Planned Library Facilities
Project Cost
Main Library Project 29,933,657$
Total Project Cost 29,933,657$
Source: City of Richmond.

This cost per capita is used to drive the fee calculation. 959
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 46 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.

Future Level of Service
Table 8.7 shows the calculation of the system facilities standard per capita for library facilities used to calculate the fees. This value is calculated by dividing the total value of all library facilities in 2040 by the total service population in 2040. The resulting standard is the cost standard that will be achieved when all the facilities are realized, and new development has come online.

Table 8.7: Library Facilities System Standard
Value of Existing Facilities 16,418,066$
Cost of Planned Facilities 29,933,657
Total System Value (2040) 46,351,723$
Future Service Population (2040) 164,220
Facility Standard per Resident 282$
Sources: Tables 8.1 through 8.5.

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 8.8 shows the projected fee revenue and the non-fee funding required th rough 2040. After accounting for the projected fu ture impact fee revenue, existing fund balances and grants approximately $1.2 million in non-fee funding will be needed to complete the planned facilities.

The City will anticipates funding the balance with the City’s General Capital Fund. 960
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 47 Table 8.8: Fee Revenue Projection
Cost Per Capita 282$
Growth in Residents (2023-2040) 52,296
Estimated Fee Revenue 14,747,472$
Cost of Planned Facilities 29,933,657$
Less Projected Impact Fee Revenue 14,747,472
Less Current Impact Fee Fund Balance 143,484
Less CA Building Forward Grant 9,712,979
Less ARPA 3,656,490
Less CIP CIP (HVAC AR231) ARPA 500,000
Non-fee Funding Required 1,173,232$
Sources: Tables 8.1, 8.5, 8.6.

Fee Schedule
Table 8.9 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 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.

Table 8.9: 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 282$ 2.72 767$ 15$ 782$ 0.54$ Sources: Tables 2.2 and 8.7.
1 Fee per average sized 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.
961

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 43.5 percent of to tal storm d rain demand in 2040.
962
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 56.5% 43.5% 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. 963
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$ 43.5% 294,060$ 2 32nd Street - End of Spring Street south of
Freeway and railroad tracks Convert 32' of ditch to dual 48" RCP. 182,000 43.5% 79,170 3 8th-9th Street and Harbor Way Replace/upsize inlets to storm drain throughout area to alleviate flooding 332,000 43.5% 144,420 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 43.5% 413,250
5 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 105,000 43.5% 45,675 6 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals in Tehama and Carlson intersection. 226,000 43.5% 98,310
7 McLaughlin - Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave Upsize inlets and laterals along Carlson Boulevard from Santa Cruz Avenue to Tehama Avenue. 560,000 43.5% 243,600 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 43.5% 963,525 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 43.5% 304,935 Total 5,947,000$ 2,586,945$
Source: City of Richmond Storm Drain Master Plan 12/21/18; Willdan Financial Services. 964
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 2,586,945$ Less Existing Impact Fee Fund Balance 235,671
Net Cost Allocated to New Development 2,351,274$
Growth in EDUs 49,974
Cost Allocation per EDU 47$
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.

Ft.3
Residential Dwelling Unit4 47$ 0.97 46$ 1$ 47$ 0.03$ Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.

Commercial 47$ 1.13 53$ 1$ 54$ 0.05$ Office 47 1.39 65 1 66 0.07 Industrial 47 2.12 100 2 102 0.10 Warehousing 47 2.12 100 2 102 0.10 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 sized 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.

966

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 loca l 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 categ ories are: parks, community and aquatic centers and fire protection facilities . The existing 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 do es 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.

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 th e library a nd police facility fees. The increased level of serv ice is required to fund new development’s fair sha re of identified planned facilities. New development will not fun d t he entirety of the increase in level of service, rather, i t will fund a share of th e increased lev el 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 o ther funding so urce. The library and police facilities chapters include tables 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. 967
City of Richmond Development Impact Fee Nexus Study Update 54 Additionally, the City’s 2006 fee study assume d a pl anning 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. .
968

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 n eed 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.
969
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 thepurpose for which it is charged.
(C) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated tocomplete 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) (i) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement and the public improvement remains incomplete.
(ii) An identification of each public improvement identified in a previous report pursuant to clause (i) and whether construction began on the approximate date noted in the previous report.
(iii) For a project identified pursuant to clause (ii) for which construction did not commence by the approximate date provided in the previous report, the reason for the delay and a revised approximate date that the local agency will commence construction.
(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 §66001 and §66006.
970
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. 971

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 t hat 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. 972
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 t he 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 g rowth 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.
973
Development Impact Fee Update Study
City of Richmond
March, 2024
974
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
2 975
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
3 976
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
4 977
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. 978
Changes to Report Since Last Version
Revised library fee and methodology to incorporate latest costs and grant funding
Revised Community/Aquatic Center fee methodology to
existing standard approach
Incorporated latest impact fee fund balances, where
appropriate
Updated project costs to match City’s latest CIP
979
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
7 980
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
981
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
9 982
Fee Program Methodologies
Parks
Community / Aquatic
Centers
Fire Protection Facilities
Existing Standard
Police Facilities
Libraries
System Plan
Sewer
Storm Drain
Planned Facilities
10 983
Planned Facilities
11 Cost Estimate Cost Estimate
Community Centers Storm Drain Facilities
Martin Luther King Jr. Community Center $ 14,000,000 Central Avenue - West end of Van Fleet Avenue $ 676,000 32nd Street - End of Spring Street south of Freeway and railroad tracks 182,000
Police Facilities 8th-9th Street and Harbor Way 332,000 New Police Station $ 80,000,000 Plumas Ave and San Benito St. 950,000 Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 105,000
Fire Facilities Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 226,000
Gender Specific Restrooms Fire Station 66 $ 475,000 Carlson Blvd & Tehama Ave 560,000 Fire Department Regional Training Center 2,000,000 Green infrastructure along Carlson Boulevard. 2,215,000 Total Fire Facilities $ 2,475,000 Green infrastructure along Plumas Avenue. 701,000 Total Storm Drain Facilities $ 5,947,000
Library Facilities
New Library $ 29,933,657 Sewer Facilities

1.5 Dewatering Facility $ 12,135,200
Parks 2.1 Level 1 Nutrient Removal Improvements 1,712,200 Acquisition and Improvement of 150.61 Parkland Acres $ 303,328,000 2.10 Site Protection from Rock Slides 2,140,200

2.11 Low-Lift Effluent Pump Station 7,847,500

3.1 Level 2 Nutrient Removal Improvements 195,760,500

3.2 Level 3 Nutrient Removal Improvements 120,281,400

3.3 Wet Weather Improvements 193,049,500

3.4 Digested Sludge Storage (to support dewatering) 8,703,600

3.5 Biosolids Post-Processing (Dryer Facility) 42,519,400 Total Sewer Facilities $ 584,149,500
984
Projected Impact Fee Revenue
12 Fee Category Fee Calculation Methodology Net Project Cost Projected Impact
Fee Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
Sewer Facilities Planned Facility Standard $ 584,149,500 $ 228,986,604 $355,162,896 Parks1 Existing Facility Standard 303,328,000 303,328,000 - Community / Aquatic Center Existing Facility Standard 33,783,200 33,783,200 - Police Facilities System Standard 80,000,000 32,771,000 47,229,000 Fire Protection Facilities Existing Facility Standard 17,641,200 17,641,200 - Library Facilities2 System Standard 29,933,657 14,747,472 15,186,185 Storm Drains Planned Facility Standard 5,947,000 2,586,945 3,360,055 Total $1,054,782,557 $ 633,844,421 $420,938,136
Note: For facility categories calculated using the existing facility standard, the projected fee revenue is equal to the costof planned facilities needed to serve new development.
1 Fee revenue shown if all development is infill development. Refer to Table 4.5 for projections of Quimby in-lieu fee revenue. 2 The City has secured $13.9 million in grants to fund the planned facilities. The remainder will be funded through the City's General Capital Fund. See Table 8.7 for more detail.
985
Maximum Justified Impact Fee Schedule
13 Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
Sewer
Facilities1
Pa rks -
Quimby
(Subdivisions)2
Pa rks
(Infill)2
Community /
Aquatic
Center
Police
Facilities
Fire
Protection
Facilities
Library
Facilities
Storm
Drains
Total -
Subdivisions
Total -
Infill
Residential - per Sq. Ft. 7.98$ 11.32$ 11.03$ 1.23$ 0.99$ 0.46$ 0.54$ 0.03$ 22.55$ 22.26$ Nonresidential - per Sq. Ft.

Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.7, 5.7, 6.6, 7.9, 8.9 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.
986
Recommendation: Residential – Phase In Increases Over Four Years 14 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 1.10 1.14 1.19 1.23 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 0.54 0.54 0.54 0.54 Storm Drains 0.45 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03 Sewer Facilities 2.29 3.71 5.14 6.56 7.98 Total (Subdivisions) 9.92$ 13.08$ 16.24$ 19.39$ 22.55$ Total (Infill) 9.92$ 13.01$ 16.09$ 19.18$ 22.26$ 987
Recommendation: Nonresidential – Phase In Increases Over Two Years 15 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 3.37 4.43
Total 4.04$ 4.24$ 5.53$
Industrial
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.15$ 0.19$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.17 0.17
Library 0.18 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.41$ 4.54$ 7.55$
Warehousing
Police Facilities 0.11$ 0.06$ 0.06$
Fire Facilities 0.19 0.05 0.05
Library 0.05 - -
Storm Drainage 0.79 0.10 0.10
Sewer 1.14 4.12 7.09
Total 2.29$ 4.33$ 7.30$
988
Comparison: Single Family Residential – 1,600 Sq. Ft.
16 $-
$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)
989
Comparison: Multifamily – 20 Units
17 $-
$50,000
$100,000
$150,000
$200,000
$250,000
$300,000
$350,000
$400,000
$450,000
Oakland
(Low)
Berkeley
(Low)
Oakland
(High)
San Leandro
(Low)
San Leandro
(High)
Concord
(Low)
Hayward Richmond
(Current)
Concord
(High)
Richmond
(Draft)
990
Comparison: Commercial – 15,000 Sq. Ft. Retail
18 $-
$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)
991
Comparison: Industrial – 100,000 Sq. Ft.
19 $-
$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)
992
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.
20 993
Questions
21 994
Next Steps
 Staff will return with proposed Ordinance adjusting the dollar amount for proposed Developer Impact Fees using the phase in approach
 Staff will return with proposed Traffic Impacts Fees
 Staff will return to City Council with a proposed contract focused on Recreation Department fees, which will include a comparison with nearby jurisdictions.
22 995
Thank you
23 996
City of Richmond
Anticipated Deficits, High Pension Debt, and
Mismanagement of Its Housing Authority Cause
the City to Be High Risk
November 2022
REPORT 2021-806
997

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200 I Sacramento I CA I 95814
916.445,0255 I TTY 916.445.0033
For complaints of state employee misconduct,
contact us through the Whistleblower Hotline:

1.800.952.5665
Don't want to miss any of our reports? Subscribe to our email list at For questions regarding the contents of this report, please contact our Public Affairs Office at 916.445.0255 This report is also available online at www.auditor.ca.gov I Alternative format reports available upon request I Permission is granted to reproduce reports 998
November 10, 2022
2021-806
The Governor of California
President pro Tempore of the Senate
Speaker of the Assembly
State Capitol
Sacramento, California 95814
Dear Governor and Legislative Leaders:

Michael S. Tilden Aeling Stale Auditor
Despite recent financial improvements, the city of Richmond's long-term financial stability remains uncertain. Our office's audit of the city-conducted as part of our high-risk local government agency audit program-concludes that the city is high risk due to its anticipated deficits, high pension debt, and mismanagement of the Richmond Housing Authority (housing authority).

Richmond forecasts a significant long-term deficit, which we believe may worsen based on emerging financial trends. The city anticipates that these deficits may average as much as $6.7 million annually beginning in fiscal year 2023-24 and continue through at least fiscal year 2027-28. Despite having increased its general fund reserves to nearly $49 million in fiscal year 2021-22, Richmond projects that its deficit will deplete those reserves to less than $9 million by fiscal year 2027-28, which is well below levels recommended by financial experts .

Richmond's growing annual pension costs are a significant barrier to balancing its budgets . In fiscal year 2020-21, Richmond paid $37 million in pension costs. However, these costs could reach $53 million by fiscal year 2028-29. Richmond attempted to mitigate its pension costs in 2005 by issuing $115 million in bonds and investing the proceeds but, after refinancing those bonds in 2022, the city now expects its residents to pay millions in annual debt service until 2044.

Finally, the mismanagement of Richmond's housing authority has resulted in the federal government disallowing millions of dollars in reimbursement of city expenses and requiring the housing authority to transfer its public housing responsibilities to other entities . However, the housing authority has missed numerous federal deadlines associated with this transfer and the city, which provides staff and financial support to the housing authority, may need to provide additional resources to resolve this ongoing problem .

Respectfully submitted,
MICHAELS . TILDEN, CPA
Acting California State Auditor
621 Capito l Mall, Suite 1200 I Sacramento, CA 95814 I 916 .445 .0255 I 916.327.0019 fa x I www .auditor.ca .gov 999 iv CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1000

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK

HIGH-RISK ISSUES
City of Richmond, Contra Costa County Risk Designation: High Risk Despite Recent Improvements, Richmond's Long-Term Financial Stability Remains Uncertain Financial Reserves Have Increased, but Risks Remain
Richmond Forecasts a Significant Long-Term Deficit, Which Evolving Financial Trends May Worsen The City's Debt Burden Remains High
Addressing Its Poor'J! Funded Retirement Benefits and Be/ow-Market Compensation Will Increase Richmond s Expenses
Significant Retirement Obligations Continue to Burden the City Richmond May Have Missed Opportunities to Better Address Its Retiree Health Obligations Increasing the Competitiveness of City Salaries Will Incur Additional Costs The City Has Mismanaged the Richmond Housing Authority
A Decade of Mismanagement Will Result in the Housing Authority Transferring Its Public Housing Responsibilities to Other Entities
The Housing Authority Missed Mandatory Deadlines to Complete the Recovery Agreement The Housing Authority May Owe the Internal Revenue Service $1 Million or More in Taxes and Penalties 7 9
13 17
18 20
23 25
27 The City Has Not Consistently Followed Its Contracting Policies or Updated Its Fees as Required Richmond Could Do More to Demonstrate It Is Following Requirements to Ensure the Best Value for Its Contracts
City Staff Have Not Updated Fee Schedules as Required
Appendices
Appendix A- The State Auditor's Local High-Risk Program Appendix B-Scope and Methodology
Agency Response
City of Richmond
California State Auditor's Comment on the Response From the City of Richmond 29 30
33 35
39 43
V
1001
vi CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1002

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 1 November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Risks the City of Richmond Faces -----------
Although Richmond's general fund reserves have increased in recent years to the point where it has reserves in excess of two months of general fund expenditures, its long-term financial stability remains in question. Its 2022 financial forecast predicts annual deficits that will grow to $13.8 million in fiscal year 2025-26 before shrinking to $9.4 million by fiscal year 2027-28; these deficits threaten to critically deplete the city's general fund reserves. Further, Richmond's current forecast may be underestimating inflation and does not account for the possibility of a recession in the later years of the projection. If Richmond eventually exhausts its reserves and spends more than it projects, it will need to either raise revenue or cut city expenditures or services.

Our Local Government High-Risk Dashboard (dashboard), which we updated in October 2022, identif1ed five areas-debt burd en, pension obligations, pension costs, futur e pension costs, and other post employment benefits (OPEB)-in which the city's finances continue to have high risk ratings as indicated in Table 1. Although we determi ned that Richmond's overall fiscal risk rating for fiscal year 2020-21 was moderate and adjusted its ranking among the highest-risk cities from 9th to 10th, we conclude that Richmond is high risk based on the totality of factors described in this audit report, particularly its projections of future deficits.

Table 1
Richmond's Fiscal Risk Indicators Have Improved
FINANCIAL INDICATOR 2019-20 2020-21
Overall Risk Rating MNi©I MNi©I Moderate Risk
General Fund Reserves HIGH HIGH MODERATE
Debt Burden
Liquidity
Revenue Trends
Pension Obligations
Pension Funding
Pension Costs
Future Pension Costs
OPEB Obligations
OPEB Funding
HIGH

MODERATE
HIGH

MODERATE
HIGH
HIGH

MODERATE
HIGH

MODERATE
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
Source: Analysis based on Richmond's audited financial statements and Cal PERS' actuarial reports.

HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
I
HIGH
HIGH
1003
2 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Addressing the areas in which Richmond continues to be at high risk and counteracting the effects of its long-term wage freezes will increase the city's expenses . Notably, the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) has projected Richmond's annual retirement costs to increase from roughly $35 million in fiscal year 2020 - 21 to $53 million in fiscal year 2028-29 . These increasing costs are a potential barrier to the city's ability to maintain balanced budgets. As of June 2021, Richmond has funded its OPEB trust funds-which assist the city in meeting health care obligations for retired staff-at about 27 percent of the cost of its promised future benefits and has set aside more than $7 million in fiscal year 2022-23 for increasing staff salaries and benefits that it had previously frozen to reduce costs.

However, maintaining salary increases may prove difficult as the city moves closer to deficit spending.

Richmond's mismanagement of the Richmond Housing Authority (housing authority)-a legally separate entity created to manage low-income housing facilities-has also increased financial risk to the city. Audits by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) noted deficiencies in financial practices, oversight, documentation, and accountability . In fact, in 2016 HUD found that the housing authority had misled HUD on the status of its finances and had submitted falsified documentation. In its report, HUD noted that the housing authority had inappropriately allowed the city to use HUD funds, the city had charged the housing authority excessive amounts for rent and services, and the city's actions had resulted in more than $2 million in misspent HUD funds.

The housing authority signed an agreement with HUD in 2019 with the intent, according to HUD, to effectuate the transfer of the housing authority's direct public housing responsibilities to other entities, such as developers, who will rehabilitate the properties and hold long-term leases to use them for public housing . Richmond acknowledged this agreement through the signature of its mayor and agreed to work in good faith to assist the housing authority and HUD in accomplishing the tasks described in the agreement. However, the housing authority has missed 11 of the 26 deadlines and not completed the associated tasks needed to make this transfer, many by more than a year. As a result, some low-income housing residents have experienced delays in the rehabilitation of their housing. Although the housing authority is a legally separate entity from the city, the city agreed to assist the housing authority with the agreement; thus, continued concerns related to the housing authority may require additional financial resources from the city.

Richmond has also not consistently followed its policies for contracting and fees. We examined 10 of Richmond's contracts and found at least two instances in which it failed to follow contracting policies or made errors involving contract management.

For example, Richmond did not justify its use of an alternative contracting process on a $24,500 contract because it failed to make a formal determination that using this alternative process was in the city's best interest, as it is required to do. Richmond has also not consistently updated its fees to reflect the cost of doing business, thereby forgoing revenues that could help improve its financial condition. 1004
Recommendations

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-8061 November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
The following are the recommendations we made as a result of our audit.

Descriptions of the findings and conclusions that led to these recommendations can be found in the sections of this report.
• To help ensure that Richmond maintains appropriate reserves for times of fiscal uncertainty, city staff should complete a review by June 2023 of Richmond's reserve policy to determine whether a higher reserve target is appropriate. As part of the review, staff should consider all the factors the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) recommends for setting a reserve target. Once that review is complete, city staff should present proposals to the city council for modifying the city's policy.
• To decrease the risk that Richmond will deplete its reserves, city staff should present by June 2023 to the city council a list of proposed budget actions that would help ensure balanced budgets and eliminate projected deficits. • Richmond should include multiple scenarios in its financial projections, including scenarios with potential additional risks, such as economic downturns or recessions, and how the city would continue to fund its operations under those circumstances.
• To ensure that Richmond is able to fund its retirement-related costs, city staff should propose by June 2023 to the city council a specific policy regarding funding of its pension trust fund for this purpose. Staff should report to the city council on the estimated long-term savings from increasing its direct payments to CalPERS as compared to investing the same amounts in its pension trust fund. Staff members should use this information to inform their recommendations related to funding targets for the pension trust fund and should consider recommending that the council increase the city's payments directly to CalPERS. • To improve the city's ability to pay OPEB, Richmond should implement, by June 2023 a policy identifying funds, such as surpluses or one-time revenues, that should be contributed to the OPEB trust fund. Staff should then conduct an annual analysis to determine whether any funds available to the city are applicable under the city's policy and should present a proposal to the city council to apply those funds to that trust fund.
• To mitigate the costs of increasing salaries, the city should perform a workforce analysis by June 2024. Based on the results of the analysis, the city council should consider eliminating vacant positions that it deems no longer necessary.

Additionally, the city should continue to assess its need for any vacant position before it seeks to fill it.
3 1005
4 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
• To ensure complian ce with federal requirements, Richmond should dedicate the resources necessary to provide all records needed for an independent auditor to complete all outstanding single audits of the housing authority within the next fiscal year.
• To comply with existing legal obligations, Richmond should make available sufficient resources to enable the housing authority to resolve all past-due requirements of the recovery agreement and to meet the remaining deadlines in a timely manner , but no later than January 2024.
• To define Richmond's responsibility related to the housing authority, the city should immediately enter into a written agreement with the housing authority defining each entity's financial responsibilities and it should draft plans to resolve past tax liabilities and prevent unnecessary new liabilities. • To ensure that Richmond is receiving the best value when entering into contracts, city staff should immediately begin documenting that they are following the contracting requirements in the city's municipal code and in the contracting policies for all contracts.
• To reduce potential errors and omissions by city staff members when contracting for goods and services, by January 2023 1 Richmond should require its finance department to create a comprehensive checklist of required documentation for contract files that other departments must follow when conducting procurements.

To ensure that city fees appropriately cover the cost of providing services, by June 2023, Richmond should determine a cost-effective frequency for updating its Master Fee Schedule (fee schedule) to reflect all allowable costs, including adjusting fees for inflation as appropriate. Richmond should then revise its municipal code as necessary.

Agency Comments
Richmond agreed with our recommendations. We look forward to receiving Richmond's corrective action plan by January 2023 to understand the specific actions it has undertaken, or plans to take, to address the conditions that led us to designate it as high risk.
1006
Introduction

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 1 November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
The city of Richmond, located in Contra Costa County, had approximately 116,000 residents in 2021 and about 690 full-time, budgeted employees. Richmond is a charter city and therefore has authority over its municipal affairs, and it may establish certain local ordinances beyond those that state law allows for cities that operate under general law. Voters elect a seven-member city council. The mayor is elected separately and is one of the council members. The council in turn appoints a city manager, who implements council policy and acts as the chief executive and administrative officer of the city. Richmond provides many services to residents , including libraries, parks, community facilities, and public safety.

Richmond has had a long-standing history of financial challenges. For example, in 2004 our office audited the city and found that it had drained its financial assets and jeopardized its financial stability by failing to control spending while its revenues decreased. In 2015 Moody's, a credit rating agency, downgraded the city's credit rating, citing $396 million in combined governmental and enterpris e debt. Further, our dashboard has assessed Richmond as having high fiscal risk every year from fiscal years 2016-17 through 2019-20. Richmond showed some improvement in our most recent analysis of its fiscal health for fiscal year 2020-21.

Despite its challenges, since fiscal year 2016 - 17, Richmond has received more general fund money than it has spent, as indicated in Figure 1. General fund revenue comes in part from property taxes and sales taxes, and it funds the city's core government services, including public safety, recreation, and administration .

In fiscal year 2020-21, Richmond had general fund revenues of $179 million and expenditures of $162 million. As of June 2021, the general fund had a total balance of $49 million, $35 million of which made up the city's reserves. The city estimates that it received $194 million in revenues and spent $166 million out of the general fund in fiscal year 2021-22.

In addition to its other responsibilities, the city operates a number of businesslike activities . One such program is the Richmond housing authority, a separate legal entity created in 1941 to manage low-income housing facilities. Members of the city council serve on the housing authority's board and the Richmond finance department manages the authority's finances. Currently, the housing authority directly administers more than 240 low-income housing units across two properties.

The housing authority receives about 40 percent of its $4.8 million in revenues from the federal government and about 16 percent from the city. As we detail later in this report, HUD found that the housing authority mismanaged its financial operations and that its external auditor had not completed several years of audits because of staff turnover and inadequate recordkeeping within the finance department . 5 1007
6 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Figure 1
Richmond's General Fund Revenues Have Slightly Exceeded Expenditures in Recent Years $200
120
~
C
~ 100 ~
.E
80 60
40 20
0 2016-17 2017-18
Source: Richmond's audited financial statements.
2018- 19
Fiscal Year
- General Fund Revenues
- General Fund Expenditures
2019-20 2020- 21
1008

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-8061 November 2022
Despite Recent Improvements,
Richmond's-Long-Term Financial
Stability Remains Uncertain

LOCAL HIGH RISK
------------
Financial Reserves Have Increased, but Risks Remain
In June 2021, Richmond reached $34.7 million in general fund reserves, exceeding the minimum amount experts typically recommend. The city further estimates based on unaudited information that, as of October 2022, its reserve has since increased to almost $49 million. The GFOA recommends that a general-purpose government establish a policy to maintain an unrestricted general fund balance that would at least cover a minimum of two months-or about 17 percent-of its regular general fund operating revenues or expenditures. Richmond's general fund reserve policy substantially aligns with the GFOA recommendation. The policy requires the city to maintain a minimum of 15 percent of the next year's budgeted general fund expenditures as its reserve. Richmond's 2021 unrestricted fund balance represented more than 19 percent of its fiscal year 2020-21 general fund expenditures, 1 exceeding the GFOA's minimum recommendation. Richmond was able to reach this general fund balance partly through revenues that are unlikely to be repeated regularly, such as unexpectedly high property transfer taxes.

The city's current reserve represents significant growth from prior years. For example, in June 2018, Richmond only had $17.7 million in reserve, just 11 percent of its expenditures.

For fiscal year 2019-20, we considered the city's reserve level a high risk because it maintained low general fund balances compared to its expenditures and transfers, and it had had limited growth in its reserves in previous years. However, the city's improved balance, illustrated in Figure 2, led to our updated determination that reserves are now an area of moderate risk for the city as of October 2022.

That said, Richmond may require a higher reserve target to address the specific challenges it may face. According to the GFOA, governments rriay need to set policies to maintain more than the minimum recommended reserves. The GFOA has identified five factors that governments should consider when setting a reserve target. As indicated in Table 2, Richmond has not sufficiently reduced or eliminated risks related to three of the five factors, which could lead the city to need greater reserves than its current policy dictates. For example, the city could experience volatile revenues and expenditures during the next few years because of unusual inflation and other economic trends. Beginning in fiscal year 2022-23, Richmond's reserve policy now requires a range of reserves from 15 percent to 20 percent of general fund expenditures; however, this minimum may still be too low to meet the city's needs.
1 We include in this calculation both the $162 million Richmond reported in general fund expenditures and an additional $16 million it transferred out of the general fund that year. The city's reserve policy requires that transfers out be included along with expenditures to calculate the reserve level.
7 1009
8 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Figure 2
Richmond Has Been Increasing Its General Fund Reserves
$50 -
- General Fund Reserves
45 -
40 --------------
30 -
10 0
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22*
Fiscal Year
Source: Richmond's audited financial statements and staff reports to the city council.

Note: This figure does not include portions of the general fund balance that Richmond identified as nonspendable or otherwise restricted.
* The fiscal year 2021-22 reserve is based on unaudited estimates from the city.

Insufficient reserves could leave Richmond unable to respond effectively to financial emergencies or maintain city services during economic downturns. Although maintaining two months of reserves is an important milestone that could help the city weather a short-term crisis-such as emergency infrastructure replacement-the city's minimum target of 15 percent could quickly prove inadequate in the face of a severe recession or long-term economic downturn, especially given Richmond's other risk factors.

In fact, Richmond's independent auditor found that the city's reserves constituted a significant weakness as of June 2021. The city's auditor noted that the low general fund balance could eventually require Richmond to cut costs significantly in order to continue operations while also building up its reserves . Moreover, a city consultant has indicated that cost-cutting measures could include reducing the overall number of city employees and shuttering certain services, such as library branches. Though dedicating funds to maintain adequate reserves could require Richmond to make difficult budgeting decisions over the next several years, doing so may be necessary to ensure that it can maintain services during uncertain economic times ahead. After we shared our concerns regarding the city's reserve levels with Richmond, staff reported to the city council that the city 1010

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
would perform an analysis on adequate reserve levels based on the GFOA's guidance.

Doing so will be an important step in ensuring that Richmond seeks to maintain adequate fund balances to support its unique needs.

Table2
Richmond Has Multiple Areas of Concern That May Require Increased Reserves ~ - ~ .

GFOA IDENTIFIED

RISK FACTOR
Predictability of
revenues and
expenditures
Risk of one-time
and emergency
expenditures
Potentia I need for
general fund support
of other funds
Potential impact on
bond ratings
Planned other uses
for unrestricted
funds
I
I
i
I
I
I

HAS RICHMOND

REDUCED OR
ELIMINATED THE RISK?
YES
YES

CONDITIONS WITHIN RICHMOND
Richmond has identified the potential for significant year-to-year variation in its revenue and expenditures. The city has also acknowledged that inflation is a significant uncertainty going forward.

As we discuss later in the report, the housing authority represents an ongoing risk of significant one-time expenditures for Richmond.

Several of Richmond's other funds have had negative balances, some in excess of $2 million, that staff proposed using the general fund to stabilize in October 2022.

It remains to be seen whether the city can avoid future deficits in its other funds.

Richmond's credit rating has been steadily improving. The city recently received a reaffirmed credit rating of AA- from Standard & Poor's in August 2022.

Richmond has previously allocated millions in its reserves for other purposes.

In June 2021, for example, Richmond reported that more than $12 million of its $34.7 million reserve had already been allocated. In October 2022, after we highlighted this risk, staff proposed releasing the majority of its allocated funds such that only $1 .4 million of the reserve would have planned uses.

Source: Richmond's audited financial statements, Richmond's financial projection and budget documents, staff reports to the city council, reports from credit-rating agencies, and interviews with city budget staff.

Richmond Forecasts a Significant Long-Term Deficit, Which Evolving Financial Trends May Worsen
Richmond's recent budget projections-produced by two different consultants and by city staff members using various models over multiple years-all predict that it will face future deficits because of inadequate general fund revenues and rising expenditures.

For example, in 2021 a consultant anticipated annual budget deficits that would grow from $8 million in fiscal year 2022-23 to $26 million in fiscal year 2027-28, eventually declining and stabilizing at $18 million annually through fiscal year 2030-31. Richmond city staff members completed their projection in September 2022, showing less severe deficits of about $13.8 million in fiscal year 2025-26 before shrinking to $9.4 million by fiscal year 2027-28. Despite the differences between the consultant's projections, approach, and assumptions and those of the city staff, city staff members agree that Richmond is facing future deficits. City staff have identified several long-term obstacles to fiscal sustainability, including future costs for infrastructure maintenance, the need to fund growing retirement benefits costs, and the difficulty of addressing these challenges while building up adequate reserves. As Richmond's consultant warned in 2021, not addressing projected budgetary shortfalls could result in the city being unable to support key city services.
9 1011
I ,o

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
In recent years, Richmond has avoided deficits both through unexpected revenue and the implementation of a variety of short-term and long-term measures, as the text box describes. For example, in fiscal year 2020-21, the city anticipated $6 million in revenue from its property transfer tax; however, it received $20 million, largely due Examples of Strategies and
Circumstances That Allowed Richmond
to Avoid Deficits in Recent Years
The city identified key measures it employed
or circumstances it benefited from which
allowed it to avoid deficits:

New Revenue. In 2018 and 2020, Richmond
voters approved a new rate structure for taxes
collected from property sales and increased a
business tax.

Pandemic Recovery. In fiscal year 2020-21,
• the economic recovery from the pandemic
contributed to the city collecting $5 million
more in sales tax than it budgeted,
$1 million more in property taxes, and
almost $1 million more in utility taxes.

SalarvSavings. Until recently, Richmond had
not provided salary increases for non-public
safety staff since 2015 or for many public safety
positions since 2018.

Staff Vacancies. According to the finance
director, about 6 percent of Richmond's
approximately 690 city positions historically
remain vacant.

Source: Richmond's financial statements,
Richmond's website, staff reports to the city council,
and interviews with city staff.
to tax revenue from several large property
sales. This unexpected $14 million-which
the city indicates is unlikely to reoccur
accounts for the entire $10 .5 million increase
in Richmond's general fund balance for that
fiscal year. In addition, Richmond decreased
its expenses by taking steps such as keeping
certain positions vacant and freezing staff
compensation levels.

Although some of the actions Richmond
has taken-such as implementing new
voter-approved taxes-will improve its
long-term fiscal sustainability, others may
not be sustainable in the future. For example,
Richmond has relied on savings from
freezing cost-of-living adjustments to some
staff salaries since 2015; however, it recently
increased staff compensation, which will
decrease its ability to maintain balanced
budgets. Thus, Richmond will likely need to
seek additional revenue or decrease other
expenses to prevent future deficits.

In 2021 a consultant provided an overview
of past projections, an updated set of
projections, and warnings about future fiscal
issues to the city council. The consultant
warned that, although the city might
experience individual positive and negative
economic events and might employ various
strategies to report balanced budgets, it would still face a long-term structural deficit, largely because of increasing personnel costs. Ultimately, the consultant determined that Richmond would need to increase general fund revenues or decrease expenditures by $5 million to $21 million per year in order to both balance its budget and maintain at least minimum reserve levels.

The city's own financial forecast from September 2022 projects deficits averaging about $6.7 million annually through fiscal year 2027-28, the farthest the city has projected.

Under this forecast, which Figure 3 shows, the city predicts that it will achieve a surplus in fiscal year 2022-23 but then operate at a deficit in each of the subsequent fiscal yeaFs, peaking at a shortfall of nearly $14 million in fiscal year 2025-26 . The city identified rising costs to fund retirement programs and increased city salaries as contributing factors to its projected deficit.
1012

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Figure3
Richmond's Latest Projections Show Expenditures Exceeding Revenues - Projected Revenues
- Projected Expenditures
Operating Deficit:
• .. • • •
$260
240 --- -
220
~
c::
~ 200 ~
-=
180
160
140
120
100
2022-23 2023-24 2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Fiscal Year
Source: Richmond's projection documents.

Richmond's current projections anticipate that, without significant cuts to city expenses or services or without new revenue, its general fund will run critically low on reserves in fiscal year 2027-28, reaching less than $9 million, or the equivalent of less than two weeks of expenditures, as indicated in Figure 4. Richmond's consultant has provided a variety of options for the city council to consider as long-term budget solutions to avoid deficits, including contracting out police services, contracting out or reducing library services, reducing social services, and substantially decreasing the city's workforce. Richmond's city council has not yet considered these actions because, according to the finance director, city staff is still analyzing its 2022 projection and is reviewing potential methods to create new revenue. Nevertheless, the city's projections suggest that it will soon need to reduce its expenditures by an average of more than $6 million annually unless its revenues increase by a similar amount. Otherwise, maintaining adequate services for its residents will become increasingly difficult.
1013
112

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Figure4
Richmond's Forecasted Deficits Could Critically Deplete Its General Fund Reserves $60 ----------------------
55 ------------ The city falls below
GFOA's recommended
reserve level.
0 2022-23* 2023-24
The city has less
than two weeks of
------- expenses in reserve.
2024-25 2025-26 2026-27 2027-28
Fiscal Year
Source: Documents provided by Richmond's finance department, staff reports to the city council, and the GFOA website. * The starting fund balance in fiscal year 2022-23 is based on unaudited estimates the city published in October 2022.

Further, Richmond may encounter more severe shortfalls than it has forecast because of uncertain economic trends. First, Richmond's staff explained that the projection assumes that inflation-which was at 8 percent year-over-year as of August 2022- will largely return to normal rates a·fter a single year. Though the city's forecast does account for certain expense increases due to inflation, such as higher health insurance costs, other expense projections may be too low if high inflation persists past 2023. The Congressional Budget Office and Federal Reserve Bank have predicted that it could take multiple years for inflation to return to long-term average rates, indicating that the city may spend more than it projects in future years because of higher inflation.

Second, the possibility of a recession threatens the city's long-term revenue potential. In 2021 Richmond's consultant noted that the city could face a mild recession beginning in fiscal year 2026-27, suggesting that including that possibility 1014

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
in projections could help determine whether Richmond's reserves are sustainable.

However, city staff explained that the 2022 projection does not include the chance of such a recession because events near the end of the decade were too far out for the city to predict. Instead, Richmond included what staff described as a conservative estimate of revenue growth in the first few years of the projection to account for immediate recession risks based on current economic events. However, if the city experiences cyclical recessions in six- or seven-year intervals, as the consultant predicted, another recession at the end of the decade could significantly reduce revenues even as the city draws down its reserves.

Applying more conservative assumptions to Richmond's projections indicates that the city may have to make steeper budget cuts sooner than it currently projects.

For example, if current rates of inflation persist for some years, Richmond may experience higher than anticipated expenses in fiscal years 2024-25 and 2025-26.

Additionally, if Richmond experiences a recession near the end of the period covered by its forecast, it might take in less revenue in fiscal year 2027-28 than predicted or run a series of deficits in the years following the end of its projections . Such deficits could cause Richmond to face more severe or more prolonged shortfalls than predicted and thus require the city to revisit the difficult budgeting decisions the consultant proposed, such as reductions in service or workforce.

In October 2022, we updated the annual assessment of fiscal risk we conduct related to California cities, which we use in part to identify cities that may require further review. During that update, we adjusted Richmond's overall fiscal risk rating to moderate risk based on financial information from fiscal year 2020-21. This change in rating and Richmond's movement from the 9th to the 10th city at greatest risk reflects improvement in certain risk indicators on our online dashboard. However, Richmond retains many high-risk characteristics, including its risk of significant projected deficits. Our ultimate designation of Richmond as high risk for the purposes of our high-risk local government agency audit program reflects the totality of the findings in this report and informs our report title, which notes Richmond's high-risk status.

The City's Debt Burden Remains High
Richmond's large debt burden may become a significant impediment to its ability to maintain balanced budgets. As of June 2021, Richmond had about $250 million in debt related to its governmental activities. However, in fiscal year 2020-21, only $1 million of Richmond's $162 million in operating expenditures in the city's general fund directly supported debt service. Richmond paid the remainder of its debt service-another $20 million in fiscal year 2020-21 -with the city's oth er governmental funds, several of which are designated for this purpose. 2 2 Richmond operates a variety of additional funds for specific purposes, such as revenue collection, public safety, and support for certain grant programs. Moreover, it has three funds designated for paying debt service. Much of the money these funds use to pay debt service comes from a special property tax that we discuss later in this section. 1015
114

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
These debt service payments represent a risk to the city's overall finances, including to the general fund. If Richmond's revenues from other sources prove insufficient, it may need to use general funds to support its debt service. Thus, the city's management of its overall debt load will be a key step to ensuring the sustainability of its operations in the future. The city's debt, and the potential strain it imP,oses on the city's revenues, leads us to determine that Richmond's debt burden is a high-risk area.

Much of Richmond's $250 million in outstanding governmental activities debt- 56 percent as of June 2021-comes from its decision to create short-term savings using pension obligation bonds . Pension obligation bonds are a type of taxable bond that cities can use to fund their retirement programs and then pay back over decades. After it issued bonds totaling almost $115 million in 2005, Richmond sent $114 million in proceeds to CalPERS to support its retirement obligations. This issuance was part of a complex set of transactions, which resulted in Richmond paying only minimal debt service until two scheduled payment updates in subsequent years. The first of the paymeht updates occurred in 2013 and resulted in higher annual payments for $75 million of the bonds.

A second update was set to further increase payments beginning in 2023 on another $128 million of the bonds.3
Richmond reports that it initially issued the debt in this manner because it needed short-term budgetary savings and lacked other options because of its poor credit rating at the time. The staff asserts that the bonds and related agreements created savings on combined debt and pension costs from 2005 through 2013, allowed for smaller savings from 2013 through 2020, and would result in increased costs after 2021. Under this debt arrangement, bond payments would have increased from a range of $9 million to $13 million annually-the amounts the city reported paying from 2013 through 2022-to a range of $15 million to $22 million annually. However, Richmond refinanced this debt in September 2022.

Richmond likely missed an opportunity to lower the debt service costs for its pension obligation bonds. From 2020 through much of 2021, interest rates on U.S. treasury bonds, which influence interest rates on other bonds, were at historic lows. Before September 2022, Richmond had been working toward refinancing its pension obligation bonds for more than a year in an attempt to take advantage of these low interest rates and avoid increased debt expenses. According to Richmond's finance director, managerial turnover and the city's lengthy process to find financial and legal consultants caused delay.

Although the city council instructed staff in June 2022 to issue new bonds, bond interest rates began rapidly increasing in March 2022. U.S. Treasury bond rates had almost doubled from 1.65 percent at the end of April 2021 to 3.15 percent as of August 2022.

For perspective, such a rate increase on a $100 million 20-year bond issuance would result in about $900,000 in higher payments annually. The city's actual debt structure is more complex than a simple bond, and the city asserts that it achieved limited one-time savings in 2022 by reducing a fee payment by more than $1 million. However, the volatile interest rates we highlight provide an example of the risks cities take when issuing or 3 The value of the bonds Richmond paid beginning in 2013 and would have begun paying in 2023 is higher than the initial $115 million in proceeds because it includes fees the city incurred both when it entered into the debt and when it subsequently negotiated its interest rates.
1016

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
refinancing pension obligation bonds generally and the importance of considering market conditions . For example, in October 2021, staff noted that an interest rate increase of even a tenth of a percent could cost the city more than $1 million in curr ent dollars. Figure s shows the timeline of some of the actions Richmond has taken toward refinancing since 2021 and how interest rates have increased over that time.

Figure 5
Richmond Deliberated About Refinancing Options for More Than a Year As Borrowing Costs Rose ~
"' er:
i:::-::,
)B
e: ';:
"' ,J:!.
6 vi =:,
Apri/6,2021
Staff presents analysis
and refinancing options
to city council.

4.0%

3.5 3.0

2.5 2.0

1.5 1.0

0.5 0.0
June 21, 2022
City council
authorizes issuance.

April 26, 2022
Staff presents analyst's
conclusions to city council.

September B, 2022
City issues new
bonds.

December 7, 2021
City procures a
financial analyst.

October 5, 2021
Staff recommends quick
action to refinance.

Date
Source: U.S. Treasury website, city council meeting minutes, and staff reports to the city council. * U.S. treasury rates influence interest rates on other bonds. 1017
I 16

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Further, when Richmond refinanced its bonds, it extended its repayment period, which will add to the total amount of interest it will pay over the lifetime of the bonds. Though the city was scheduled to finish repaying the debt service on its original pension obligation bonds by 2034, it elected to pay debt service on the new bonds until 2044- an extension of 10 years . According to the city's financial consultant, this extension would further reduce costs to the general fund in the near term and shift more of the debt costs to the future when there would be higher tax revenues available for debt service. However, the consultant also warned that the city's total general fund costs related to its pensions and debt service for pension obligation bonds would consequently increase by $30 million over the life of the bonds.

Richmond's delay in refinancing its pension debt and its decision to increase the years required for debt service will impact its taxpayers for decades . Richmond pays the majority of the debt service on its pension obligation bonds through a surcharge on property taxes (pension tax). This arrangement limits the impact on the general fund of debt service for these bonds . However, it also highlights the city's duty to its taxpayers to secure the best possible investments and to efficiently use the taxes it levies.

Please refer to the section beginning on page 3 to find the recommendations we have made to address this area of risk to the city.
1018

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Addressing Its Poorly Funded Retirement
Benefits and Below-Market Compensation
Will Increase Richmond's Expenses
Significant Retirement Obligations Continue to Burden the City Richmond's rising pension costs-the money it contributes annually to support its program to provide guaranteed retirement benefits-are an additional risk to its taxpayers and another potential barrier to maintaining balanced budgets. Richmond participates in CalPERS and pays annual contributions to its pension plans based in part on payroll size and investment growth and the size of its unfunded pension liabilities.4 In fiscal year 2020-21, the city paid more than $35 million in pension costs, almost a quarter of its $162 million in total general fund expenditures for the year; however, some of the general fund costs-about $6 million to $10 million-are typically reimbursed through the pension tax.5 As of 2022, CalPERS reported that Richmond's annual pension costs are increasing and projects they could reach $53 million by fiscal year 2028-29. Richmond's rising pension costs led to our determination that those pension costs are an area of high risk.

Richmond is incurring significant annual costs now because its historical contributions have been insufficient to fund all the promised pension benefits. The value of the city's investments have not yet recovered from significant losses in fiscal year 2008 - 09, nor has Richmond contributed significant additional funds to make up the shortfall. Thus, Richmond's pension funding level-the percent of assets it has relative to the cost of promised benefits-dropped to less than 71 percent in 2020, due in large part to minimal returns in several preceding years. By the end of fiscal year 2020-21, the funding level increased to more than 80 percent from strong investment returns for the CalPERS portfolio; however, this is still less than the 100 percent funding target the GFOA recommends. Further, this reported growth does not yet account for significant CalPERS investment losses in the most recent fiscal year. Although Richmond has been making annual payments assigned by CalPERS to address its shortfall, CalPERS projects that it will take decades for the payments to amount to a 100 percent funding level. These payments represent the majority of Richmond's projected pension costs. For example, in 2022 CalPERS projected that, in fiscal year 2028-29, about 66 percent of Richmond's payment would go to address the shortfall, while only 34 percent would fund ongoing pension costs. Contributing additional funds to CalPERS to further improve Richmond's funding status would require difficult budgeting decisions by the city. However, additional contributions represent an opportunity to reduce cumulative city expenditures by tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming decades. 4 Richmond's investments with Cal PERS are separated into two plans- one specifically for safety employees and the second for other employees.
s In addition to the city's two Cal PERS plans, Richmond pays pension costs of less than $1.s million for two smaller pension plans. We have focused our discussion on the two larger plans because they represent the significant majority of the city's annual pension costs. 1019
I ,s

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
In July 2022, Richmond's city council approved the use of an irrevocable trust fund for pension costs, which would give it an additional tool to address its pension shortfall.6 According to CalPERS, such a fund can generate investment income to reduce pension impacts on city budgets and help to offset costs during financial crises. Staff members did not ask the council to adopt a specific funding schedule for the trust fund, but they reported that Richmond should be able to generate almost $1 million per year by seeking discounts from CalPERS for making the city's annual contribution at the beginning of the fiscal year, as it did in fiscal year 2021-22.

Although Richmond's pension trust fund may prove an effective decision, it also increases the risk the city will suffer long-term losses compared to other investment options . Staff reported to the city council that money placed in the pension trust fund might earn more than if the city kept the money in its existing investment accounts and that investing with a private·fund manager would give the city greater control over the timing and risk levels of its investments. Staff also reported that the city could use the trust fund to pay immediate pension costs in an emergency. These represent important considerations. Nonetheless, while the private fund would allow the city to take on greater risk for potentially greater returns, such an action also increases the risk of losses. Further, the outside investment manager charges higher management fees than the fees CalPERS charges for similar trust funds.

The city could do more to evaluate possible options for managing its pension costs.

Though staff members acknowledged to the city council that it would also be possible to send additional money directly to CalPERS rather than investing it in a trust fund, they did not provide the council an analysis of the relative fiscal benefits of such a strategy. Instead, they recommended using the outside trust fund because the city would be able to experience benefits sooner and have more control over its investments . The finance director asserted that the city's management held verbal discussions on the different options available and chose the private trust fund for flexibility and investment diversification reasons, but did not provide an analysis comparing the long-term fiscal benefits of the different options. Therefore, we are concerned that Richmond has not fully considered the value of using some or all of its expected $1 million in annual early-payment discounts to make additional payments to CalPERS and directly address its shortfall. Additional payments would only slightly reduce Richmond's annual contribution to CalPERS in individual years; however, they would have a cumulative effect over time, as amounts invested with the State double about every 12 years at CalPERS' expected investment growth rate.

Richmond May Have Missed Opportunities to Better Address Its Retiree Health Obligations
In addition to its pension costs, Richmond pays significant annual costs toward retiree health benefits. Richmond 's OPEB programs fund medical insuranc e costs for its retired employees, with annual costs shared between the city and 6 The city already possessed a trust fund for certain retiree health funding, which we discuss in the next section. The city elected to use this trust fund for both its pension and other benefit costs by dividing it into multiple accounts going forward. We refer to these accounts as separate trust funds for the purposes of this report. 1020

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
current employees . The city has contributed an average of more than $11.5 million per year since fiscal year 2016-17. Although the city has created trust funds to address its OPEB expenses, the funds' balances are not yet high enough to be effective. In 2008 the city established a trust fund that it could use to partially fund its future OPEB obligations in a similar manner to its approach to pension funding, a practice the GFOA recommends . As of June 2021, Richmond had $39 million in its two OPEB trust funds-significant growth over its $9 million balance in fiscal year 2016-17, However, the $39 million still represented only 27 percent of Richmond's promised future benefits.? This funding level is far short of the GFOA'.s recommended target of 100 percent funding. As a result, the funds' investment income has been historically inadequate to pay benefits without millions of dollars in additional annual contributions from the city.

In 2016 the city council adopted a policy to place into its OPEB trust funds half of its one-time revenues and half of its surpluses above those needed to meet its reserve goals. However, until recently, Richmond had not made a contribution under this policy since 2018. Richmond's finance staff explained that when the city increased its reserve target from 7 percent to 15 percent of its budgeted expenditures beginning in fiscal year 2018 - 19, the likelihood of dedicated contributions decreased. After we discussed the lack of contributions with city management, staff proposed and the city council approved a $6 million contribution to the OPEB trust funds in October 2022. The city also enacted a new policy in 2022 that removed the requirements for Richmond to make the types of contributions described above in the future.

We acknowledge that the city's surplus revenue may have been limited as it built reserves and responded to the pandemic. However, finance staff were only able to provide evidence of very limited analysis they had conducted to determine whether certain unexpected revenues ·qualified under the policy and should have been contributed to the OPEB trust fund. Notably, Richmond did not make dedicated contributions to its trust funds in fiscal year 2020-21, despite exceeding its reserve target by $6.5 million and reporting a surplus of $10-4 million, largely as a result of tax revenue from property sales. Thus, a contribution of up to $6.5 million may have been appropriate once the city determined how much of its surplus and revenue was eligible under its policies. Finance staff asserted that Richmond did not need to contribute any of this money to OPEB because the city set aside much of its surplus for future fiscal years. However, the city's policies did not exempt such set-aside funds from bei'ng considered for OPEB contributions . Had Richmond completed a more thorough analysis to determine whether additional dedicated contributions were appropriate based on its OPEB funding policy and reserve policy in fiscal year 2020-21, it may have been able to more quickly increase the balance of its OPEB trust funds. Increasing this balance would allow the city to reduce its long-term annual costs, potentially saving it millions of dollars in the coming decades . 7 The majority of Richmond's OPEB funds are in the original trust fund it established in 2008. In 2017 the city established a second, smaller trust fund to invest OPEB funds for police officers. 1021
I 20

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Increasing the Competitiveness of City Salaries Will Incur Additional Costs As part of Richmond's efforts to reduce expenses, it did not provide cost-of-living salary increases to city employees for up to the past seven years. Richmond provides different compensation packages for several groups of employees, such as those in executive positions, staff positions, and public safety positions. For its non-public safety employees, the city last offered a cost-of-living adjustment to salaries in July 2015, more than seven years ago. Meanwhile, before 2022, the city had last offered nonmanagerial public safety employees in the police and fire departments cost-of-living increases in 2018. As Table 3 shows, these decisions came in spite of prices having risen 24 percent since 2015.

According to Richmond's budget administrator, these decisions to not provide salary increases represented the types of difficult steps the city has taken in order to promote fiscal stability.

Table 3
Richmond Delayed Providing Raises for Years as the Cost of Living Significantly Increased

EMPLOYEE

CATEGORY EMPLOYEE LEVEL
Non-Safety All
Public Safety Firefighters
Fire Management
Police Officers
Police Management

LAST COST-OF-LIVING

ADJUSTMENT
July 2015
July 2018
July 2018
July 2018
Jan.2016

RECENT OR NEXT

COST-OF-LIVING

ADJUSTMENT
Jan. 2023 (5%)
June 2022 (1%)
None Scheduled
June 2022 (1 %)
June 2022 (1 %)

INFLATION SINCE LAST

COST-OF-LIVING ADJUSTMENT
(THROUGH JUNE 2022)
24%
18%
18%
18%
25%
--~----------------------------------
Source: Richmond's bargaining agreements, Bureau of Labor Statistics website, and compensation information on Richmond's website.

Richmond's decision to reduce payroll costs likely contributed to its high vacancy rate for city positions and high turnover rates among employees. Although Richmond's overall vacancy rate varies from month to month and has been affected by such factors as hiring freezes during the pandemic, the director of finance stated that vacancy rates are about 6 percent annually-high enough to negatively affect department operations. Further, the city experienced several executive departures in recent years. As of April 2022, when the audit started, Richmond had filled some of those positions, including city manager, deputy city manager, library and community services director , and finance director, on an interim basis.8 According to the city's data, as of April 2022, several departments were experiencing vacancy rates significantly above the 6 percent estimate. For example, the finance department reported a 24 percent vacancy rate, the police department a 20 percent vacancy rate, and the public works department a 15 percent vacancy rate. 8 As of October 2022, one deputy city manager position continues to be vacant, and the library and community services director is filled on an interim basis.
1022

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Vacancy rates this high can affect the efficiency and effectiveness of city services and at times can result in increased costs. For example, the finance director acknowledged that Richmond's finance department has been adversely affected by high vacancies and turnover, limiting the staff's ability to take on projects and complete the department's duties. Similarly, the 20 percent vacancy rate in Richmond's police force has resulted in high overtime costs. Significant overtime can further result in issues with staff retention and may ultimately affect critical services.

Richmond is taking steps to increase employee compensation. In 2021 the city negotiated a cost-of-living adjustment for its non-safety employees. Richmond agreed to a s percent cost-of-living increase to take effect in January 2023, followed by 4 percent increases in each of the next two years. Richmond also provided a cost-of-living salary increase in 2022 to many of its safety employees, an increase that the city acknowledged it had delayed implementing since 2020. In addition to these adjustments, a consultant to the city issued a compensation study in 2021 that determined the city was typically paying 7 percent to 8 percent below the market rate for base pay for its positions. In response, the city built funding for addressing the consultants findings into its fiscal year 2022-23 budget.

These efforts to increase compensation represent a substantial policy shift for the city, as it must now identify alternative avenues for long-term savings or generate additional revenues. Although salary increases may assist Richmond in recruiting and retaining staff, the associated expenses will increase the burden on the annual budget. In June 2022, staff reported to the city council that the upcoming negotiated cost-of-living adjustments contributed to significant increases in fiscal year 2022-23 to salaries and benefits over the previous year. In total, the city expects an additional $7,4 million in fiscal year 2022-23 costs to implement compensation increases based on its consultant's report and cost-of-living adjustments. The finance director explained that Richmond is considering a variety of options to address these new costs, including reducing professional service expenditures and updating some positions' responsibilities to acknowledge that other positions are expected to remain vacant.

To alleviate the costs of increasing city employees' compensation, Richmond should also take the opportunity to reassess the size of its staff. Richmond budgeted savings of approximately $5.8 million from fiscal year 2021-22 vacancies, and it budgeted a vacancy savings of $8.3 million for fiscal year 2022-23, which staff asserted would compensate for that year's allocation for salary adjustment. Increasing recruitment would reduce the size of this savings. Although some recruitment is likely inevitable-for example, recruiting some additional police officers to reduce overtime-taking a measured approach to filling vacancies will allow the city the time to determine whether any departments, including police and fire, should or could operate with a smaller staff and thereby allow the city to eliminate vacant positions. For example, in fiscal year 2021-22, staff reported that eliminating 12 vacant positions in the police department saved $3 million from the police budget. The finance director has stated, that in some departments, high vacancy rates have limited operations and efficiency. Nevertheless, by assessing its staffing needs, the city may find other departments that need fewer additional staff than their vacancies would suggest.

Please refer to the section beginning on page 3 to find the recommendations we have made to address this area of risk to the city.
1023
I 22

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1024

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 j November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
The City Has Mismanaged the Richmond
Housing Authority ----..-------------------
A Decade of Mismanagement Will Result in the Housing Authority Transferring Its Public Housing Responsibilities to Other Entities
The city has ineffectively managed the finances of the housing authority for a decade and, as a result, HUD- the federal oversight agency for local housing authorities-has directed the housing authority to transfer its programs and resources to other entities. The housing authority is a separate legal entity frqm the city. The city manager acknowledges that the city manages the authority's finances but could provide no agreement between the city and the housing authority other than the city council's approval of the authority's budget. This included a general fund subsidy that provided $800,000 of its $4.8 million annual revenue in fiscal year 2021-22. Despite this support and assistance, the housing authority has failed to comply with basic financial requirements and best practices. This has increased the risk that neither the city, the housing authority, nor the public may be aware of the housing authority's actual financial condition.

Most importantly, the housing authority has not completed since fiscal year 2016-17 annual financial audits required by state and federal law. In July 2022, housing authority staff requested that the authority board and the city approve a contract amendment with the authority 's financial services contractor to support the housing authority's auditors in completing their work. According to the housing authority's executive director, Richmond has not dedicated sufficient financial staff who are trained in federal requirements to the housing authority. City staff acknowledged in November 2018 that the city had not completed the necessary tasks to know the authority's financial position, such as being able to provide bank reconciliations. As of October 2022, the audits remain incomplete.

The lack of audited financial statements for the housing authority has in turn affected Richmond's financial reporting . From fiscal year 2016-17 to the most recent audited financial statements in fiscal year 2020-21, the city's auditors noted that they could not obtain sufficient appropriate evidence to provide an audit opinion on the financial statements for Richmond's businesslike activities, which include the housing authority.

Because the housing authority has not completed its annual financial audits since fiscal year 2016-17, neither it, the city, nor those that the authority or the city serve can be confident in the authority's finances and its potential effects on the city.

In fiscal year 2020-21, Richmond also decided to not seek repayment for the costs of services provided to the housing authority because the expenses did not meet federal requirements. In 2021, a HUD consultant reviewed the city's 2019 audited financial statements and found that Richmond claimed that the housing authority owed it more than $15 million for services rendered, including nearly $5 million in indirect cost allocations.

According to the HUD consultant, federal law disallowed nearly all-$14.7 million-of 1025
I 24

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
those claimed expenditures. In 2022 the city decided to withdraw its claim for these expenses and was required to write off its claim to these funds before completing its fiscal year 2020-21 financial statements.

As a result of these and other instances of financial mismanagement and in response to HUD concerns, the housing authority is planning to transfer its housing programs and resources to other agencies and partners. As Figure 6 indicates, HUD identified significant deficiencies concerning the housing authority's financial practices, oversight, documentation, and accountability going back more than a decade. For example, in its 2009 audit, HUD found that the housing authority had issued payments for services related to the management of housing units without determining whether the invoiced amounts were appropriate . In a subsequent audit in 2016, HUD found that the housing authority had misled HUD on the status of its financial resources, submitted falsified documentation, and allowed the city to use the housing authority's HUD funds. It also found that the city had charged the housing authority for rent and services at prices that seemed excessive. HUD found that these actions resulted in more than $2 million in misspent HUD funds and nearly another $1 million in costs the housing authority could not support. The housing authority had also incurred other questionable transactions that unnecessarily limited its resources and the effectiveness of its public housing program.

HUD Performance Indicators
Physical Condition Indicator- Reviews
whether the housing is decent, safe, sanitary,
and in good repair.

Management Operations Indicator
Measures occupancy, tenant accounts
receivable, and accou.nts payable.

Financial Condition Indicator- Determines
whether sufficient financial resources exist to
support the provision of housing.

Capital Fund Program Indicator-Determines
whether funds are obligated and units
occupied within program grant deadlines.

Source: Federal law.

Further, in its annual evaluations of public
housing performance, HUD has regularly
found the housing authority to be deficient.

In these reviews HUD assesses and scores the
performance of public housing agencies based
on the indicators noted in the text box. For
the nine years from 2011 through 2019, HUD
designated the housing authority as below
HUD standards in seven of those years. From
2017 through 2019, HUD found the authority
to be well below standards .

As a result of the consistently poor reviews, in
2019 HUD created and the housing authority
signed a recovery agreement with the intent,
according to HUD, to bring about the transfer
of the housing authority's direct public
housing responsibilities to other agencies and
partners. Richmond acknowledged this agreement by the signature of its mayor and agreed to work in good faith to assist t_he housing authority and HUD in accomplishing the tasks in the agreement, many of which are described in the next section. This process, when complete, will result in the housing authority no longer directly providing housing because private entities will rehabilitate and manage its real property under long-term leases. The housing authority's role will be reduced to overseeing the lease agreements . The housing authority's partners will ultimately maintain the existing public housing in the future, but the housing authority 's delays in completing the recovery agreement-and the associated delays in maint enance and rehabilitation of affected housing units - are negatively affecting Richmond residents who currently rely on that public housing.
t-
1026
Figure6

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-8061 November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
HUD Has Repeatedly Identified Mismanagement of the Housing Authority .-----~I HUD I~ ---~ J i
..-a..;:r---..._ After its 2009 audit of the housing
authority, HUD designated the
housing authority as a
TROUBLED AGENCY.

HU D's 2009 audit of the housing authority
found the following:
@ Deficient financial practices-such as releasing
payments without supporting documentation.
@ Failures in oversight-allowing payments
beyond a contract's expiration.
@ Poor documentation practices-such as failing
to keep documents required for procurement
and for tenant files.
@ Inadequate accountability-such as:
- Rejecting the results of competitive procurement
processes.
- Staff participating in awarding contracts to entities with whom staff members had a conflict of interest.

Source: HUD audit reports.

After its 2016 audit of the housing
authority, HUD again designated
the housing authority as a
TROUBLED AGENCY.

HU D's 2016 audit found the following:
@ Inadequate financial practices and lack of
accountability-exemplified by:
- Submitting documentatiQn that misrepresented the
authority's finances.
- Failing to conduct required procurement processes.
@ Weak oversight-such as:
- Housing authority staff not reviewing and approving
transactions initiated by the city.
- Providing and paying for city staff and services using authority funds without HUD approval.

The Housing Authority Missed Mandatory Deadlines to Complete the Recovery Agreement
HUD may seek remedies because the housing authority is not complying with the recovery agreement. The recovery agreement requires the housing authority to meet target dates for 26 individual tasks, such as submitting a financing plan and issuing a request for redevelopment proposals . Due dates range from October 2019 to November 2022. The authority has made some progress in satisfying the terms of the recovery agreement. For example, the authority stated that it transferred to another organization a property that had been ·vacant since 2015 because it was uninhabitable. However, as of September 2022, the housing authority had missed 11 other deadlines , many by more than a year, as Figure 7 shows. In May 2022, HUD stated in a letter to the housing authority that it will not provide extensions to these 1027
I 26

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
deadlines and will instead seek remedies against the housing authority, including suspension or debarment.9 In July 2022, the housing authority reported to its board that it had not been able to meet required deadlines because of staffing shortages and unspecified "unforeseen cirumstances'.' The housing authority's executive director also indicated that, although the deadlines were originally reasonable, the pandemic has made the deadlines unreasonable, as each step required additional time to complete.

Figure 7
The Housing Authority Has Failed to Comply With HU D's Recovery Agreement Deadlines as of September 2022
2019
2020
2021
OCTOBER: Signed recovery agreement with HUD.
ocroBER:Submit application for Richmond Village 1 & 2 property redevelopment.·········· APRIL: Submit final voucher program closeout audit to HUD. .. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ..

MAY: Finalize contract with Nystrom property developer.············· ····••·· ···············•··• SEPTEMBER:Obtain HUD approval for Nystrom property redevelopment application ........ .

NOVEMBER: Submit financial plan for Richmond Village 1 & 2 property redevelopment. .. • • DECEMBER: Close conversion of Richmond Village 1 & 2 property to ownership and • • • • • • • • • operation by private developers.

MAY: Obtain HUD approval for Richmond Village 3 property redevelopment application.····· JUNE: Obtain vouchers to ensure continuity for Richmond Village 3 residents as property • • • • is transferred to new owner.

OVERDUE
DE~EMBER:Obtain HUD approval for a redevelopment application for undeveloped ·········f#J•mt Hacienda property parcels.

DECEMBER: Begin construction of Richmond Village 3 redevelopment. • • • • •• • • • • • • •••• • • • • • ·f {1J•MiJ 2022
1--MARCH,Start Nevin Plaza redevelopment. ............................. ...................... -f{,tJ•t.rfj Source: Housing authority documentation.

Note: Overdue total as of September 19, 2022.
9 A suspension is imposed for a temporary period, pending the completion of an investigation or legal proceeding, and it results in an immediate exclusion from participation in further government transactions. A debarment sanction means that an organization and its affiliates are excluded from conducting business with any federal agency. Debarments are imposed for criminal and/or serious HUD program violations. A suspension may lead to debarment. 1028

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Avoiding delays in the recovery agreement is critical because it helps ensure that residents have safe housing. Under federal and state law, the housing authority is responsible for ensuring that the housing units it provides are habitable and safe.

However, the housing authority has not always been able to meet HUD's physical conditions indicator; in 2013, 2014, and 2018, the housing authority scored low enough on this indicator for HUD to require corrective action. Residents of one housing authority building sued the city and housing authority in 2015, listing mold, vermin, faulty elevators, and lax security as some of the conditions they had to endure. The city and the housing authority settled this lawsuit in 2019 for more than $650,000. The housing authority stated that it directly manages about 240 housing units in two complexes as of August 2022 and indicated that, under the recovery agreement, it will sell or transfer all the housing units to other entities.

For example, the housing authority entered into a long-term lease with a developer for the Hacienda development, which will rehabilitate the building and manage it as affordable housing for seniors. Further delays in the housing authority's implementation of the agreement could result in residents experiencing more problems in their housing and more lawsuits.

The Housing Authority May Owe the Internal Revenue Service $7 Million or More in Taxes and Penalties
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) claims that the housing authority owes significant taxes and penalties from 2018 and 2019. Federal law requires the housing authority to submit tax information on property owners who receive federal funds through the housing authority-in this case through a housing voucher program-to ensure that those property owners pay the taxes they owe and, in some instances, to withhold taxes and submit them on the property owners' behalf. The housing authority reported to its board in June 2022 that it had failed to report tax information in 2018 and 2019, and that failure to comply could result in $9 million in withholding taxes and penalties.

The housing authority took no significant action to address this potential liability until the start of this audit. However, it has been able to submit sufficient records so that the IRS agreed to reduce the remaining taxes and penalties to $1 million.

According to the housing authority's executive director, the city, which provides financial services for the housing authority, had not provided sufficient support or resources to allow it to meet IRS requirements. The city manager indicated that the prior finance director and housing authority executive director were not engaged in the level of detail as the new finance director and executive director. Although the city is not directly liable for these debts, because it provides significant funding to the housing authority, the existence of the outstanding taxes and penalties results in increased risk to Richmond.

Please refer to the section beginning on page 3 to find the recommendations we have made to address this area of risk to the city.
1029
I 28

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1030

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
The City Has Not Consistently Followed
Its Contracting Policies or Updated Its
Fees as Required
Richmond Could Do More to Demonstrate It Is Following Requirements to Ensure the Best Value for Its Contracts
Lack of documentation sometimes makes it difficult for Richmond to demonstrate that it complies with its own contracting policies. The city's municipal code and its purchasing policy outline requirements that promote fairness and transparency in how it selects vendors. Specifically, for contracts between $5,000 and $50,000, city staff must contact vendors to obtain three written quotes before awarding the contract. For contracts valued at $50,000 or more, the city must follow a competitive bidding process. The municipal code allows for limited exceptions to its requirements for multiple quotes or bids, such as during an emergency or when the city determines it is economical for the city to use the pricing and terms established by another public agency. Such requirements are key measures that help ensure that the city is fairly selecting vendors that provide the best value. However, when we reviewed 10 contracts the city entered into from 2019 through 2021, we identified at least two instances in which the city could not demonstrate that it followed its own procurement policies or it had made errors or omissions that could have affected its management of contracts.

In one example related to a $24,500 contract approved by the city council, Richmond did not justify its use of an alternative contracting process that allows it to purchase supplies, equipment, or services by using the pricing and terms of a contract negotiated by another public agency that has already procured those same goods or services. The municipal code allows Richmond to use this method so long as the finance department determines it would be in the city's best interest. However, staff did not perform such an analysis and did not explain that Richmond was using this method when reporting the contract to the city council. For another contract originally bid at $63,800, city staff proposed and the city council approved a higher value of $71,200 for the contract without a documented explanation. Inconsistent documentation limits the city's ability to demonstrate that it is properly procuring goods and services and complying with its own policies.

According to finance staff, staff from other departments typically enter into contracts that the finance staff then approves. The finance department has not required other staff to follow specific formats when submitting related documentation. When we reviewed with the finance department the various documentation issues we identified, staff acknowledged the need for stronger and more consistent contract documentation practices going forward. The finance director also noted that the finance department had enforced more rigid documentation requirements in the past but that turnover in other departments has increased the workload for finance staff because of the need to provide more training. She further explained that the city was implementing a new training program to familiarize other departments' staff with procurement requirements. 1031
I 30

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 \ Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
As we discussed earlier, competitive bidding allows the city to demonstrate that it is obtaining goods and services at the appropriate value and selecting vendors without inappropriate influence. When Richmond does not adequately document its adherence to bidding requirements or the use of allowable exceptions to its procurement process, it risks overspending for goods and services.

City Staff Have Not Updated Fee Schedules as Required
Richmond has not consistently updated its service fees, and as a result, it risks incurring general fund costs for each service those fees should cover. The city's municipal code generally requires the city manager to update the city's fee schedule annually to ensure that fee-supported services, such
as engineering site plan reviews or code
Cost Components for Fee Updates
Applicable Direct Costs. such as wages,
overtime, benefits, services, and supplies.

Applicable Indirect Costs. such as building
and equipment maintenance and operation.
communications and computer expenses.

Overhead. including but not limited to the
distributed costs of the department head
and support staff. and of the city council.
city manager. finance department, and other
staff and support services provided to the
entire city.

Other Costs. including debt service costs and
fixed asset depreciation.

Source: Richmond municipal code.
compliance inspections, have fees that
are sufficient to cover the cost of those
services.lo While performing the annual
update, the city must consider components
such as direct costs and overhead, as the
text box describes. The municipal code
also requires that the city's finance director
propose quarterly to the city council any
adjustments to its taxes and fees based on
the Employment Cost Index (ECI). The ECI
is a federal economic indicator that measures
changes in hourly labor costs to employers.

Despite setting these requirements, the
city has not conducted either updates or
adjustments at the required frequency.

From 2018 through 2022, Richmond did
not review and update the full range of its
existing fees. Richmond performed three partial updates during this period-in 2018, 2020, and 2022. In 2018 Richmond analyzed the costs associated with the services its Planning Division provided and updated the associated fees. However, it updated only a selection of fees from two others of its eight fee-levying departments and divisions: its Water Resource Recovery Division and Library and Community Services Department.

For example, the city updated only six of the so fees used by its Water Resource Recovery Division. It made no fee updates for the remaining city departments in 2018 and no fee updates at all in 2019 or 2021. In 2020 Richmond updated certain fees that developers could pay in lieu of constructing affordable housing units within residential development projects, but its updates did not include all fees for the Building Division or any fees for other departments or divisions in the city. Richmond's 2022 effort was improved but still not complete. At that time, it conducted full fee updates for the police and fire departments and for Code Enforcement, and it updat ed a selection of 10 The fee schedule requires an annual update for a majority of the fees it lists. However. a small subset of fees. such as those levied for investigating work done without permits. require updates only as needed. 1032

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
fees for departments and divisions, including Community Development and the Library, but it did not conduct fee updates for other departments. Figure 8 provides a summary of Richmond's fee updates for the eight key departments from 2018 through 2022.

Figures
Richmond Has Not Regularly Updated Its Fees and May Not Be Recovering Costs for Related Services 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Police Department 0 0 0 - 0 0
Fire Department 0 0 0 0 0
Library and Community Services
e 0 0 0 e
Public Works Engineering Department 0 0 0 0 e
Public Works Water Resource Recovery
e 0 0 0 0
Community Development Planning Department
0 0 0 0 0
Community Deve/opmef!t Building Department 0 0 e 0 e
Community Development Code Enforcement 0 0 0 0 0
(2) The city updated the department's fees to reflect the cost of providing services. 8 The city updated some but not all of the department's fees to reflect its costs. 0 The city did not update any of the department's fees to reflect the cost of providing services.

Source: Richmond municipal code and analysis of Richmond city council agenda documents from 2018 through 2022.

Note: The analysis above includes updates to existing fees and does not include the addition of various new fees the city implemented between 2018 and 2022.

Even the fee updates Richmond has completed may be inadequate. We reviewed three of the largest fees Richmond assessed-accounting for 15 percent of Richmond's assessed fees in fiscal year 2020-21-to determine whether the city was reasonably recovering its costs. The city was unable to provide documentation detailing how it calculated costs related to an engineering permit fee for digging and therefore cannot demonstrate that it is appropriately recovering its costs. Richmond was able to provide documentation partially supporting the reasonableness of the other two fees we reviewed. In 2020 the city updated its building fees related to developing affordable housing based on a fee assessment completed in 2019, and in 2018 it updated its fees for reviews of California Environmental Quality Act filings. However, because it has 31 t
I
1033
I 32

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
not updated these fees in several years, it is unclear whether the updated assessments continue to cover the city's costs. In fiscal year 2020-21, the city assessed fees of $2.1 million in developer fees and $1.6 million for environmental impact report reviews.

Richmond has also not adjusted its rates and fees for inflation as frequently as is set forth in its municipal code. We found that, from 2018 through 2022, Richmond adjusted its fee schedule to account for inflation on a roughly annual basis while the municipal code requires quarterly adjustments. The city states that it has adjusted its fees annually rather than quarterly for more than a decade because of the labor-intensive nature of fee updates. Although that did not meet the requirements of the municipal code, we estimate that the city's practice of adjusting its fees annually rather than quarterly resulted in a limited financial impact of $208,000 in 2021, the equivalent of only 0.7 percent of the total fees it collected.

The city indicated that updating its fees on a set schedule has not been feasible because of staffing limitations and the significant amount of labor required to calculate fee increases. The city's assessment may be reasonable given the staffing issues we identified earlier. The city must balance the time and labor of conducting more frequent updates against any potential lost revenue to determine a reasonable frequency for conducting citywide fee updates, and it should revise its municipal code to reflect its decision on the required frequency of those updates .

Please refer to the section beginning on page 3 to find the recommendations we have made to address this area of risk to the city.

We conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and under the authority vested in the California State Auditor by Government Code section 8543 et seq. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Respectfully submitted,
~
MICHAELS. TILDEN, CPA
Acting California State Auditor
November 10, 2022
r
I
1034

APPENDIX A
The State Auditor's Local High-Risk Program

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Government Code section 8546.10 authorizes the California State Auditor (State Auditor) to establish a local high-risk program to identify local government agencies that are at high risk for potential waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement or that have major challenges associated with their economy, efficiency, or effectiveness.

Regulations that define high risk and describ e the workings of the local high-risk program became effective on July 1, 2015 . Both statute and regulations require that the State Auditor seek approval from the Joint Legislative Audit Committee (Audit Committee) to conduct audits of local entities.

To identify local entities that may be at high risk, we analyze audited financial statements and unaudited pension-related information for more than 470 California cities. This detailed review includes using financial data to calculate indicators that may be indicative of a city's fiscal stress. These indicators enable us to assess each city's ability to pay its bills in both the short and long term. Specifically, the indicators measure each city's financial reserves, debt burden, cash position or liquidity, revenue trends, and ability to pay for employee retirement benefits.

In October 2019, we determined that Richmond potentially met the criteria for being at high risk. We conducted an assessment in February 2021 to determine the city's awareness of and responses to these issues as well as to identify any other ongoing issues that could affect our determination of whether the city is at high risk. After conducting our initial assessment, we concluded that Richmond's circumstances warranted an audit. We sought and, in June 2021, obtained approval from the Audit Committee to conduct an audit of Richmond.

If a local agency is designated as high risk as a result of an audit, it must submit a corrective action plan. If it has not provided its corrective action plan in time for inclusion in the audit report, it must provide the plan no later than 60 days after the report's publication. It must then provide written updates every six months after the audit report is issued regarding its progress in implementing its corrective action plan. This corrective action plan must outline the specific actions the local agency will perform to address the conditions causing us to designate it as high risk and the proposed timing for undertaking those actions . We will remove the high-risk designation when we conclude that the agency has taken satisfactory corrective action and the deficiencies in the audit have been satisfactorily addressed . 1035
I 34

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 \ Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1036

APPENDIX B
Scope and Methodology

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 j November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
In June 2021, the Audit Committee approved a proposal by the State Auditor to perform an audit of Richmond under the local high-risk audit program. We conducted an initial assessment of Richmond in February 2021 in which we reviewed the city's finances to determine whether it demonstrated characteristics of high risk pertaining to the following six risk factors specified in state regulations:
•. The local government agency's reported financial condition has the potential to impair its ability to efficiently deliver services or to meet its financial or legal obligations.
• The local government agency's ability to maintain or restore its financial stability is impaired.
• The local government agency's financial reporting does not follow generally accepted government accounting principles .
• Prior audits reported findings related to financial or performance issues, and the local government agency has not taken adequate corrective action. • The local government agency uses an ineffective system to monitor and track state and local funds it receives and spends.
• An aspect of the local government agency's operation or management is ineffective or inefficient; presents the risk for waste, fraud, or abuse; or does not provide the intended level of public service.

Based on our initial assessment, we identified concerns about Richmond's financial condition and outlook and its debt. The following table lists the objectives that the Audit Committee approved and the methods we used to address them . 1037
36 CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 20;21-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Audit Objectives and the Methods Used to Address Them
' I I :

Review and evaluate the laws,
rules, and regulations significant
to the audit objectives.
2 Evaluate Richmond's current
financial condition and ability to
meet its short-term and long-term
financial obligations while
continuing to provide services to
its residents.
3 Identify the causes of Richmond's
financial challenges and
determine whether the city has
developed an adequate plan for
addressing those challenges. This
will include assessing the city's
efforts to improve its financial
condition by increasing revenue
and reducing expenditures.
4 Determine whether Richmond's
budgeting processes align
with best practices. In addition,
evaluate the city's procedures
and underlying assumptions for
projecting future revenue and
expenditures, and determine
whether the projections result in
balanced budgets and accurate
financial forecasts.
5 Assess Richmond's process for
setting, increasing, or decreasing
fees or rates to ensure that it
complies with applicable laws,
rules, regulations, and best
practices. For a selection of these
fees and rates, determine whether
they cover the city's costs of
providing services.

I
METHOD
Identified and reviewed relevant federal and state laws, rules, regulations, municipal code, and other background materials applicable to the city. • Developed and analyzed trends of revenues, expenditures, and other relevant financial risk indicators from fiscal years 2016-17 through 2020-21.
• Reviewed the city's methodology for creating its financial projections and assessed whether those projections are reasonable.
• Assessed the reliability of selected data elements in the city's financial systems.
• Reviewed the city's financial statements and accounting records to determine the position of its enterpris~ funds and the degree to which it has relied on general fund subsidies in the past five fiscal years.

Interviewed city staff and reviewed documentation, such as presentations to the city council, to identify underlying revenue and expenditure issues the city believes are contributing to its financial challenges. • Reviewed Richmond's "Plan 2030:'financial forecasts and presentations, and related documentation.

Assessed the extent to which staff compensation contributed to Richmond's financial challenges by doing the following: reviewed Richmond's salary survey, budgets, and federal inflation reports to determine when the city last provided cost-of-living increases to its staff and to estimate the impact of inflation since that time, compared recent staff salaries in key positions to those in neighboring cities, and reviewed staffing levels for departments with significant vacancies or overtime. • Assessed risks related to the city's reliance on pension obligation bonds and current refinancing plan based on GFOA guidance and available reports on pension costs. We also reviewed the city's planning and costs related to its OPEB liabilities.

Evaluated the policies, processes, and practices the city used to develop its budgets and compared them with applicable criteria and GFOA best practices. We determined that the city complied with its policies, processes, and practices when developing its budget. Further, we determined that Richmond's budgeting practices comply with GFOA best practices.

Assessed the reasonability of assumptions used by the city in its revenue and expenditure projections. We reviewed budget and financial records to determine whether the projections resulted in balanced budgets and accurate financial forecasts from fiscal years 2016-17 through 2020-21. • Reviewed state law, the city's municipal code, and guidance from GFOA and the California and National Leagues of Cities to identify requirements and best practices for setting municipal fees and rates. • Interviewed staff and reviewed documentation to determine Richmond's process for setting fees and rates. We determined whether that process complied with state law, the municipal code, and best practices.

Assessed whether city's fees covered its costs for providing services by reviewing supporting documentation for the rates for three fees. 1038
I ' I:
6 Evaluate Richmond's efforts
to address the deficiencies its
external auditors identified in their
reports for fiscal year 2018-19
and earlier years and those the
Inspector General identified in
its 2016 report related to the
Richmond Housing Authority.
7 Review and assess any other
issues that are significant to the
audit.

Source: Audit workpapers.

Assessment of Data Reliability
METHOD

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 \ November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
• Conducted interviews and reviewed the city's and housing authority's documentation to determine the progress of the city and housing authority to address associated audit recommendations.
• Conducted interviews and reviewed documentation to assess the housing authority's efforts to comply with the recovery agreement timeline.

Further, to the extent possible, we assessed the risk to the city associated with missing associated deadlines.
• To assess the city council's compliance with open-meeting laws related to closed sessions, we reviewed five closed city council meetings held from 2018 through 2021. We had no reportable findings.
• To assess potential conflict-of-interest violations, we reviewed statements of economic interest submitted by the city council, mayor, and certain other leadership positions. We had no reportable findings. • Reviewed a selection of 10 contracts from the city's purchasing database and paper records from 2019 through 2021 to determine whether the city followed its competitive bidding and contract approval requirements, the city received the services procured, and the city made payments in accordance with the contract terms.

The U.S. Governm ent Accountability Office, whose standards we are statutorily obligated to follow, requires us to assess the sufficiency and appropriaten ess of computer-proc essed information we use to support our findings, conclusions, or recommendations. In performing this audit, we relied on electronic reports that we obtained from the city's financial system. We completed data validation, logic, and completeness testing . We found the city's financial accounting system to be sufficiently reliable for the purpos e of reviewing its financial condition . 37 1039
I 38

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 j Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
Blank page inserted for reproduction purposes only.
1040

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
Report 2021-806 I November 2022

LOCAL HIGH RISK
_c_1TY_ M_A_N_A_G_E_R_·s_o_F_F_1c_E _____________ fffftl.. •• October 21, 2022
Via Email - [email protected]
Michael S. Tilden, CPA*
Acting California State Auditor
621 Capitol Mall, Suite 1200
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: State Auditor's Recommendations
2021-806- Confidential Draft Audit Report
Dear Mr. Tilden:

The City of Richmond ("City") is pleased to have the opportunity to comment on the recommendations ("Recommendations") from the State Auditor's Report ("Audit Repo1t") dated November 10, 2022.

The City has observed the representatives of the State Auditor's Office ("Office") over the last several months as we provided information and worked together to make the Audit Report accurate and helpful. We believe the Office has acted with professionalism, sound judgment, and fairness to provide an Audit Report which will be helpful to the City. Finally, we appreciate that this response will be published along with the Audit Report itself.

The comments herein are those of the City Staff. Given the limited time posed for review, we were able to share a draft of the Audit Repmt at a City Council closed session held pursuant to Govt.

Code § 54956.75 on October 18, 2022, to ensure that Councilmembers are aware of the recommendations, but not of the responses which were subsequently drafted and contained herein.

Council sets policy; accordingly, all matters of policy will go to the Council at a public meeting for actual determination .

City staff responses to each recmmendation included in the Audit Report are included below. We understand that descriptions of the findings and conclusions that led to these recommendations can be found in the sections of Audit Repo1t.
l. To help ensure that Richmond maintains appropriate reserves for times of fiscal uncertainty, city staff should, by June 2023, review Richmond's reserve policy to detennine whether a higher reserve target is appropriate. As part of the review, staff should consider all the factors the Government Finance Officers' Association (GFOA) recommends for setting a reserve target. Once that review is complete, city staff should present proposals to the city council for modifying the city's policy.

The City Staff agrees with the recommendation and will continue to review its Reserve Policy. In recent years, the City has continuously improved its reserve level, but it was still below the City reserve policy target of 15 percent as of June 30, 2021. On September 20, 2022, the City Council adopted a new Cash Reserve 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804-1630
Telephone: (510) 620-6512 Fax: (510) 620-6542 www.ci.richmond.ca.us * California State Auditor's comment appears on page 43. 1041
I 40

CALIFORNIA STATE AUDITOR
November 2022 I Report 2021-806

LOCAL HIGH RISK
October 21, 2022
Page2
Policy with a minimum target reserve level increased to a range up to 20 percent, meeting GFOA standards. The City is estimated to end Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 with a reserve level well above its policy range at 22.95 percent of the General Fund expenditures budget for FY 2022-23. The City staff will perform an analysis per the GFOA best practices on the five risk factors and present such updated analysis to the City Council.

2. To decrease the risk that Richmond will deplete its reserves, city staff should, by June 2023, present to the city council a list of proposed budget actions that would help ensure balanced budgets and eliminate projected deficits.

Under the City Council approved Guiding Fiscal Policies, the City is required to develop an annual budget guided by a long-term financial plan. For the past several years, with the exception of recent pandemic years, the City has adopted a balanced annual budget and also has ended each fiscal year with a significant surplus. The City staff will continue to work with the City Council on developing a long-term plan and then develop a structurally balanced budget for FY 2023-24.

3. Richmond should include multiple scenarios in its financial projections, including scenarios with potential additional risks, such as economic downturns or recessions, and how the city would continue to fund its operations under those circumstances.

The City staff agree that in present circumstances, economic downturns and recessions need to be factored into budgets. The City continues to use its Five-Year Forecast as a dynamic document to assist and inform in strategic decision-making processes, including labor negotiations and budget development. The City will work on refining its Five-Year Forecast and incorporate all the factors, global and local, impacting the City's fiscal health, including but not limited to recession, inflation, housing market, etc. The City staff plans on bringing back a refined forecast with multiple scenarios by spring 2023 prior to the FY 2023-24 budget development.

4. To ensure that Richmond is able to fund its retirement-related costs, city staff should, by June 2023, propose to the city council a specific policy regarding funding of its pension trust ftmd for this purpose. Staff should report to the city council on estimated long-term savings from increasing its direct payments to Cal PERS compared to investing the same amounts in its pension trust fund. Staff members should use this information to inform their recommendations related to funding targets for the pension trust fund and should consider recommending that the council increase the city's payments directly to CalPERS.

The City has created a Pension Prefunding 115 Trust account and is in the process of developing a policy. The City staff concurs with the recommendation and will perform an analysis of the two options: (a) prefundingthe 115 Trust account versus (b) prefunding directly to CalPERS. The analysis will be presented to the City Council with a recommendation in spring of 2023.

5. To improve the city's ability to pay other post-employment benefits, Richmond should, by June 2023 and annually thereafter, implement a policy identifying funds, such as surpluses or one-time revenues that should be contributed to the OPEB trust fund. Staff should conduct an annual analysis to determine whether any funds available to the city are 1042
October 21, 2022

Page 3 ends

Richmond City CouncilMarch 5, 2024

Richmond City Council
March 5, 2024