MEETINGS
SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY / RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL - 6:15 P.M.
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL - 6:30 P.M.
(These meetings are virtual)
Tuesday, January 25, 2022, 5:00 p.m.
Community Services Building
440 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Members:
Thomas K. Butt, Mayor
Demnlus Johnson III, Vice Mayor at Large
NathanielBates, Councilmember at Large
Claudia Jimenez, Councilmember District 6
Eduardo Martinez, Councilmember at Large
Melvin Willis, Councilmember District 1
Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember District 5
Jaycine Scott, Housing Authority Tenant Commissioner
Link to City Council Agendas/Packets
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/4157/City-ofRichmond-Council-Meetings Register to receive notification of new agendas, etc.
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/list.aspx
CORONAVIRUS DISEASE (COVID-19) ADVISORY
PURSUANT to the Governor of the State of California’s Assembly Bill 361 and in the interest of the public health and safety, attendance at the City of Richmond City Council meeting will be limited to Council members, essential City of Richmond staff, and members of the news media.
Public comment will be confined to items appearing on the agenda and will be limited to the methods provided below.
How to watch the meeting from home:
KCRT – Comcast Channel 28 or AT&T Uverse Channel 991.
Livestream online at http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/3178/KCRT-Live2.
Public comment may be submitted by mail, eComment, email and/or Zoom video conference in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item.
Via mail: received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.
Via eComments: eComments are available once an agenda is published. Locate the meeting in "upcoming meetings" and click the comment bubble icon. Click on the item you wish to comment on. eComments can be submitted when the agenda is published and until the conclusion of public comments for the agenda item. eComments can be viewed by the City Council and members of the public as they are submitted. Email your comment to [email protected] should you have difficulty submitting an eComment during a meeting.
Via email: to [email protected] by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.
Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; 2) public comments – Open Forum; or 3) public comments agenda item #__ [include the agenda item number]. All such email with correctly labeled subject lines will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.
Via Zoom by video conference: for Open Session and City Council: Please click the link below to join the webinar:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09 Passcode: ccmeeting
By iPhone one-tap: US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643# By Telephone: Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location): US: +1 669
900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592
Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
International numbers available: https://zoom.us/u/aehrwCgISx
To comment by video conference: click on the Participants button at the bottom of your screen and select the “Raise Your Hand” button to request to speak when Public Comment is being asked for.
When called upon, press the unmute button. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. **
To comment by phone: you will be prompted to “Raise Your Hand” by pressing “*9” to request to speak when Public Comment is asked for. When called upon, you will be asked to unmuted by pressing *6. After the allotted time, you will then be re-muted. Instructions of how to raise your hand by phone are available at:
https://support.zoom.us/hc/en-us/articles/201362663 -Joining-a-meeting-by-phone. **
**The mayor will announce the agenda item number and open public comment when appropriate.
Open Forum for Public Comment:
Address the City Council on matters not listed on the agenda, items remaining on the consent calendar, reports from the city manager, public works director, sub-committee for reimagining task force, and police chief may do so under Open Forum.
The City cannot guarantee that its network and/or the site will be uninterrupted. To ensure that the City Council receives your comments, you are strongly encouraged to submit your comments in writing in advance of the meeting.
AB 361 Procedures in the Event of Technical Difficulties: In the event the meeting broadcast is disrupted, or if a technical issue on the agency's end disrupts public participation, the legislative body board cannot take any further action on the agenda until the technical issue is resolved.
Properly labeled public comments will be considered a public record, put into the official meeting record, available after the meeting as supplemental materials, and will be posted as an attachment to the meeting minutes when the minutes are posted:
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Archive.aspx?AMID=31.
Procedures for Removing Items from the Consent Calendar:
Members of the public who request to remove an item from the consent calendar must first discuss the item with a staff member by phone or a back-and-forth email discussion, and state the name of the staff member when requesting removal of the item from the consent calendar.
Any member of the City Council who would like to remove an item from the consent calendar must notify the appropriate staff person and the City Clerk’s Office prior to the meeting. Although members of the City Council are encouraged to ask questions and share concerns with staff ahead of the meeting, they are not required to do so.
The Clerk’s Office must be informed of any requests to remove items from the Consent Calendar.
Items removed from the Consent Calendar shall be placed at the end of the agenda for consideration.
Accessibility for Individuals with Disabilities:
Upon request, the City will provide for written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services and sign language interpreters, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in and provide comments at/related to public meetings. Please submit a request, including your name, phone number and/or email address, and a description of the modification, accommodation, auxiliary aid, service or alternative format requested at least two days before the meeting. Requests should be emailed to [email protected] or submitted by phone at 510-620-6513, ext. 9, or 510-620-6509.
Requests made by mail to City Clerk’s Office, City Council meeting, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 must be received at least two days before the meeting. Requests will be granted whenever possible and resolved in favor of accessibility.
Effect of Advisory on In-person public participation:
During the pendency of Assembly Bill 361, the language in this Advisory portion of the agenda supersedes any language contemplating in-person public comment.
Pages
A. OPEN SESSION TO HEAR PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION 5:00 P.M.
B. ROLL CALL
C. CLOSED SESSION
.
C.1. LIABILITY CLAIMS (Government Code Section 54956.9) Government Code Section 54956.9
C.1.a. Veretta Edwards v. City of Richmond
C.1.b. Sean Radetich v. City of Richmond
C.1.c. Charles Rigmaiden v. City of Richmond
C.1.d. Felix Tan v. City of Richmond
C.2. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION (paragraph (1) of Subdivision [d] of Government Code Section 54956.9) C.2.a. SPRAWLDEF etal. v. City of Richmond
C.2.b. The GuidivilleRancheria of California, et al. v. The United States of America, et. al.
C.2.c. North CoastRivers Alliance et al./Point Molate Alliance et al. v.
City of Richmond
C.2.d. Richmond Shoreline Alliance, SPRAWLDEF, Citizens for EastShore Parks, Sunflower Alliance, and GreenAction for Health and EnvironmentalJustice v. City of Richmond
C.3. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION (Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) or (3) of Subdivision (d) [as applicable] of Government Code Section 54956.9) C.3.a. Three cases
In light of the California Court of Appeal's decision in Fowler v.
City of Lafayette, the City Attorney's Office is attaching to this agenda four communications regarding the amended judgment and various agreements related to Point Molate. These letters provide the existing facts and circumstances for going into closed session on these items pursuant to California
Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2) and (e)(3).
C.3.b. One Case - Veolia Mediation
C.4. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION (Government Code Section 54957)
C.4.a. Title: City Manager
D. PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE CLOSED SESSION
E. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
F. SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY /
RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:15 P.M.
G. ROLL CALL
H. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONAL VIDEO
I. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
J. AGENDA REVIEW
K. HOUSING AUTHORITY/CITY COUNCIL BUDGET SESSION
K.1. Fiscal Year 2021-22 Amended Budget Adjustments 10
ADOPT a joint resolution approving the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2021- 2022 Richmond Housing Authority’s amended budget adjustments with revised estimated revenues of $4,763,120 and total expenditures of $4,763,120, decreasing the FY 2021-2022 General Fund subsidy total amount by $371,456 from $1,141,828 to $770,372; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the RHA Executive Director and City Manager to execute a repayment agreement - Richmond Housing Authority/City of Richmond (Shasa Curl/Nannette J. Beacham/Belinda Brown 510-621-1300).
L. ADJOURNMENT
_______________________________________________________
M. REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL
6:30 P.M.
N. ROLL CALL
O. STATEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
P. AGENDA REVIEW
Q. REPORT FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OF FINAL DECISIONS MADE
DURING CLOSED SESSION
R. REPORT FROM THE CITY MANAGER (public comment allowed under Open Forum for Public Comment)
S. CRIME REPORT FROM POLICE CHIEF (public comment allowed under Open Form for Public Comment)
T. OPEN FORUM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT
U. STUDY AND ACTION SESSION
U.1. Application for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements project
37 ADOPT a resolution authorizing a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2022-23 Transportation Development Act Article 3 pedestrian/bicycle project funding for the Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements project; and to ACCEPT and APPROPRIATE the funds should the grant be awarded – Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-5478/Patrick Phelan 510-307-8111)
U.2. Vacant seats on Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees 68 ANNOUNCE recent resignation from City of Richmond boards, commissions, and committees and vacancies as of January 19, 2022, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk – Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
U.3. Study Session for the Potential Formation of a Community Facilities District for Point Molate
71 RECEIVE information and quantitative analysis regarding the potential formation of a Community Facilities District for the Point Molate development project; and after deliberation, CONSIDER providing any policy direction, as needed, regarding formation of a Community Facilities District for the Point Molate development project – Finance Department (Belinda Brown 510-620-6740).
U.4. Healthy Options at Point of Sale 123
RECEIVE a report on research conducted by Healthy Options at Points of Sale (HOPS) youth advocates; and DIRECT staff to draft an ordinance to be considered by the Council within 60 days requiring large retail stores to stock healthier checkout items – Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin (510-620-6636).
U.5. Report on Unhoused Interventions 164
RECEIVE an update on the status of certain unhoused interventions and PROVIDE staff input on next steps –Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6706).
V. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: REFERRALS TO STAFF, AND GENERAL REPORTS (INCLUDING AB 1234 REPORTS)
W. ADJOURNMENT
January 25, 2022
Finance Department
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Housing Authority Board of Commissioners and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Shasa Curl, Interim City Manager
Nannette Beacham, RHA, Executive Director
Belinda Brown, Finance Director
Rita Martinez, Senior Accountant
Gabino Arredondo, Project Manager
Subject: Fiscal Year 2021-22 Amended Budget Adjustments FINANCIAL IMPACT: The FY 2021-2022 mid-year adjustments include an increase of $21,481 to revenues and a decrease of
$349,975 to expenditures. This creates a reduction and
savings to the General Fund subsidy in the amount of
$371,456. The FY 2021-2022 adjusted budget would consist of $5,134,576 in revenues and $4,763,120 in expenditures, thereby, decreasing the FY 2021-2022 General Fund
subsidy total amount from $1,141,828 to $770,372.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
June 29, 2021
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Staff is requesting that the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) Board of Commissioners and members of the City
Council review and approve the RHA Fiscal Year 2021-2022 amended operating budget and approve the recommended
budget adjustments and repayment agreement.
JOINT MEETING
AGENDA REPORT
January 25, 2022
RECOMMENDED
ACTION:
ADOPT a joint resolution approving the proposed Fiscal
Year (FY) 2021-2022 Richmond Housing Authority’s
amended budget adjustments with revised estimated
revenues of $4,763,120 and total expenditures of
$4,763,120, decreasing the FY 2021-2022 General Fund
subsidy total amount by $371,456 from $1,141,828 to
$770,372; and APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the RHA
Executive Director and City Manager to execute a
repayment agreement - Richmond Housing Authority/City of Richmond (Shasa Curl/Nannette J. Beacham/Belinda Brown
510-621-1300).
DISCUSSION:
Background
The RHA provides affordable housing for low and very low-income Richmond residents through the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) federally funded housing programs. RHA owns multiple public housing properties and manages two (2) properties occupied by residents (Nevin Plaza and Nystrom Village) with approximately 242 units. There are an additional 393 units associated with RHA entities (Richmond Village, Triangle Court, Friendship Manor) and 148 units in construction (Hacienda) for a total of 783 units. Funding for the RHA budget is largely dependent on funding from HUD, and thus subject to congressional appropriations. HUD continues the trend of inadequate funding for public housing authorities nationwide, and therefore, it is increasingly difficult for RHA to ensure that adequate services are provided and that its facilities meet the needs of its residents.
Original Approved RHA Budget – June 29, 2021
On June 29, 2021, RHA Board of Commissioners and Richmond City Council approved the FY 2021-2022 budget of $5,133,095 in expenditures to manage the public housing program which includes personnel costs (currently at 7 FTE’s), funds to cover utilities and contracts for property maintenance and security for Nevin Plaza, and Nystrom Village and operating subsidy pass through for Richmond Village. Estimated revenue of $3,971,267 million is comprised of operating subsidies from HUD, capital funds and tenant rents. An RHA subsidy from the City of Richmond General Fund in the amount of $1,141,828 was approved to provide sufficient revenue to match anticipated expenditures and balance the RHA budget to $5,113,095 in estimated revenues and $5,113,095 in expenditures
January 25, 2022
Approved RHA FY 21-22
Budget
Revenues $ 3,971,267
Expenditures $ 5,133,095
Subsidy $ 1,141,828
Surplus/(Deficit) ($ 0)
FY 2021-2022 Amended Budget
The FY 2021-2022 mid-year adjustments include an increase of $21,481 to revenues and a decrease of $349,975 to expenditures. This creates a reduction and savings to the General Fund subsidy in the amount of $371,456. The total of the FY2021-2022 adjusted budget would consist of $5,134,576 in revenues and $4,763,120 in expenditures; thereby, decreasing the FY 2021-2022 General Fund (GF) subsidy total amount from $1,141,828 to $770,372.
RHA FY 21-22
Budget with GF
Subsidy
Additional Revenue
and Expenditure
Requests
Amended RHA
FY 21-22 Budget with
GF Subsidy
Revenues $5,133,095 $ 21,481 $ 4,763,120
Expenditures $5,133,095 ($ 349,975) $ 4,763,120
Surplus/(Deficit) - ($ 371,456)
The revenue and expenditure changes are listed below:
Revenue Changes:
$ 21,481 Increase – Increase in revenue related to various adjustments:
o $43,981 - Increase to revenue due to rent for the RHA Administration Building by Employment and Training; this revenue was not captured on the original FY2021-2022 Budget as it was foreseen that the building would be sold by December 2021. The building is anticipated to transfer by April 2022.
o $22,500 - Reduction due to decrease in rent revenue due to COVID-19 impacts and vacancies at Nystrom Village and the removal of vending machine revenue and laundry facilities at Nevin Plaza.
Expenditure Changes:
$349,975 Decrease – Decrease in expenditures related to various adjustments:
o $495,822 - Decrease in cost allocations that are not approved by HUD.
January 25, 2022
o $64,153 - Decrease due to removal of a full-time position that has remained unfilled and allocation of .50 FTE of existing staff to improve customer service to RHA residents.
o $60,000 - Increase to overtime budget for Public Works staff that assist at Nevin Plaza and Nystrom Village.
o $100,000 - Increase for legal services with lease enforcement, temporary staffing for unit turnover activities, and overtime for maintenance call outs and emergency responses.
o $50,000 - Increase for maintenance and unit turnover supplies and Vacant Property Solutions (VPS) steel case security systems.
FY 2021-2022 RHA and COR Accomplishments
In addition to the management of the public housing program, RHA’s main goals and objectives for FY 2021-2022, includes moving forward with asset repositioning activities outlined in the 2019 Public Housing Authority Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS) agreement between the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), City of Richmond (COR), and Richmond Housing Authority (RHA). RHA in collaboration with City of Richmond (COR) staff, continue to make progress in improving its operations and addressing outstanding tasks outlined in the PHARS.
RHA’s accomplishments at Nevin Plaza include the successful approval of HUD Section 18 Disposition. The developer, EAH Housing (EAH) with staff conducted two community meetings with residents to discuss interior and exterior design. Art master planning has also begun for the project. EAH plans to submit applications for tax-exempt bond financing and 4% Low Income Housing Tax Credits in the first round of 2022, tentatively scheduled for February 2022. Once allocation of tax credits and bonds, are received EAH expects to close the construction loan and begin construction in October 2022.
Regarding maintenance and day-to-day operations, there are ongoing plumbing and heating repairs needed and the front entry door needs upgrade/or replacement.
On September 21, 2021, the RHA Board of Commissioners designated McCormack Baron Salazar and Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services as the preferred development team for the redevelopment and operation of Nystrom Village. RHA is currently negotiating an Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement (ERNA) for the redevelopment and operation of Nystrom Village with a goal to complete by February 2022. There are still many challenges at the site due to illegal dumping, high vacancy, and squatting. RHA and City Staff have worked collaboratively to conduct multiple cleanup activities at the site. Additional units have had to be secured with the VPS systems to minimize break-ins.
For several years the RHA Board of Commissioners and City Council have worked towards the revival and renovation of 150 units of affordable housing at the Hacienda site. The building was vacant for over five years and an eyesore to the community. The closing date of the project and takeover by Mercy Housing to begin construction activities began June 2021. An extensive renovation will seismically retrofit the existing
January 25, 2022
building, install all new mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, create all new units with new kitchens and bathrooms, improve accessibility and energy efficiency, and create new service and amenity spaces, amongst many other improvements. One hundred percent of the residential units will remain as affordable housing, restricted to seniors (two of the units are unrestricted managers units). Construction has progressed and the anticipation date to occupy is September 2022.
Richmond Village I (RV I) and Richmond Village II (RV II) are nearing the end of the 15- year federal tax credit compliance period. The original investment limited partners (ILP) are entities affiliated with AIG and SunAmerica. RHA’s goal is to restructure ownership of the property (preferably combining RV I and RV II into one partnership/financial transaction), identify a new investor limited partner that can contribute additional equity, ensure the long-term financial viability of the property, and oversee subsequent renovations. RHA has an Option to Purchase the improvements through December 2022. RHA was recently informed that the ILP has agreed to sell its limited partnership interests to MBS for a nominal amount. RHA sent MBS a draft MOU and term sheet on December 6, 2021. When finalized, this will provide a commitment for RHA to continue working with MBS on resyndication. Under the proposed MOU, RHA will continue to work with MBS, and MBS will continue to work on the RAD application.
RHA has submitted final documents for the transfer of the RHA Administration Building to the City of Richmond for the continued use by the Richmond Build Program. The building is anticipated to transfer by April 2022.
Regarding financial matters, the Finance Department has made significant progress on the HUD funded CVR report and recommendations. RHA and Finance staff participated in the HUD supported financial training. RHA and City Finance staff continue to work with Maze & Associates (auditors) to complete the FY2018 and FY2019 audits, as well as working with NBS Consultants to complete a Cost Allocation plan in accordance with HUD requirements to the Title 2 CFR, Part 200 Compliant Version. Upon completion of this report and approval from HUD, RHA will contribute towards the City’s Cost Allocation plan. Updates on financial audits:
2017 Audit - Crosswalk of Financial Statements data to HUD Line numbers completed and sent to RHA for submission on REAC (HUD Systems) on December 29, 2021
2018 Audit - Reviewed Financials to Trial Balance and found discrepancies and notified auditors on 1/11/2022, currently awaiting a response. 2019 Audit - All requested information provided to Auditors. Upon completion of 2018 Audit COR and RHA will receive a draft for 2019. Cares Act Funding was requested for all Asset Management Projects (AMPs) before the deadline. Requested reimbursement funds for Nystrom and Nevin were received.
RHA Budget Draft 2022-23 budget has been prepared and is pending review.
January 25, 2022
Repayment Agreement
On February 28, 2021, CVR Associates, Inc. (“CVR”) prepared and submitted to RHA, the City of Richmond, and HUD a report entitled “Report of Recommendations – Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment” addressing the scope of, and recommendations regarding, repayment of funds advanced by the City for the benefit of RHA. The original report indicated that the net amount payable by RHA to the City after conveyance of the Administration Building was $392,258 (plus any recovered duplicate Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) payments as explained below).
One element addressed in the original report is the amount of duplicate payments to HCV landlords. Following additional analysis, CVR prepared an update to the original report in which CVR determines that due to checks that were voided or that did not otherwise clear, the amount of duplicate HCV payments is $139,215 less than originally estimated. Because the report treats the duplicate HCV payments as an offset to the total amount owed by RHA (i.e., such amounts would only be payable to the extent that they were recovered), the reduction in the duplicate payment amount results in a corresponding increase in the amount payable by RHA in the amount of $139,215.
According to the updated memo from December 23, 2021 by CVR the verifiable amount due the City is calculated to be $1,268,538 (Attachment 5). CVR recommends this amount be broken into three components as follows:
1. The debt owed should be reduced by $307,649 once the Administration Building is transferred from RHA to COR;
2. The debts owed as a result of the duplicate payments of $429,416 should be repaid with any funds that are recovered. Any uncollectable amounts should be written off; and
3. The remaining amount of $531,473 should be made subject to a repayment agreement in accordance with CVR’s original recommendations dated February 28, 2021.
The updated report indicates that the net amount payable by RHA to the City after conveyance of the Administration Building is $531,473 (plus any recovered duplicate HCV payments).
Next Steps
A considerable amount of City resources has been allocated to assist RHA in meeting obligations to program participants and HUD, significantly impacting other City operations. RHA and City staff members have worked to significantly reduce the RHA budget deficit for FY 2021-2022 from previous fiscal years and will continue to diligently oversee and monitor RHA’s budget to maintain financial integrity and the health and safety of RHA’s residents.
January 25, 2022
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 - Resolution
Attachment 2 - Amended Budget
Attachment 3 - Position Control
Attachment 4 - Repayment Agreement
Attachment 5 - CVR Memorandum
Reso. No.
RESOLUTION NO._____
A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF RICHMOND (RHA) ADOPTING THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AMENDED FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 OPERATING BUDGET WITH PROPOSED REV ENUES IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,763,120, TOTAL PROPOSED EXPENDITURES OF $4,763,120, AND AN AMENDMENT TO DECREASE THE RHA SUBSIDY FROM THE CITY OF RICHMOND GENERAL FUND FROM $1,141,828 TO $770,372, AND
APPROVING AND AUTHORIZ ING EXECUTION OF A REPAYMENT
AGREEMENT BY THE RHA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND CITY MANAGER
WHEREAS, the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) is a public entity chartered by the City of Richmond, California, as a separate legal entity under the provisions of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937; and
WHEREAS, RHA’s programs are funded by the federal government, subject to the rules and guidelines of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); and
WHEREAS, RHA’s mission is to provide decent, safe and sanitary affordable housing and coordinate supportive services for low-income residents and program participants of the City of Richmond; and
WHEREAS, RHA administers the Low Rent Public Housing Program, and administers the Capital Fund Grant Modernization Program to fund rehabilitation activity on its existing public housing stock; and
WHEREAS, the RHA’s main goals and objectives for FY 2021-2022, in addition to the administration of its core public housing programs, will be to continue the repositioning of RHA assets ; and
WHEREAS , on February 28, 2021, CVR Associates, Inc. (“C VR”) prepared and submitted to RHA, the City of Richmond, and HUD a report entitled “Report of Recommendations – Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment” addressing the scope of, and recommendations regarding, re payment of funds advanced by the City for the benefit of RHA; and
WHEREAS, on December 23,2021, the CVR report was updated and indicates that the net amount payable by RHA to the City after conveyance of the Administration Building is $531,473 (plus any r ecovered du plicate HCV payments) which is reflected i n the Repayment Agreement attached as Exhibit A .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND AND THE MEMBERS OF
THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THAT: the FY 2021-2022 amended operating budget for the Richmond Housing Authority in the amount of $4,763,120 in estimated revenues, and with total proposed expenditures of $4,763,120 and reflecting a reduction i n the RHA sub sidy from the City of Richmond General Fun d from $1,141,828 to $770,372 is hereby approved and adopted, and the execution by the RHA Executive Director and City Manager of the Repayment Agreement in the form attached hereto is hereby approved.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT t he Executive Director is authorized to take all actions necessary to implement the foregoing resolution.
*******************************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmon d and the Richmond Housing Board of Commissioners at a joint meeting thereof held on January , by the following vote:
Reso. No.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
Chairperson
[SEAL]
ATTEST:
Secretary
Approved as to form:
Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. , finally passed and adopted at a joint City Council and Housing Authority Meeting held on January .
CLERK OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY
Reso. No.
Exhibit A
REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS REPAYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into effective as of ______________, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between the Housing Auth ority of the City of Richmond, a p ublic body, corporate and politic (“ RHA”) and the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”). RHA and City are referred to herein as the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, the City has advanced certain funds fo r the benefit of RHA ( “City Advances”);
WHEREAS, CVR Associates, Inc. (“CVR”) prepared and submitted to RHA, City , and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( “HUD”) that certain report entitled “Report of Recommendations – Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment” dated February 28, 2021 addressing the scope of, and recommendations regarding, repayment of the City Advan ces (the “ Original CVR Report”);
WHEREAS, CVR prepared an update to the Original CVR Report in the form of a Memorandum submitted to RHA, City and HUD, dated December 23, 202 1, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A (the “CVR Update”);
WHEREAS, the Part ies desire to set forth their agreement regarding RHA’s repayment of the City Advances.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consider ation, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows.
1. Amounts Payab le to City. The Parties agree that as set forth in the CVR Update, the adjusted amount payable by RHA to the City as of the Effectiv e Date equals the sum of One Million, Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty-Eight Dollars ($1,268,538) (the “Adjusted Amount Payable ”). The Parties agree that the Adjusted Amount Payable will be addressed as follows:
(a) The Adjusted Amount Payable will be reduced by the sum of Three Hundred Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Forty -Nine Dollars ($30 7,649) upon RHA ’s conveyance of the RHA Administration Building to the City.
(b) RHA will repay to the City the sum of Five Hundred Thirty -One Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars ($531,473).
(c) The CVR Update identifies the sum of Four Hundred Twenty -Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($429,416) in duplicate payments to Housing Choice V oucher landlords (“Duplicate HCV Payments”) . RHA will repay to the City tha t portion of the Duplicate HCV Payments that RHA is reasonably able to recover. The Par ties agree that City will write off any unrecoverable portion of the Duplicate HCV Payments, and the Adjusted Amount Payable will be reduced by the amount of any such w rite-off. The Parties agree to cooperate in attempts to recover Duplicate HCD Payments.
2. HUD Approval; Compliance with HUD Requirements . This Agreement is subject to any approval that RHA may be required to obtain from HUD. Furthermore, the Partie s acknowledge that all RHA payments to City pursuant to this Agreement will only be made from unrestricted sources of funds available to RHA and approved by HUD. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Part ies acknowledge that RHA is requir ed to use public housing revenue to operate and maintain RHA’s public housing properties until such time as such assets are repositioned.
3. General Provisions.
Reso. No.
3.1 Actions by the Parties. Whenever this Agreement call s for or permits the approval, con sent, authorization or waiver of RHA, the approval, consent, authorization, or waiver of RHA’s Executive Director shall constitute the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of RHA without further action of the Commission. Whenever this Agreement calls for or permits the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of City, the approval, consent, authorization, or waiver of City’s City Manager or designee shall constitute the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of City without further action of the City Council.
3.2 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and const rued in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding principles of conflicts of law. Any litigation arising under t his Agreement shall be prosecuted i n the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, and all parties waive their respective rights to change venue pursuant to Section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, tog ether with Exhibit A attached heret o and incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire agreement between the Par ties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements pertaining thereto.
3.4 Amendments; Waivers. This Agreement may n ot be amended or modified except by a written instrument signed by both Parties. No wai ver of any breach of any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. An extension of time for performance of a ny obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act, and no extension sh all be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party.
3.5 Headings; Interpretation. The section headings and captions used herein are solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. Any reference to a particular section of this Agreement shall mean a reference to all subsections thereof. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is th e product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the Parties agree, that since both Parties have participated in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it.
3.6 Severability. Each provision of this Agreement shall be considered severable, and if any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or cont rary to any existing or future law, such invalidity shall not impair the remainder of this Agreement provided that the remainder of the Agreement can, absent the excise d portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the Parties.
3.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person other than th e Parties any legal or equitable ri ght, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.
3.8 Authority. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of a Party represents that they are duly authorized to sign and deliver this Agreement on behal f of such Party, and that this Agreement is binding on such Party in accordance with its terms.
3.9 Counterparts; PDF and Facsimile Transmissions. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered will be deemed an or iginal, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
Signatures transmitted by telecopy or as emailed PDF copies shall be binding as originals, and each Party hereby waive any defenses to the e nforcement of the terms of this Agr eement or any document sent by emailed PDF, based upon the manner of transmission or for m of signature (electronic, facsimile or "ink original").
Reso. No.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agre ement effective as of the date first written above.
RHA:
CITY:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF RICHMOND, a public body, corporate
and politic
By:_____________________________
Nannette J. Beacham,
Executive Director
CITY OF RICHMOND, a California
municipal corporation and charter city
By:_____________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:___________________________
Attest:
By:______________________________
Approved as to form:
By:______________________________
Attest:
By:______________________________
Approved as to form:
By:______________________________
Reso. No.
Exhibit A
CVR MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 23, 2021
(Attach Memorandum.)
Reso. No.
Reso. No.
Reso. No.
Reso. No.
Richmond Housing Authority
FY 2022 Proposed Positions - Mid Year
Proposed Positions Filled/VacantProposed FTESalary Allocation Executive Director Filled 1.0 Allocated by time spent on project Resident Housing Manager Vacant 1.0 100% Nevin
Resident Housing Manager Vacant 1.0 100% Nystrom
Senior Development Project ManagerFilled 1.0 Allocated by time spent on project Administrative Aide Filled 1.0 Allocated by time spent on project Building Maint. Supervisor Vacant 1.0 Allocated by time spent on project Senior Management Analyst Filled 0.5 Allocated by time spent on project Total Full-Time Equivalents 6.5
OAK #4864-1299-5337 v1 1
REPAYMENT AGREEMENT
THIS REPAYMENT AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into effective as of ______________, 2022 (“Effective Date”) by and between the Housing Authority of the City of Richmond, a public body, corporate and politic (“RHA”) and the City of Richmond, a municipal corporation and charter city (“City”). RHA and City are referred to herein as the “Parties.”
WHEREAS, the City has advanced certain funds for the benefit of RHA ( “City Advances”);
WHEREAS, CVR Associates, Inc. ( “CVR”) prepared and submitted to RHA, City , and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development ( “HUD”) that certain report entitled “Report of Recommendations – Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment ” dated February 28, 2 021 addressing the scope of, and recommenda tions regarding, repayment of the City Advances (the “Original CVR Report”);
WHEREAS, CVR prepared an update to the Original CVR Report in the form of a Memorandum submitted to RHA, City and HUD, dated December 23, 202 1, attached to this Agreement as Exhibit A (the “CVR Update”);
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to set forth their agreement regarding RHA’s repayment of the City Advances.
NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows.
1. Amounts Payable to City. The Parties agree that a s set forth in the CVR Update, the adjusted amount payable by RHA to the City as of the Effective Date equals the sum of One Million, Two Hundred Sixty -Eight Thousand, Five Hundred Thirty -Eight Dollars ($1,268,538) (the “Adjusted Amount Payable”). The Parties agree that the Adjusted Amount Payable will be addressed as follows:
(a) The Adjusted Amount Payable will be reduced by the sum of Three Hundred Seven Thousand, Six Hundred Forty -Nine Dollars ($30 7,649) upon RHA’s conveyance of the RHA Administration Building to the City.
(b) RHA will repay to the City the sum of Five Hundred Thirty -One Thousand, Four Hundred Seventy-Three Dollars ($531,473).
(c) The CVR Update identifies the sum of Four Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand, Four Hundred Sixteen Dollars ($429,416) in duplicate payments to Housing Choice V oucher landlords (“Duplicate HCV Payments”). RHA will repay to the City that portion of the Duplicate HCV Payments that RHA is reasonably able to recover. The Parties agree that City will write off any unrecoverable portion of the Duplicate HCV Payments, and the Adjusted Amount Payable will be
OAK #4864-1299-5337 v1 2
reduced by the amount of any such write-off. The Parties agree to cooperate in attempts to recover Duplicate HCD Payments.
2. HUD Approval; Compliance with HUD Requirements. This Agreement is subject to any approval that RHA may be required to obtain from HUD. Furthermore, the Parties acknowledge that all RHA payments to City pursuant to this Agreement will only be made from unrestricted sources of funds available to RHA and approved by HUD. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge that RHA is required to use public housing revenue to operate and maintain RHA’s public housing properties until such time as such assets are repositioned.
3. General Provisions.
3.1 Actions by the Parties. Whenever this Agreement calls for or permits the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of RHA, the approval, consent, authorization, or waiver of RHA’s Executive Director shall constitute the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of RHA without further action of the Commission. Whenever this Agreement calls for or permits the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of City, the approval, consent, authorization, or waiver of City’s City Manager or designee shall constitute the approval, consent, authorization or waiver of City without further action of the City Council.
3.2 Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, excluding principles of conflicts of law. Any litigation arising under this Agreement shall be prosecuted in the Superior Court of California, County of Contra Costa, and all parties waive their respective rights to change venue pursuant to Section 394 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
3.3 Entire Agreement. This Agreement, together with Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior oral or written agreements pertaining thereto.
3.4 Amendments; Waivers. This Agreement may not be amended or modified except by a written instrument signed by both Parties. No waiver of any breach of any covenant or provision of this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any other covenant or provision hereof, and no waiver shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party. An extension of time for performance of any obligation or act shall not be deemed an extension of the time for performance of any other obligation or act, and no extension shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the waiving party.
3.5 Headings; Interpretation. The section headings and captions used herein are solely for convenience and shall not be used to interpret this Agreement. Any reference to a particular section of this Agreement shall mean a reference to all subsections thereof. The Parties acknowledge that this Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise on the part of both Parties, and the Parties agree, that since both Parties have participated in the nego tiation and drafting of this Agreement, this Agreement shall not be construed as if prepared by one of the Parties, but rather according to its fair meaning as a whole, as if both Parties had prepared it.
OAK #4864-1299-5337 v1 3
3.6 Severability. Each provision of this Agreement shall be considered severable, and if any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid or contrary to any existing or future law, such invalidity shall not impair the remainder of this Agreement provided that the remainder of the Agreement can, absent the excised portion, be reasonably interpreted to give effect to the intentions of the Parties.
3.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to or shall be deemed to confer upon any person other than the Parties any legal or equitable right, remedy or claim under or by reason of this Agreement.
3.8 Authority. Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of a Party represents that they are duly authorized to sign and deliver this Agreement on behalf of such Party, and that this Agreement is binding on such Party in accordance with its terms.
3.9 Counterparts; PDF and Facsimile Transmissions. This Agreement may be executed and delivered in any number of counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered will be deemed an original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same agreement.
Signatures transmitted by telecopy or as emailed PDF copies shall be binding as originals, and each Party hereby waive any defenses to the enforcement of the terms of this Agreement or any document sent by emailed PDF, based upon the manner of transmission or form of signature (electronic, facsimile or "ink original").
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the date first written above.
RHA:
CITY:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY
OF RICHMOND, a public body, corporate
and politic
By:_____________________________
Nannette J. Beacham,
Executive Director
CITY OF RICHMOND, a California
municipal corporation and charter city
By:_____________________________
Name:__________________________
Title:___________________________
Attest:
By:______________________________
Approved as to form:
By:______________________________
Attest:
By:______________________________
Approved as to form:
By:______________________________
OAK #4864-1299-5337 v1 4
Exhibit A
CVR MEMORANDUM DATED DECEMBER 23, 2021
(Attach Memorandum.)
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 23, 2021
To: Nannette Beacham, RHA and Gabino Arredondo, RHA
From: Michael Tonovitz, CVR Associates, Inc.
CC: Gerard Windt, HUD; Benjamin Palmer, HUD; Shasa Curl, City of Richmond; and Anil Comelo, City Manager
Subject: Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment
Update to Report Dated February 28, 2021
On February 28, 2021, CVR Associates Inc. (CVR) submitted a report entitled “Report of Recommendations - Debts Owed Write Off/Repayment” to the U. S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA), and the City of Richmond (COR). CVR’s analysis determined that the verified amount due was $699,907, of which $307,649 should be offset by the transfer of ownership of the administrative building from RHA to the City.
As a result, the amount due and subject to a repayment agreement was determined to be $392,258. The details of the initial analyses are contained as Exhibit 2 of this memo.
One of the factors considered in the debts owned analysis was $568,631 of potential duplicate payments to Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) landlords. Due to the conditions of RHA’s accounting records, further verification of this amount was required.
HUD retained CVR in a separate engagement to verify whether the potential duplicate payments were remitted and, if so, if any funds were recovered.
CVR’s analysis determined that duplicate payments in the amount of $429,416 were remitted but not repaid. This is $139,215 less than what was initially identified as the potential duplicate payments. The difference in the amounts was attributable to checks that were voided or otherwise did not clear RHA’s bank accounts.
It was also previously determined that the duplicate payments made by the City’s Finance Department were paid with Administrative Fees, not Housing
Assistance Payment Funding. If not for these duplicate payments, there would have been additional Administrative Revenues available to RHA, reducing the amount of funds that the City would have needed to provide the program.
Thus, the debts owed would have been $429,416 less.
An updated summary of the verified debts owed is contained as Exhibit 1.
As a result, the verifiable amount due the City is calculated to be $1,268,538.
CVR recommends this amount be broken into three components as follows:
1. The debt owed should be reduced by $307,649 once the Administration Building is transferred from RHA to COR;
2. The debts owed as a result of the duplicate payments of $429,416 should be repaid with any funds that are recovered. Any uncollectable amounts should be written off; and
3. The remaining amount of $531,473 should be made subject to a repayment agreement in accordance with CVR’s original recommendations dated February 28, 2021.
Other than what is contained in this memo, none of CVR’s prior recommendations are impacted by the analysis of duplicate payments.
In a separate report dated September 24, 2021, and a follow up memo dated, December 21, 2021, CVR has recommended next steps to recover the duplicate payments. CVR is ready to proceed in assisting in recovery efforts, once authorized to proceed by RHA and/or COR.
Any duplicate payments recovered should be remitted to the City in satisfaction of debts owned, but any uncollectable amounts should be written off.
We look forward to discussing this matter during the call scheduled for January 11, 2021.
Exhibit 1 – Updated Analysis
Amount Description Recommended Action
$15,371,628
Amount Owed per City of
Richmond as of June 30,
2019
($5,704,418)
Notes & loans payable with
accrued interest due from
affiliated entities
Adjusted books and records to show
that these funds are due from
affiliated entities
($174,067)
Loan from Community and
Development Loan Programs
to Westridge paid off by sale
of property
Write off this amount as it was
erroneously booked
$45,969
Difference of direct and
indirect charges owed to the
COR by RHA as verified with
the COR’s 2019 CAFR
Post adjustment to reflect CAFR
differences
($2,096,527) Incorrect recording of
Westridge receivable
Write off this amount as it was
erroneously booked.
($4,772,363) Disallowed indirect cost
allocations
Write off this amount because the
City was not authorized to make
these charges
($1,401,684) Debt settlement per PHARS
agreement
Write off in accordance with PHARS
agreement
$1,268,538 Adjusted Amount Due
($307,649) Net Value of Administration
Building Reduce debt upon transfer of building
($429,416) Duplicate Landlord Payments Repay City with recovered payments and write off uncollectable amounts.
$531,473 Amount Subject to
Repayment Agreement
Exhibit 2 – Original Analysis
Amount Description Recommended Action
$15,371,628 Amount Owed per City of Richmond
as of June 30, 2019
($5,704,418)
Notes & loans payable with accrued
interest due from affiliated entities
Adjusted books and records to
show that these funds are due
from affiliated entities
($174,067)
Loan from Community and
Development Loan Programs to
Westridge paid off by sale of
property
Write off this amount as it was
erroneously booked
$45,969
Difference of direct and indirect
charges owed to the COR by RHA
as verified with the COR’s 2019
CAFR
Post adjustment to reflect CAFR
differences
($2,096,527) Incorrect recording of Westridge
receivable
Write off this amount as it was
erroneously booked.
($4,772,363)
Disallowed indirect cost allocations Write off this amount because the City was not authorized to
make these charges
($1,401,684) Debt settlement per PHARS
agreement
Write off in accordance with
PHARS agreement
($568,631) Duplicate landlord payments Write off pending review of duplicate payments
$699,907 Verified Amount Due
$307,649 Net Value of Administration Building Reduce debt upon transfer of building
$392,258 Amount Subject to Repayment
Agreement
FY2021‐2022 Proposed Mid‐Year Budget 1/19/2022
Richmond Housing Authority
CAPITAL FUND NEVIN PLAZA NYSTROM VILLAGE COCC RICHMOND VILLAGE I RIC HMOND VILLAGE II RICHMOND VILLAGE III 4201 440 4 4405 4501 SUBTOTAL 4406 4407 4408 GRAND TOTAL
REVENUES
OPERATING SUBSIDY 700,000.0 0 500,000.0 0 1,200,000.0 0 248,684.0 0 219,283.0 0 87,977.0 0 1,755,944.0 0 CAPITAL FUND SUBSIDY 1,175,958.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,175,958.0 0 1,175,958.00 TENANT RENTAL INCOME 371,000.0 0 200,000.0 0 571,000.0 0 571,000.00 ADMIN FEES ‐ ‐
ASSET MGMNT FEES ‐ ‐
PROGRAM INCOME ‐ ‐
OTHER REVENUE/REIMBURSEMENTS 5,856.0 0 190,000.0 0 195,856.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 195,856.0 0 OPERATING TRANSFER IN FROM CAPITAL FUND 293,990.0 0 293,990.0 0 25% of Capital Fund Subsidy for AMP Operations 293,9 90.00 OPERATING TRANSFER IN FROM GF 181,986.0 0 588,386.0 0 770,372.0 0 770,372.00 REVENUES Total 1,175,958.00 1,552,832.00 700,000.00 778,386.00 4,207,176.00 248,684.00 219,283.00 87,977.00 4,763,120.00
EXPENSES
SALARIES & WAGES ‐ 65,000.0 0 60,000.0 0 418,896.0 0 543,896.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 543,896.0 0 FRINGE BENEFITS ‐ 45,000.0 0 46,114.0 0 284,490.0 0 375,604.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 375,604.0 0 OTHER PAY ‐ 2,520.0 0 10,368.0 0 12,888.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 12,888.0 0 COMPENSATED ABSENCES ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ RETIREE BENEFITS ‐ ‐ ‐ 75,000.0 0 75,000.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 75,000.0 0 COST ALLOC. GEN. LIABILITY ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ COST ALLOC. ADMIN ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ OPERATING EXPENSES ‐ 77,639.0 0 52,924.0 0 130,563.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 130,563.0 0 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 246,000.0 0 872,823.0 0 182,744.0 0 1,301,567.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 1,301,567.0 0 CONTRACTURAL SERVICES 30,000.0 0 75,050.0 0 150,250.0 0 255,300.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 255,300.0 0 EQUIPMENT SERVICES ‐ 10,250.0 0 1,500.0 0 11,750.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 11,750.0 0 GRANT EXPENSES 221,980.0 0 ‐ ‐ 221,980.0 0 248,684.0 0 219,283.0 0 87,977.0 0 777,924.0 0 MISC. EXPENSES 13,855.0 0 4,250.0 0 2,200.0 0 20,305.0 0 20,305.00 PROPERTY INSURANCE ‐ 24,300.0 0 16,200.0 0 40,500.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 40,500.0 0 UTILITIES ‐ 376,000.0 0 177,700.0 0 553,700.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 553,700.0 0 CAPITAL OUTLAY 370,133.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 370,133.0 0 ‐ ‐ ‐ 370,133.0 0 OPERATING TRANSFER OUT 293,990.0 0 25% of Capital Fund Subsidy for AMP Operations 293,990.0 0 ‐ ‐ 293,990.0 0 EXPENSES Total 1,175,958.00 1,552,832.00 700,000.00 778,386.00 4,207,176.00 248,684.00 219,283.00 87,977.00 4,763,120.00 Surplus (Deficit) ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ P:\Dept\Finance\Divisions\RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY\RHA ‐ BUDGET\FY2022\FY2021‐2022 RHA Proposed Annual Operating Budget 1‐19‐22Page 36 of 170
January 25, 2022
Public Works
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
(List all relevant/responsive staff
persons)
Joe Leach, Public Works Director
Patrick Phelan, Infrastructure Administrator
Subject:
(This will appear on the agenda)
Application for the Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 Pedestrian and Bicycle Funding for Fiscal Year 2022-23 for the Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle &
Pedestrian Network Improvements project
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The proposed grant funds of $178,400 along with West Contra Costa County Transportation Advisory
Committee’s appropriation of $241,000 and a contribution of $28,000 from Chevron would cover the entire cost of the project. No matching funds are required.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
(List all dates items were heard or
council action took place)
None
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
City staff submitted an application for the TDA3 fund which included a sample resolution. The proposed project is
titled “ Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian
Network Improvements” and will improve bicycle and
pedestrian travel to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(This will appear on the agenda)
ADOPT a resolution authorizing a request to the
Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Fiscal Year 2022 -23 Transportation Development Act
Article 3 pedestrian/bicycle project funding for the
Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestri an Network
Improvements project ; and to ACCEPT and
APPROPRIATE the funds should the grant be awarded –
AGENDA
REPORT
January 25, 2022
Public Works Department (Joe Leach 510-620-
5478/Patrick Phelan 510-307-8111)
DISCUSSION:
In November 2021, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) solicited applications for the Transportation Development Act Article 3 (TDA3) funds for pedestrian and bicycle projects. Each city may submit one project for consideration which must be reviewed by the county o r local Bicycle Advisory Com mittee. The Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee (R-BPAC) voted to approve the “Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements” project on January 10, 2022.
This project is an essential element of the City’s effort to carry o ut Key Corridor recommendations of the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan (F2B2G) by completing the spine Bay Trail between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the Richmond- San Rafael (RSR) Bridge Trail. This project will extend a two -way protected bikeway to the RSR Bridge trailhead at Castro Street and make pedestrian safety improvements en route through the Point Richmond Historic District. This TDA grant would complete funding for the project when added to WCCTAC’s S ubregional Transportation Mitigation Program funding allocation in the amount of $241,000. The project is a very high priority due to the heavy cyclist and pedestrian traffic through this congested area with 195,000 bicyclist and pedestrian trips over the RSR Bridge Trail since November 2019.
The project will implement F2B2G Plan Interim Design Concepts and 30% engineering design plans. In summary, the final construction documents will incorporate the following cyclist and pedestrian safety improvements:
Installation of protected two-way cycle tracks
Reconfiguration of motor vehicle parking
High visibility crosswalks with ADA-compliant curb ramps Sidewalk extensions to reduce street crossing distances AC Transit bus stop relocation and improvements to accommodate the cycle track Wayfinding signs and pavement markings
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – TDA Article 3 Application Form
Attachment 3 – Application Attachments
Attachment 4 – Call For Projects Letter
Attachment A
REQUEST TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECT FUNDING
Findings
1. That the City of Richmond is not legally impeded from submitting a request to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission for the allocation of Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds, nor is the City of Richmond legally impeded from undertaking the project described in “Attachment B” of this resolution.
2. That the City of Richmond has committed adequate staffing resources to complete the project described in Attachment B.
3. A review of the project described in Attachment B has resulted in the consideration of all pertinent matters, including those related to environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances, attendant to the successful completion of the project.
4. Issues attendant to securing environmental and right-of-way permits and clearances for the projects described in Attachment B have been reviewed and will be concluded in a manner and on a schedule that will not jeopardize the deadline for the use of the TDA funds being requested.
5. That the project described in Attachment B complies with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.).
6. That as portrayed in the budgetary description of the project in Attachment B, the sources of funding other than TDA are assured and adequate for completion of the project.
7. That the project described in Attachment B is for design, construction and engineering of bicycle and pedestrian facilities and an allocation of TDA Article 3 funding for such facilities has not been received by the City of Richmond within the prior five fiscal years.
8. That the project described in Attachment B is included in a locally approved bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, complete streets, or other relevant plan.
9. That any project described in Attachment B that is a bikeway meets the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual.
10. That the project described in Attachment B will be completed before the funds expire.
11. That the City of Richmond agrees to maintain, or provide for the maintenance of, the project and facilities described in Attachment B, for the benefit of and use by the public.
Resolution No. 12-22
Attachment B
page INSERT PAGE NUMBER of INSERT TOTAL PAGE NUMBERS
TDA Article 3 Project Application Form
Fiscal Year of this Claim: 2022/2023 Applicant: City of Richmond Contact person: Patrick Phelan
Mailing Address: 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804 E-Mail Address: [email protected] Telephone: (510) 307-8111 Secondary Contact (in event primary not available): Joe Leach E-Mail Address: [email protected] Telephone: (510) 620-5478
Short Title Description of Project: Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements Amount of claim: $ 178,400
Functional Description of Project:
The project is an essential element of the City’s effort to carry out Key Corridor recommendations of the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan (F2B2G Plan) by completing the spine Bay Trail between the Richmond-San Francisco Ferry Terminal, the Richmond-San Rafael (RSR) Bridge Trail and Point Molate Trail now funded for construction beginning mid-2022. Construction is starting on a protected two-way bikeway between the Ferry Terminal and Garrard Blvd. at the gateway to Point Richmond. This project will extend the bikeway to the RSR Bridge trailhead at Castro Street as shown on Attachment 1 and make pedestrian safety improvements en route through the Point Richmond Historic District. This TDA grant would complete funding for the project when added to WCCTAC’s STMP funding allocation in the amount of $241,000 and a contribution of $28,000 from Chevron. The project is a very high priority due to the heavy cyclist and pedestrian traffic through this congested area with 195,000 bicyclist and pedestrian trips over the RSR Bridge Trail since November 2019.
The project will implement F2B2G Plan Interim Design Concepts shown in Attachment 2 and the 30% engineering design plans shown in Attachment 3 with exception of the short section of cycle track on West Richmond Avenue potentially requiring high-cost BNSF grade crossing improvements. In summary, these cyclist and pedestrian safety improvements include:
Installation of protected two-way cycle tracks
Reconfiguration of motor vehicle parking
High visibility crosswalks with ADA-compliant curb ramps Sidewalk extensions to reduce street crossing distances AC Transit bus stop relocation and improvements to accommodate the cycle track Wayfinding signs and pavement markings
Financial Plan:.
See Attachment 4 Project Budget for project costs and sources of funds and Attachment 5 Engineering Cost Estimate spreadsheet.
Project Elements: Preparation of PSE, bidding, construction engineering and construction management & construction.
Funding Source All Prior FYs Application FY Next FY Following FYs Totals TDA Article 3 78,400 100,000 178,400
Chevron 28,000 28,000
STMP 241,000 241,000
2. 3.
4. Totals 347,400 100,000 447,400
Project Eligibility: YES?/NO?
A. Has the project been approved by the claimant's governing body? (If "NO," provide the approximate date approval is anticipated).
YES
B. Has this project previously received TDA Article 3 funding? If "YES," provide an explanation on a separate page.
NO
C. For "bikeways," does the project meet Caltrans minimum safety design criteria pursuant to Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design Manual? (Available on the internet via:
http://www.dot.ca.gov).
YES
D. Has the project been reviewed by a Bicycle Advisory Committee (BAC)? (If "NO," provide an explanation). Enter date the project was reviewed by the BAC: Jan. 10, 2022 YES
E. Has the public availability of the environmental compliance documentation for the project (pursuant to CEQA) been evidenced by the dated stamping of the document by the county clerk or county recorder? (required only for projects that include construction).
YES
F. Will the project be completed before the allocation expires? Enter the anticipated completion date of project (month and year): August 2023
YES
G. Have provisions been made by the claimant to maintain the project or facility, or has the claimant arranged for such maintenance by another agency? (If an agency other than the Claimant is to maintain the facility provide its name:
)
YES
START OF BAY TRAIL TO
RICHMOND-SAN RAFAEL BRIDGE
AND POINT MOLATE
RICHMOND-
SAN FRANCISCO
FERRY TERMINAL
580
Richmond Greenway
Bay Trail
Bay Trail
Bay Trail
To Berkeley
& Bay Bridge
To San Rafael
To North Richmond
& Pt Pinole
WASHINGTON
ELEMENTARY
Chevron Refinery
& Technology Center
580
CIVIC
CENTER
NYSTROM
SCHOOL
LINCOLN
ELEMENTARY
W OHIO AVE
San Francisco Bay
Rosie the Riveter
WWII Home Front
NHP
BNSF
Railyard
To El Cerrito
& Ohlone
Greenway
Richmond
Multimodal
Station
JUDGE
CARROLL
PARK
S GARRARD BLVD
CANAL BLVD
Keller
Beach
2ND ST
NEVIN AVE
OHIO AVE
Pt Molate
Beach Park
PROJECT
LOCATION
CORTEZ/
STEGE
BELDING/WOODS
RICHMORE
VILLAGE/METRO
SQUARE
CORONADO
SANTA FE
IRON
TRIANGLE
ATCHISON
VILLAGE
NORTH &
EAST
MARINA
BAY
POINT
RICHMOND
13TH ST
BARRETT AVE
HARBOUR W
AY
REGATTA BLVD
CUTTING BLVD
HARBOUR W
AY S
HOFFMAN
W CUTTING BLVD
MACDONALD AVE
CASTRO ST RICHMOND PKWY
S 23RD ST
M
ARINA
BAY
PKWY
23RD ST
PERES
ELEMENTARY
MILLER-KNOX
REGIONAL
SHORELINE
Legend
Completed Bay Trail
Incomplete Bay Trail
Schools
Communities of Concern
Highest
High
1 Inch = 2,000 Feet
0 0.2 0.4
Miles
Legend
Streets selection 2
Greenway
Streets selection
Incomplete Bay Trail
Proposed Bikeways
Pt Molate Path
NAME
2nd; Ohio
Garrard; Tewksbury
Completed Bay Trail
Completed Bay Trail
CORGIS.GISADMIN.Neighborhood_MOD2_2012
Chevron
BNSF
BNSF Yard
Schools
coc_class
Highest
Higher
High
NeighborhoodsSANTA
FE
West Branch
Library
The Plunge
WASHINGTON
ELEMENTARY
TEWKSBURY AVE
W CUTTING BLVD
W RICHMOND AVE
S GARRARD BLVD
WASHINGTON AVE
Attachment 1
Project Location & Communities of Concern
February 16, 2021
Attachment 2 - Interim Design Concepts
Richmond Ferry to Bridge
Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements
TDA Article 3 Project Application
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND 5-13 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
4.0 POINT RICHMOND GATEWAY AREA
The triangular area from Garrard Boulevard and
Cutting Boulevard around to Richmond Avenue
and Railroad Avenue, referred to by some as
Point Richmond Gateway, is a public park faced
by a bank building and bordered on two sides
by diagonal parking. Currently bicycles thread
through this busy area on-street or sometimes
across the park. The F2B2G Concept is to change
the diagonal parking to parallel parking, making
way for a two-way cycle track between the parked
cars and the sidewalk.
At the corner of Garrard Boulevard and
Richmond Avenue, the existing circular plaza will
be reconfigured into a new Bay Trail Crossroads
Plaza. From this singular location, Bay Trail users
can depart to four major San Francisco Bay Trail
segments: the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail,
the North Richmond Shoreline Trail, the Ferry Point
Loop, and the South Richmond Bay Trail, which
connects to Berkeley, Emeryville and beyond.
This location truly is a crossroads for bicyclists
and pedestrians, and the plaza will reflect this by
including public art, wayfinding signage, attractive
paving and streetscape furnishings.
Interim (Figures 5.22 and 5.23): The
diagonal parking should be removed and replaced
with a two-way cycle track. Parallel parking with
a buffer will protect the cycle track from vehicle
traffic and provide needed parking spaces for
downtown Point Richmond. By removing the bike
lane on the south side of Garrard Boulevard,
parallel parking next to the park can be provided
there as well. Estimates are that there would be loss
of 19 diagonal spaces, replaced by 12 parallel
spaces plus 5 parallel spaces along the park, for a
total loss of two spaces. Pedestrian improvements
R R
STOP STOPSTOP
STOP
STOPSTOP
STOPSTOP
STOPSTOP
STOP
STOP
STOP
RAILROAD AVENUE
W RICHMOND AVENUE
S GARRARD BLVD
N
Parklet
sidewalk
extension
Parklet
sidewalk
extension
4 New parking spaces 4 New parking spaces
Cafe seatingCafe seating
Existing parking
spaces
Existing parking
spaces
New sidewalk
extension
New sidewalk
extension
6 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 11 diagonal
parking spaces
6 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 11 diagonal
parking spaces
New two-way cycle
track with 3’ buffer
New two-way cycle
track with 3’ buffer
5 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 8 diagonal
parking spaces
5 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 8 diagonal
parking spaces
5 New parallel
parking spaces
5 New parallel
parking spaces
Bus stop with
shelter
Bus stop with
shelter
Total change in parking =
Loss of 3 parking spaces
Total change in parking =
Loss of 3 parking spaces
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Bus island Bus island
Existing Bay Trail
Figure 5.22 Point Richmond Gateway Area - Interim
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN CITY OF RICHMOND5-14 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
R R
STOP STOPSTOP
STOP
STOPSTOP
STOPSTOP
STOPSTOP
STOP
W RICHMOND AVENUE
S GARRARD BLVD
6 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 11 diagonal
parking spaces
6 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 11 diagonal
parking spaces
New two-way cycle
track with 3’ buffer
New two-way cycle
track with 3’ buffer
5 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 8 diagonal
parking spaces
5 Parallel parking spaces
(replaces 8 diagonal
parking spaces
5 New parallel
parking spaces
5 New parallel
parking spaces
Bus stop with
shelter
Bus stop with
shelter
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Two-way cycle
track with 3’
buffer
Bus island Bus island
Existing Bay Trail
Figure 5.23 Point Richmond Gateway Area (South Area) - Interim
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND 5-15 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
STOP
STOP
RAILROAD AVENUE
Parklet
sidewalk
extension
Parklet
sidewalk
extension
4 New parking spaces 4 New parking spaces
Cafe seatingCafe seating
New sidewalk
extension
New sidewalk
extension
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Figure 5.24 Richmond Avenue at Railroad Avenue
5.0 RICHMOND AVENUE AT
RAILROAD AVENUE
This busy intersection has a large area of pavement
for pedestrians to cross to the north side of
Railroad Avenue. The F2B2G Concept is to extend
the curb near the railroad tracks to the north, and
also extend the curb on the north side of Railroad
Avenue, providing a much shorter crossing.
Figure 5.24: A new high visibility crosswalk
should be installed across Railroad Avenue. By
realigning the parking next to the tracks addition-
al parking spaces can also be achieved. Finally,
the curb along the north side of Railroad Avenue
should be extended out to create a shorter crossing
for pedestrians and to allow for café seating and
landscaping along Railroad Avenue in front of the
restaurants there.
will be incorporated as part of the infrastructure
improvements, including high-visibility crosswalks
and ADA-compliant curb ramps at all pedestrian
crossings.
Long Term: Additional parking for Point
Richmond, mentioned often by community
members, can be developed along the length
of Garrard Boulevard northward from Cutting
Boulevard. For convenience, it could be provided
on the west side of the street, which would give
protection to the existing cycle track and make it
unnecessary for parkers to cross Garrard to access
downtown Point Richmond. This stretch of Garrard
Boulevard is very long, allowing for many new
parking spaces.
There is potential for a multi-use trail along the
BNSF right-of-way to the east of Railroad Avenue,
which will benefit both bicyclists and pedestrians.
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN CITY OF RICHMOND5-16 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
6.0 ROUTES THROUGH DOWNTOWN
POINT RICHMOND
The downtown section of Point Richmond is
historic and vibrant. However, there is little room
along the streets to provide bicycle facilities.
However, pedestrian access in this area is good.
The F2B2G Concept is two-fold: to create a safe
environment to cycle through the downtown as an
interim solution, and to secure an easement along
the BNSF rail line parallel to Railroad Avenue as a
long-term solution (Figure 5.25).
Interim: The best route for bicycles currently is
to ride down Richmond Avenue to Park Place or
along Washington Avenue and on to Tewksbury
Avenue. These streets have slow moving traffic,
so it is not unsafe to share the road. The entire
downtown area could be thought of as a shared
street environment, where bikes and cars share
the road equally. New signage and potentially ad-
ditional markings on the street pavement should
be provided that say “Share the Street” with icons
of bicycles. Additional signs that note “Share
the Streets” should also be provided at Railroad
Avenue and West Richmond Avenue, Washing-
ton Avenue at West Richmond Avenue, and on
Tewksbury Avenue at Washington Avenue. Finally,
additional bike parking should be provided (Figure
5.26).
Long-Term: As mentioned, if an easement can
be secured from BNSF , a Class I multi-use trail
parallel to Railroad Avenue between the parked
cars and the railroad tracks would be an ideal
solution. The physical space for a Class I trail on
the north side of the tracks exists, as proven by the
distance from the tracks to the fence at the new
apartments on the south side of the tracks.
For cyclists that choose to ride through downtown
Point Richmond (many would rather go this route),
long-term improvements can be made there as
well. For example, Park Place could be made a
6.8 :
6KLSSLQJ&DOFXODWHGDW&KHFNRXW
6KLSSLQJ&DOFXODWHGDW&KHFNRXW
+RPH :DUQLQJ6LJQV 6KDUH7KH5RDG
[ [ [ [
&$ 7(*25,(6
6HDUFK2XU6LWH)RU7UDIßF6LJQV &$57
truly shared street, or “Woonerf” as it is called
in Holland. The paving in the street for this short
stretch would be changed to brick pavers or
similar texture to indicate it is not a vehicle priority street, but rather people, bicycles and vehicles
would all share the street equally. Counterintui-
tively, reducing separation between drivers and
pedestrians can improve safety by forcing drivers
to slow down and pay attention. Car parking
would be delineated by bollards rather than curbs.
If the model is a success at Park Place, it could
be expanded to include Washington Avenue and
part of West Richmond Avenue to make the entire
downtown a more walkable area.
STOP
RAILROAD AVENUE
4 New parking spaces 4 New parking spaces
Existing parking
spaces
Existing parking
spaces
New sidewalk
extension
New sidewalk
extension
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Future multi-use trail
on BNSF railroad
easement
Figure 5.25 Potential BNSF Easement
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND 5-17 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
11 2
Downtown Point Richmond Route
Railroad Ave
Interim: Install signage and striping
that says "Share the Road". Provide
bicycle corral and or other solutions
for bicycle parking
Ferry to Bridge Route
Alternative Route
Existing Cycle Track
Proposed Cycle Track 0 400 800 Feet
Sidewalk Extension
and Bicycle Parking
N
Long Term: install parking
protected bike lane on east side.
Would require right-of-way
easement from BNSF Railroad
W. Cutting Blvd
S. Garrard Blvd
Washington Ave
Santa Fe Ave
Railroad Ave
Park Pl
Tewksbury Ave
Figure 5.26 Downtown Point Richmond Routes - Interim and Long-Term Interim: Downtown Point Richmond Route
Install “Share the Road” signage and striping.
Provide a bicycle corral and/or other solutions
for bike parking.
Long-Term: Railroad Avenue
Install Class I multi-use trail on the east side,
which would require right-of-way easement from
BNSF Railroad.
1 1
2 2
Ferry to Bridge Route
Alternative Route
Proposed Cycle Track
Existing Cycle Track
New sidewalk extension and
bicycle parking
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN CITY OF RICHMOND5-18 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
7.0 TEWKSBURY AVENUE
Tewksbury Avenue is an important connecting
corridor to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail.
A two-way cycle track has been installed on part
of this street. The F2B2G Concept is to extend the
existing cycle track, so it is complete from Wash -
ington Avenue in downtown Point Richmond to the
entry to the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail at
Castro Street.
ϳ ͘ϭd
t<^hZzs
Eh
&ZKD
t^,/E'dKEs
Eh
dK^Ed&
s
Eh
Interim: (Figures 5.28 and 5.30) The existing
two-way cycle track should be extended to reach
from Washington Avenue to Santa Fe Avenue. This
will entail changing some existing perpendicular
parking into parallel parking and eliminating other
parking. Existing parking is about 14 spaces, to
be replaced by 4 spaces for a loss of 10 spaces.
The cycle track will be separated from traffic by
a striped buffer with soft hit posts and armadillos.
Pedestrians will use the sidewalk on the south side
of Tewksbury Avenue.
Where the Class IV cycle track has been installed,
the section is 8’ for the cycle track, with 3’ for a
buffer, 7.5’ for parking, 10.5’ for an eastbound
travel lane and 10’ for a westbound travel for a
total of 39’. This section will be matched in the
new segment.
This interim solution also requires the relocation
of the AC Transit bus stop. An improved bus stop
solution is to have the eastbound stop (headed to
Richmond BART) around the corner on Railroad
Avenue, and the existing westbound stop (headed
for the terminus) connected across Tewksbury
Avenue with a new pedestrian crosswalk and
new concrete paved bus waiting area. A new
3'
10'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Rain Garden
Buffer
10.5' 10.5'
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk
6'
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk Parking
Lane
8' 13' 13'6'
34'
Curb to Curb
40'
Property Line to Property Line
Figure 5.27 Tewksbury Ave (Washington
Ave to Santa Fe Ave) - Existing
Figure 5.28 Tewksbury Ave (Washington
Ave to Santa Fe Ave) - Interim
Figure 5.29 Tewksbury Ave (Washington
Ave to Santa Fe Ave) - Long-Term
3'
10'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Flexpost +
Striping
Buffer
10.5' 10.5'
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk
6'
34'
Curb to Curb
40'
Property Line to Property Line
Existing cycle track on Tewksbury Avenue to be extended. crosswalk across Tewksbury Avenue and a new
concrete pad for people waiting for the westbound
stop will make this bus stop much improved from
the existing condition.
Long-Term (Figure 5.29): The buffer zone
at the Class IV cycle track should be turned into
a landscaped median that can retain and treat
stormwater and provide space for additional street
tree planting.
34'
Curb to Curb
40'
Property Line to Property Line
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND 5-19 5 DESIGN CONCEPTS
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
SANTA FE AVENUE
8' 3'
7.5' 10.5'
WASHINGTON AVENUE
RAILROAD AVENUE
RelocatH southbound bus stop
(100' no parking zone required
for bus maneuvers)
Improved northbound
bus stop (includes new
crosswalk and sidewalk)
Install stop signs on
Tewksbury Ave at
Washington Ave
Replace existing perpendicular
parking with 45° back-in angle
parking and parallel parking
Matches existing separated
bike lane on Tewksbury Ave
10'
10' 3'
10.5' 10.5'
THIS GRAPHIC REPRESENTS A CONCEPTUAL RENDERING.
CURBLINE ADJUSTMENTS, SIGNAL TIMING MODIFICATIONS,
0' 100'50' (SANTA FE AVE - WASHINGTON AVE)
Figure 5.30 Tewksbury Avenue - Interim
B-1FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN
Appendix B
30% Engineering Drawings
The following drawings show engineering drawings to a 30% level for interim (short-term) projects in Chapter 5 of the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Plan. They may differ slightly from concepts shown in Chapter 5 due to engineering judgement, cost considerations, or newly uncovered issues. They are not meant for construction as shown; more refinement of the concepts and additional detail is required, as well as review of the improvements by the City of Richmond and other relevant agencies.
Attachment 3 - 30% Engineering Drawings
Richmond Ferry to Bridge
Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements
TDA Article 3 Project Application
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN CITY OF RICHMONDB-2 1936 University Ave, Suite 250
Berkeley, CA 94704
510 343 6400
www.cswst2.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIARICHMOND
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
TEWKSBURY AVE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
TEWKSBURY AVENUE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
RICHMOND
PROJECT
SITE
OCEAN
PACIFIC NEVADACALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO
OREGON
CALIFORNIA
SCALE: NTSSCALE: NTS
OCTOBER-9-2020
30% DESIGN SUBMITTAL
CUTTING BLVD
OHIO AVE
S 23RD ST
MARINA WAY SOUTH
S 2ND ST
CUTTING BLVD
CANAL BLVD
HARBOUR WAY
MACDONALD AVE
CARLSON BLVD
SANTA FE
CHANNEL
580
SHEET INDEX:
C1.0 TITLE SHEET
C2.0 TYPICAL SECTIONS
C2.1 TYPICAL SECTIONS
C3.0 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.1 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.2 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.3 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.4 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.5 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.6 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.7 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.8 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.9 PROPOSED LAYOUT
C3.10 PROPOSED LAYOUT
TITLE
SHEET
C1.0
PROJECT SITE
APPENDIX B - 30% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B - 30% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND B-3 50' 21'12'17'20' 10'
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Landscaping Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk
130'
Property Line to Property Line
50'
Curb to Curb
50' 12'12'10'20' 10'
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Landscaping Two-Way Center
Turn Lane
Sidewalk
130'
Property Line to Property Line
50'
Curb to Curb
12'
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane4'
50' 12'10'20' 10'
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Landscaping Landscaped
Buffer
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk
130'
Property Line to Property Line
24'
Curb to Curb
12'
Travel
Lane
Shared-Use
Path
16'
8' 11'14'11'11'8' 15' 20'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Parking
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
12'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk
8' 11'14'11'8'7' 20'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
One-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Parking
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
12'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk
4'
Flexpost +
Striping Buffer
8'
Flexpost +
Striping
Buffer
7'
One-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
8' 11'10'11'8'12' 15' 20'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Parking
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
12'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk
3'
Flexpost +
Striping Buffer
34'
Curb to Curb
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Sidewalk
3'
10'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
34'
Curb to Curb
Travel
Lane
Flexpost +
Striping Buffer
10.5' 10.5'
Travel
Lane
Parking
Lane
8' 13' 13'
3'
8'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
39'
Curb to Curb
Parking
Lane
Flexpost +
Striping
Buffer
7.5'
Travel
Lane
10.5' 10'
Travel
Lane
3'
10'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
34'
Curb to Curb
Travel
Lane
Rain Garden
Buffer
10.5' 10.5'
Travel
Lane
40'
Property Line to Property Line
6'
40'
Property Line to Property Line
Sidewalk
6'
40'
Sidewalk
6'
Property Line to Property Line
50'
Property Line to Property Line
11'
Sidewalk
3'
8'
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
39'
Curb to Curb
Parking
Lane
Rain
Garden
Buffer
7.5'
Travel
Lane
10.5' 10'
Travel
Lane
50'
Property Line to Property Line
11'
Sidewalk
6' 12'14'12'18' 14' 15'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
14'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
8' 11'10'11'8'12' 15' 20'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Parking
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
12'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk
3'
Rain Garden
Buffer
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
EXISITNG
SANTA FE AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
PROPOSED- INTERIM DESIGN
SANTA FE AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
PROPOSED-LONG TERM DESIGN
SANTA FE AVENUE TO WASHINGTON AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
EXISITNG
CASTRO STREET TO SANTA FE AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
TEWKSBURY AVENUE
PROPOSED- LONG TERM DESIGN
CASTRO STREET TO SANTA FE AVENUE
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
EXISITNG
GARRARD BOULEVARD TO WINE STREET
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- INTERIM DESIGN
GARRARD BOULEVARD TO WINE STREET
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- LONG TERM DESIGN
GARRARD BOULEVARD TO WINE STREET
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
EXISITNG
WINE STREET TO CANAL BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
6' 12'14'12'12' 14' 15'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
14'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
6'
Flexpost +
Striping
Buffer
6' 12'14'12'12' 14' 15'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Landscaped
Median
70'
Curb to Curb
14'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
6'
Landscaped
Buffer
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- INTERIM DESIGN
WINE STREET TO CANAL BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- LONG TERM DESIGN
WINE STREET TO CANAL BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
EXISTING
7TH STREET TO 8TH STREET
LOOKING WEST
HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
PROPSOED- INTERIM DESIGN
7TH STREET TO 8TH STREET
LOOKING WEST
HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
PROPSOED- LONG TERM DESIGN
7TH STREET TO 8TH STREET
LOOKING WEST
8' 12'14'
5'
8' 13' 10'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Parking
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Two-Way
Center Turn Lane
80'
Curb to Curb
7'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
Bike Lane
12' 11'
5'
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
CUTTING BOULEVARD
EXISTING
CANAL BOULEVARD TO CHESSON STREET
LOOKING WEST
8' 10'14'
4'
12' 12' 10'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Two-Way
Center Turn Lane
80'
Curb to Curb
7'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
Flexpost +
Striping Buffer
12' 8'
Parking
Lane
Parking
Lane
8'
Travel
Lane
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- INTERIM DESIGN
CANAL BOULEVARD TO CHESSON STREET
LOOKING WEST
8' 10'14'
4'
12' 12' 10'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Two-Way
Separated
Bike Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Two-Way
Center Turn Lane
80'
Curb to Curb
7'
Landscaped
Buffer
Sidewalk Landscaped
Buffer
5'
Sidewalk
Rain Garden
Buffer
12' 8'
Parking
Lane
Parking
Lane
8'
Travel
Lane
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- LONG TERM DESIGN
CANAL BOULEVARD TO CHESSON STREET
LOOKING WEST
17' 12'12'10'12'5'
7'
14'
5'
6' 10'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Landscaping
Bike
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Two-Way
Center
Turn Lane
Bike Lane
Sidewalk Landscaping
70'
Curb to Curb
CUTTING BOULEVARD
EXISTING
4TH STREET TO HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
17' 11'12'12'12'
7'
12' 8' 6' 10'
110'
Property Line to Property Line
Railroad
Right-of-Way
(Assumed)
Landscaping
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Travel
Lane
Two-Way
Center
Turn Lane
Sidewalk Landscaping
70'
Curb to Curb
3'
Buffer with
Asphalt Berm
Parking
Lane
Shared-Use
Path
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- INTERIM DESIGN
4TH STREET TO HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
CUTTING BOULEVARD
PROPOSED- LONG TERM DESIGN
4TH STREET TO HOFFMAN BOULEVARD
LOOKING WEST
Flexpost +
Striping Buffer
Two-Way
Seperated
Bike Lane
1936 University Ave, Suite 250
Berkeley, CA 94704
510 343 6400
www.cswst2.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIARICHMOND
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
TEWKSBURY AVE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
C2.0
APPENDIX B - 30% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND B-5 1936 University Ave, Suite 250
Berkeley, CA 94704
510 343 6400
www.cswst2.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIARICHMOND
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
TEWKSBURY AVE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
PROPOSED
LAYOUT
C3.0
MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE NEXT SHEET
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLAN CITY OF RICHMONDB-6 1936 University Ave, Suite 250
Berkeley, CA 94704
510 343 6400
www.cswst2.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIARICHMOND
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
TEWKSBURY AVE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
PROPOSED
LAYOUT
C3.1
MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE NEXT SHEET
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE MATCHLINE - SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
APPENDIX B - 30% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
APPENDIX B - 30% ENGINEERING DRAWINGS
FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY COMPLETE STREETS PLANCITY OF RICHMOND B-7 1936 University Ave, Suite 250
Berkeley, CA 94704
510 343 6400
www.cswst2.com
CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIARICHMOND
RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE TO GREENWAY
TEWKSBURY AVE TO RICHMOND FERRY TERMINAL
PROPOSED
LAYOUT
C3.2
MATCHLINE - SEE BELOWMATCHLINE - SEE NEXT SHEET
MATCHLINE - SEE ABOVE MATCHLINE - SEE PREVIOUS SHEET
Attachment 4 - Project Budget
Richmond Ferry to Bridge Bicycle & Pedestrian Network Improvements TDA Article 3 Project Application
2023 Costs, SK
PSE 34.4
Construction 344.2
Construction Management & Engineering 51.6
Grant Administration 17.2
Total 447.4
Sources of Funds, $K
STMP 241.0
Chevron 28.0
TDA Article 3 178.4
Total 447.4
1/14/22
FERRTY TO BRIDGE ‐ POINT RICHMOND LINK (Excludes Richmond Avenue) Concept Level Cost Estimate
01.12.2022
UNIT
ITEM DESCRIPTION QTY. UNIT COST CONT AMOUNT
100 GENERAL CONDITIONS
101 Mobilization/ Demobilization 1 LS $28,981 $28,981
102 Traffic Management 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10% $11,000 103 Water Pollution Control 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10% $11,000 104 Construction Layout 1 LS 5,000.00$ 10% $5,500 105 Striping Removal 1 LS 10,000.00$ 10% $11,000
106 Hardscape and Vegetation Removal 1,400 SF 15.00$ 25% $26,250 107 Asphalt Paving 800 SF 55.00$ 25% $55,000 108 Concrete Sidewalk 1,000 SF 30.00$ 15% $34,500 109 Concrete Curb and Gutter 150 LF 50.00$ 15% $8,625 110 Traffic Signs 12 EA 500.00$ 10% $6,600
111 Green Thermoplastic Bicyle Awareness Markings 4,000 SF 11.00$ 15% $50,600 112 Detail 21 (Centerline) 500 LF 4.00$ 15% $2,300 113 6" Thermoplastic Pavement Line (buffer) 1,500 LF 4.00$ 15% $6,900 114 Thermoplastic Pavement Markings (Legends) 800 SF 4.00$ 15% $3,680 115 12" Crosswalk Stripe 500 LF 3.00$ 15% $1,725 116 Rubber Lane Separator 60 EA 200.00$ 15% $13,800 117 Channelizer 60 EA 300.00$ 15% $20,700
118 Bus Shelter 1 EA 16,500.00$ 25% $20,625
$318,786
Plans, Specifications, and Estimate Phase Cost: $31,900 10% Construction Engineering Phase Cost: $47,800 15%
Total Development Cost (2022): $398,486
Total Development Cost (2023): $430,364 8%
Total Construction Cost (2022 Dollars):
Attachment 5 - Engineer's Estimate
Statutory Exemptions. State code number:
_______________________________________________
Print Form
Notice of Exemption Appendix E
From: (Public Agency): ____________________________
To: Office of Planning and Research
P.O. Box 3044, Room 113 _______________________________________________Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 County Clerk
(Address)
___________________________
___________________________
County of: __________________
Project Title: ____________________________________________________________________________ Project Applicant: ________________________________________________________________________ Project Location - Specific:
Project Location - City: ______________________ Project Location - County:
Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:
_____________________
Name of Public Agency Approving Project: _____________________________________________________ Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: ________________________________________________ Exempt Status: (check one):
Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268);
Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a));
Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));
Reasons why project is exempt:
Lead Agency
Contact Person: ____________________________
Area Code/Telephone/Extension: _______________
If filed by applicant:
1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.
2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? Yes No
Signature: ____________________________ Date:
Signed by Lead Agency
Signed by Applicant
Authority cited: Sections 21083 and 21110, Public Resources Code. Date Received for filing at OPR:
Reference: Sections 21108, 21152, and 21152.1, Public Resources Code. _______________
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: ____________________________________ ______________________________________________
______________ Title: _______________________
Revised 2011
Lead Agency: City of Richmond
Roberta Feliciano
RESOLUTION NO. xxx-22
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
AUTHORIZING A REQUEST TO THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR THE ALLOCATION OF FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT ARTICLE 3 PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE
PROJECT FUNDING FOR THE RICHMOND FERRY TO BRIDGE BICYCLE &
PEDESTRIAN NETWORK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT AND TO ACCEPT AND
APPROPRIATE THE FUNDS SHOULD THE GRANT BE AWARDED
__________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Article 3 of the Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99200 et seq., authorizes the submission of claims to a regional transportation planning agency for the funding of projects exclusively for the benefit and/or use of pedestrians and bicyclists; and
WHEREAS, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), as the regional transportation planning agency for the San Francisco Bay region, has adopted MTC Resolution No. 4108, entitled “Transportation Development Act, Article 3, Pedestrian and Bicycle Projects,” which delineates procedures and criteria for submission of requests for the allocation of “TDA Article 3” funding; and
WHEREAS, MTC Resolution No. 4108 requires that requests for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funding be submitted as part of a single, countywide coordinated claim from each county in the San Francisco Bay Region; and
WHEREAS, the City of Richmond desires to submit a request to MTC for the allocation of TDA Article 3 funds to support the project described in Attachment B to this resolution, which is for the exclusive benefit and/or use of pedestrians and/or bicyclists; and WHEREAS, the project would implement Key Corridor recommendations of the award- winning Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete Streets Plan approved by the City Council on February 16, 2021; and
WHEREAS that the City of Richmond declares it is eligible to request an allocation of TDA Article 3 funds pursuant to Section 99234 of the Public Utilities Code; and WHEREAS that there is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project or projects described in Attachment B to this resolution, or that might impair the ability of the City of Richmond to carry out the project; and WHEREAS that the Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee project voted unanimously on January 10, 2022 to recommend the project for TDA Article 3 funding; and WHEREAS that the City of Richmond attests to the accuracy of and approves the statements in Attachment A to this resolution; and
WHEREAS that a certified copy of this resolution and its attachments, and any accompanying supporting materials shall be forwarded to the congestion management agency, countywide transportation planning agency, or county association of governments, as the case may be, of Contra Costa County for submission to MTC as part of the countywide coordinated TDA Article 3 claim; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Richmond, authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to execute all Agreements and any amendments thereto with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission and to execute agreements with the identified project partners to complete the grant funded project; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Richmond accepts and appropriates the grant award for the City of Richmond Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget, should the grant be awarded.
*************************
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held on ____________, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
CLERK OF THE CITY OF
RICHMOND (SEAL)
Approved:
Mayor
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.
City of Richmond }
I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. , finally passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on _________, 2022.
Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
January 25, 2022
Mayor's Office
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Mayor Tom Butt
Subject:
Vacant seats on Richmond Boards, Commissions, and
Committees
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
N/A
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Several of Richmond’s boards, commissions and
committees have vacant seats. Residents that are
interested in serving on a board, commission, or
committee are invited to submit their applications to the Richmond City Clerk.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
ANNOUNCE recent resignation from City of Richmond
boards, commissions, and committees and vacancies as
of January 19, 2022, and ask that interested individuals send applications to the City Clerk – Office of the Mayor (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503).
AGENDA
REPORT
January 25, 2022
DISCUSSION:
Between November 23, 2021, and January 19, 2022, City staff was informed of the following resignations from City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees:
- Timothy Walker, Commission on Aging, term expiration date May 19, 2024, resigned on December 23, 2021
- Jessica Fine, Design Review Board, term expiration date March 17, 2023, resigned on December 11, 2021
- Arika Ona, Youth Council, term expiration date October 1, 2022, resigned on December 9, 2021
- James Lee, Zhoushan Commission, term expiration date December 31, 2021, resigned on November 15, 2021
Vacancies on City of Richmond Boards, Commissions, and Committees The following boards, commissions and committees currently have vacancies:
- Art and Culture Commission
- Children & Youth Oversight Board
- Community Police Review Commission
- Commission on Aging
- Contra Costa Mosquito & Vector Control Board
- Design Review Board
- Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board
- ECIA Grant Review Ad Hoc Committee
- ECIA Transportation Oversight Committee
- Historic Preservation Commission
- Housing Advisory Commission
- Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
- Library Commission
- Personnel Board
- Recreation and Parks Commission
- Reimaging Public Safety Community Task Force
- Shimada Friendship Commission
- Urban Forest Advisory Committee
- Workforce Development Board
- Youth Council
- Zhoushan Friendship Commission
Residents can learn more details about each board/commission/committee and apply for a vacant seat by contacting the Richmond City Clerk or visiting the Richmond City Clerk’s website.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Vacancy Report
City of Richmond, Boards, Commissions, and Committee Vacancies As of January 25, 2022
BOARD/COMMISSION YEARS PER TERM
LIMIT OF
CONSECUTIVE
TERMS
# OF SERVING
COMMISSIONERS
# OF
VACANCIES
TOTAL # OF
SEATS
Art and Culture
Commission 4 2 7 8 15
Commission on Aging 4 N/A 11 2 13
Community Police
Review Commission 3 3 9 1 9
C.C Mosquito & Vector 2 0 1 1
Design Review Board 2 4 5 2 7
Dept. of Children and
Youth Oversight Board* 1,2 N/A 12 3 15
ECIA Grant Review
Committee 2 4 1 5
ECIA Transportation
Oversight Committee 3 3 2 3 5
Economic Development
Commission 3 3 15 0 15
Historic Preservation
Commission 2,4 4 6 1 7
Housing Advisory
Commission 2 N/A 6 1 7
Human Rights/Human
Relations Commission 3 3 5 4 9
Library Commission 3 2 3 2 5
Oak. Airport Comm.
Noise Forum 2 N/A 1 1 2
Personnel Board** 5 N/A 3 2 5
Planning Commission 2 4 7 0 7
Recreation and Parks
Commission 3 3 8 1 9
Re-Imaging Public Safety
Community Taskforce 19 2 21
Richmond Rent Board 2 4 5 0 5
Shimada Commission 3 3 9 2 11
Urban Forest Advisory
Committee 3 3 8 3 11
Workforce Development
Board*** 4 N/A 22 17 39
Youth Council 1 N/A 4 6 11
Zhoushan Commission 2 7 4 11
*Dept. of Children and Youth Oversight Board: One vacancy for eligible candidate between the ages of 15- 24 **Personnel Board: One vacancy is appointed by the mayor and one vacancy is elected as a general employees representative.
***Workforce Development Board: The composition of this board is to be composed of (20) local business representatives, (10) representatives of each of the "One-Stop" Partners; (9) representatives of education
January 25, 2022
Finance Department
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
(List all relevant/responsive staff
persons)
Anil Comelo, Interim Deputy City Manager
Belinda Brown, Director of Finance
Joe Leach, PE, Director of Public Works
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Subject:
(This will appear on the agenda)
Study Session for the Potential Formation of a
Community Facilities District for Point Molate
FINANCIAL IMPACT: A Fiscal Impact Study was prepared on behalf of the developer, and the Study was peer reviewed by the City’s consultant. The Study projects a positive long-term
impact of the development. However, adverse fiscal
impacts in the short term are possible.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
(List all dates items were heard or
council action took place)
Approved consultant team for Community Facilities
District formation at meeting of November 23, 2021.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
As a condition of the Disposition and Development
Agreement for the Point Molate Mixed -Use Development
Project, it is prudent and necessary to identify, quantify, and study the potential impacts on the City, the
community of Richmond, and the future
homeowners/taxpayers in the development area of using
the tax-exempt financing mechanisms authorized under
a Community Facilities District (the Mello Roos Act) to fund a major portion of the infrastructure required by the development entitlements of the project .
AGENDA
REPORT
January 25, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(This will appear on the agenda)
RECEIVE information and quantitative analysis regarding the potential formation of a Community Facilities District for the Point Molate development project; and after
deliberation, CONSIDER providing any policy direction,
as needed, regarding formation of a Community Facilities District for the Point Molate development project –
Finance Department (Belinda Brown 510-620-6740).
DISCUSSION:
The formation of land -secured financing districts, as permitted by State law, are utilized to finance the construction, development, and operation of the master infrastructure, offsite improvements, and master developer amenities in connection with various projects and the development of a property.
During the entitlement phase of land use planning, a Fiscal Impact Study 1 was prepared by EPS on behalf of the dev eloper, and the Study was peer reviewed 2 by the City’s consultant. These studies were reviewed by the City Council prior to the granting of development entitlements in September 2020. The EPS study projects a positive long -term impact of the development. However, adverse fiscal impacts in the short term are possible. This short-term impact has the potential to occur should operating costs exceed the tax revenues derived from the project before the project is completely built out. Please see additional d etails following on page 4 under Answers to Council questions - Fiscal Impact of Point Molate.
Also during the entitlement phase of the land use planning and/or project planning for Point Molate, the City was asked and agreed to include provisions in it s Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) and its Development Agreement (“DA”) to cooperate with developers in the formation of these financing districts, including landscape and lighting maintenance districts, community facilities districts, benefit assessment districts, geologic hazard abatement districts, and tax -exempt financing mechanisms.
The City is obligated under the terms of its DDA and its DA to work with Winehaven Legacy LLC, aka SunCal, to form a Community Facilities District (“CFD”) f or the potential Point Molate project.
1 Richmond Point Molate Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis, prepared for Winehaven Legacy LLC by Economic Planning Systems, Inc. (“EPS”) and submitted on June 17, 2020.
2 Peer Review of Winehaven Prepared Fiscal Impact Analysis for Proposed Point Molate Mixed-Use Development Project, prepared for City of Richmond by BAE Urban Economics Inc. (BAE) and submitted on June 29, 2020.
January 25, 2022
As noted previously, one mechanism of land -secured financing is the CFD. On November 23, 2021, the City Council authorized the City to assemble a team to study the proposed project and develop the various quantitative analysis and legal documents that are necessary for the formation of a Community Facilities District. The City Council and team have identified policy questions that the Council is being asked to consider.
City Council Questions. At their November 23, 2021, council meeting, members of the Council directed staff to address certain policy questions related to the formation of a CFD for Point Molate:
What impact will the proximity of the project to the nearby Chevron Richmond Refinery have on the price of the proposed for -sale units in Point Molate? What impact will the combined tax rates, including those levied under the authority of the proposed CFD, have on the price of for -sale units in Point Molate?
Is there a market for units in Point Mo late at the sales prices proposed in the financing plan contained in the DDA?
Are the assumptions behind the Fiscal Impact Study done at the time of the DDA still correct?
The purpose of this Study Session is to:
1. answer those questions,
2. describe their po tential impact on the proposed structure of the CFD, and
3. outline the remaining process for forming a CFD.
Answers to the November 23, 2021, questions from Council. The City retained Integra Realty Resources to prepare estimates of the sales prices for b oth the for- sale units and the rental units in Point Molate, giving particular effect to (1) the proximity to the Chevron Richmond Refinery, (2) the likely CFD taxes, and (3) market demand in the Bay Area for such units. Integra is a national real estate a ppraisal firm with extensive California experience in preparing valuation estimates for CFD - financed real estate projects. Here is a summary of their analysis:
Proximity to the Chevron Richmond Refinery. Integra reviewed the actual home sales history for units in four Bay Area neighborhoods with oil refinery exposure (1) near the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo, (2) near the Shell refinery in Martinez, (3) on the south side of the Chevron refinery in Richmond, and (4) on the east side of the Chevron refiner y in Richmond. This history was used to establish a data set of comparable property sales, with adjustments for age, size, and waterfront location for the Integra analysis.
Impacts of CFDs on home pricing. Integra interviewed developers of current projects in the Bay Area with CFDs to determine the impact of the CFD lien on home pricing. While the developers confirmed the trade -off between a CFD lien and a lower home sales price, developers also reported b oth the preference of homebuyers and merchant -builders for units with a lower home
January 25, 2022
sales price, even though it may be subject to a CFD lien. The interviewed developers reported that, without the CFD lien, merchant -builders must sell the units at a higher s ales price to pay for the costs of infrastructure and impact fees that are not financed through a CFD, and that homebuyers in today’s market prefer a lower purchase price, even if it means higher taxes.
Affordability of homes in Point Molate. Integra ana lyzed the ability of households within a 7 -mile radius of Point Molate to afford a home in Point Molate. Their analysis indicated that in total, about 17% of households within a 7-mile radius could afford to buy a new home in Point Molate.
Fiscal Impact o f Point Molate. The assumptions behind the Fiscal Impact Study were reexamined, particularly with respect to the projected operating costs of Public Safety services. The combined costs of staffing and operating the proposed combined police and fire stati on in Point Molate projected by the Fiscal Impact Study done in 2020 were estimated to be $5.2 million per year.
City staff has done a detailed analysis of the costs to staff and operate the proposed combined police and fire station in Point Molate. The up dated staff analysis indicated an annual cost of $5.355 million per year. The Fiscal Impact Study projected an annual surplus of between $1.3 million and $9 million per year, depending on what is built in Point Molate.
However, the staff analysis also ind icated a cost of about $1.7 million to acquire police and fire rolling stock for the new station. In addition, this equipment will need to be replaced over time.
While the Fiscal Impact Study shows a surplus at build out, the question remains: What is th e potential fiscal impact of a fully staffed police and fire station prior to build out? This cost may result in an interim negative fiscal impact on the City’s General Fund. In addition, there needs to be adequate funding for both the acquisition and rep lacement of police and fire rolling stock.
Implications of Integra Study for the CFD formation process. The Integra study, which factors in to the comparables Point Molate’s proximity to the Chevron Richmond Refinery, calculates higher estimated home sal es prices than were used by the financing plan in the DDA adopted in September 2020. A comparison by home product type is shown below:
PRODUCT TYPE
Single Family Low-Rise Mid-Rise
Homes Homes Condominiums
Financing Plan in DDA $1,400,000 $1,175,000 $1,250,000
Integra Valuation Study $2,000,000 $1,440,000 $1,485,000
Since the total combined annual tax on a given for -sale unit is determined by the combined tax levy for all purposes, including the CFD’s purposes, and the tax rate is
January 25, 2022
effectively capped at 2% of assessed valuation, Integra’s projection of higher estimated home sales prices potentially puts additional annual revenue from the CFD at a higher level.
The financing plan in the DDA assumed that the debt service required for the envisioned CFD bonds would be approximately $7 million per year; the financing plan also assumed about $1.1 million per year for maintenance of infrastructure.
Consequently, the total annual CFD taxes needed were about $8.1 million per year.
Taxing develop ed property in Point Molate at levels consistent with the Integra study would generate about $10.2 million per year. The question is, where does this potential extra money go? Here are the possibilities being negotiated with SunCal:
- Cover interim operati ng costs for the new police and fire station prior to Point Molate build out
- Cover more infrastructure maintenance costs within Point Molate - Fund additional City services or new facilities that benefit the entire community
- Fund additional infrastruct ure projects for SunCal in Point Molate
Risk Mitigation of the downward movement of Sales Prices. The structure of the special tax formula for the CFD (also called the “Rate and Method of Apportionment” or “RMA”) will need to address the risk that the actual sales price points for each new project or subdivision in Point Molate may be less than those estimated at the time of CFD formation. The Rate and Method of Apportionment can address this risk through special provisions requiring a recalculation of the maximum tax rates at the time of recording of a final map for each subdivision.
The CFD negotiat ion process with SunCal. The City’s CFD formation team is negotiating the provisions of the CFD with SunCal’s team at this time. There are two key negotiating points that need to be resolved:
1. Allocation of the potential marginal increase in annual special tax revenue from Point Molate resulting from higher for sales prices, as broadly described above.
2. Prioritization and sequencing of the capital projects for Point Molate, including the police and fire station.
These issues will be addressed and reflected in two documents that will be brought before Council for approval: 1) the Rate and Method of Apportionment, and 2) the Acquisition Agreement. The Rate and Method of Apportionment will address the allocation of special tax revenues. The Acquisition Agreemen t will address the prioritization and sequencing of capital projects for Point Molate.
Proposed schedule for CFD Formation. At present, the City’s CFD formation team intends to bring the Resolution of Intent, which establishes initial approval for the basic CFD formation documents, including the Rate and Method of Apportionment, to the City Council for consideration and approv al at their meeting of February 15,
January 25, 2022
2022. The City’s CFD formation team also intends to present the Acquisition Agreement for consideration and approval at the same meeting.
If Council approves the Resolution of Intent on February 15, 2022, the Council wo uld then hold a public hearing to receive public comments and to consider final approval of the CFD formation; this is proposed to be calendared for March 22, 2022.
Formation of the CFD by March 22, 2022, meets the deadline for CFD formation set forth by the DDA and the Amended Judgment of the federal U.S. District Court.
POLICY SYNERGIES:
As reflected in Richmond’s Revenue Generation and Cost Recovery Policies, the City Council has identified the need to consider the potential formation of benefit assessment districts including landscape and lighting maintenance districts and community facilities districts to support the City’s revenue generation and cost-recovery policies (see Strategic Priority 1A). Formation of a Point Molate CFD is constant with this Policy.
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 - Presentation: Informational slide deck addressing policy questions on Point Molate Community Facilities District by NHA Advisors, LLC Attachment 2 - Valuation Study dated December 20, 2021, for Potential Sales Prices of Residential Units in Point Molate by Integra Realty Resources
PRESENTATIONTO
FORMATIONOFACFD FORPT. MOLATE: KEYPOLICYQUESTIONSANDUPDATEONTHEFORMATIONPROCESS January 25, 2022
2 Presentation Outline}Addressing Major Policy Questions from the Council at the November 23rdmeeting}The Integra Valuation Study}Potential implications of the Integra Valuation Study for the CFD}Negotiating Points with SunCal}Proposed Schedule
3 Addressing Major Policy Questions from the Council at the November 23rdMeeting}The Council posed key policy questions regarding the potential Pt. Molate CFD at the November 23rdmeeting}What impact will the proximity of the project to Chevron have on the price of the proposed for-sale units in Pt. Molate?}What impact will the proposed combined tax rates, including the CFD taxes, have on the price of the proposed for-sale units in Pt. Molate?}Is there a market for units in Pt. Molate at the sales prices proposed in the financing plan in the DDA?}Are the assumptions behind the fiscal impact study done at the time of the DDA, particularly for police and fire, still correct?
4 The Integra Study}The City retained Integra Realty Resources to prepare estimates of the sales prices for both the for-sale units and the rental units in Pt. Molate}Giving effect to the proximity to Chevron}Giving effect to the 2% of assessed valuation combined tax rate}Giving effect to the potential market demand in the Bay Area for such units}Integra is a national firm with extensive experience in appraisal and valuation work for land secured bond issues, including California CFD’s
5 Comparison of Estimated Home Sales Prices Between the DDA and IntegraProduct Type Single Family
Homes
($)
Low Rise
Townhomes
($)
Mid-Rise
Condominiums
($)
Financing Plan in DDA 1,400,000 1,175,000 1,250,000
Integra Valuation Study 2,000,000 1,440,000 1,485,000
}Despite proximity to Chevron and higher than average combined taxes, Integra estimates sales prices higher than those used in the financing plan in the DDA}Integra analyzed comparable home sales data for homes located near the Shell refinery in Martinez, the Phillips 66 refinery in Rodeo and the Chevron refinery in Richmond}Integra estimated that the likely sales prices for homes in Pt. Molate would be affordable for 17% of households currently living within a 7-mile radius of Pt. Molate
6 Potential “Surplus” Tax RevenuesDDA Estimate of Annual Debt Service Needed for CFD Bonds $7,057,500
DDA Estimate of Annual Taxes
Needed for Infrastructure
Maintenance $1,076,434
Total CFD Taxes Needed $8,133,934
Estimated Annual Taxes Based
on Integra Study $10,200,000
Potential Surplus $2,066,066
}The higher homes prices in the Integra Study may result in more annual CFD taxes than projected in the financing plan in the DDA
7 Options for Allocating the “Surplus”}Cover interim operating costs for the new police and fire station prior to Pt. Molate build out}Cover more infrastructure maintenance costs within Pt. Molate}Cover more eligible City service costs (in addition to projected positive fiscal impact)}Fund additional infrastructure for SunCal in Pt. Molate
8 Caveats on the ”Surplus”}What happens if the actual assessed valuations are less than the estimated sales prices at the time of CFD formation?}Without mitigation for this risk, future homeowners in Pt. Molate could be paying in excess of 2% of their assessed valuation in combined taxes}This risk can be mitigated by mandating an adjustment in the maximum tax rate per home at the time each new subdivision is final mapped}Commonly used technique now for CFD’s throughout California}But.....it means that the projected ”surplus” may not actually take place if there is a major long-term correction in the Bay Area real estate market
9 Key Negotiating Points with SunCal}Two key negotiating points:}Allocation of the potential ”surplus” CFD tax revenue from Pt. Molate}In particular, mitigation of risk of negative fiscal impact from operational costs of police and fire station prior to build out}Prioritization and sequencing of the capital projects for Pt. Molate, including the police and fire station
10 Key Legal Documents for Resolving the Negotiating Points}The Rate and Method of Apportionment}Specifies apportionment of CFD taxes by purpose and land use}Specifies maximum tax rates for all taxable parcels}Mitigates risk of levies over 2% of assessed valuation}The Acquisition Agreement}Specifies prioritization and sequencing for all projects funded by the CFD}Goals and Policies Statement}Sets forth long term City goals and policies for land secured financing (like CFD’s)}Will Incorporate by reference key Pt. Molate CFD features specified in the DDA
11 Forming a CFD for Pt. Molate}City approves CFD Goals and Policies regarding issuance of special tax bonds that include criteria for evaluating projects to be financed and procedures for ensuring that taxpayers in the CFD are informed of their obligation under the Mello-Roos Act}Initiation of Formation Proceedings}Formation of the CFD must be initiated by City Council or by petition signed by property owners}But first, the City Council receives a full presentation on all matters addressed by the Resolution of Intention: the boundaries of the CFD, the projects and services to be funded, the special tax formula, and the proposed voting procedures}City Council then votes to adopt Resolution of Intention}Public Hearing and Notice}A Public Hearing must be held 30-60 days after the Resolution of Intention is approved by City Council}A full presentation to City Council on the tax structure, authorized facilities and services and mandates for construction of facilities or delivery of services}A vote to initiatethe formation of a CFD can be held the same day as the presentation if eligible voter turnout is less than 12. This vote is the 1stof two votes requiredto form a CFD }CFD formation proceedings can be discontinued for one year if 50% of eligible voters in the proposed CFD protest the formation of the CFD}Resolution of Formation}The City Council then adopts a Resolution of Formation (ROF) that formally creates the CFD
12 CFD Formation Schedule}Potential approval of Resolution of Intent on February 15th}Potential approval of Resolution of Formation, landowner election (City is landowner voter), and Acquisition Agreement on March 22nd}CFD is formed on March 22nd}March 22ndis before the deadlines identified in the DDA and the Federal District Court judgment
Integra Realty Resources
Sacramento
Valuation Consultation
Point Molate
Redevelopment Project
Western Dr.
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California 94801
Prepared For:
City of Richmond
Date of the Report:
December 20, 2021
Report Format:
Appraisal Report
IRR – Sacramento
File Number: 193‐2021‐0618
1 Integra Realty Resources 590 Menlo Drive T 916.436.3883 Sacramento Suite 1 F 916.435.4774
Rocklin, CA 95765 www.irr.com
December 20, 2021
Belinda Brown, Finance Director/Treasurer
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
SUBJECT: Valuation and Consulting
Point Molate Project
Western Dr.
Richmond, Contra Costa County, California 94801
IRR ‐ Sacramento File No. 193‐2021‐0618
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for considering Integra Realty Resources – Sacramento for your real estate valuation and consulting needs. To follow is our findings as it relates to the market data and analyses for the purposes of aiding in the formation of a proposed Community Facilities District (CFD) to assist in the redevelopment of Point Molate. This consulting assignment includes our preliminary analysis of current home pricing and annual rental rates for non‐residential development within the boundaries of the proposed CFD.
This report is intended to comply with the requirements for a Restricted Appraisal Report contained in Standards Rule 2‐2 (b) of the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). As such, it presents limited discussions of the data, reasoning and analysis used in the appraisal process to develop the opinions herein.
According to the Richmond Point Molate Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS), dated June 17, 2020, The Point Molate Project is proposed and entitled for between 1,260 and 2,040 residential dwelling units, approximately 625,000 square feet of nonresidential development and 15,000 square feet of civic/community uses. The present proposed
2 land use for Point Molate, which is excerpted from the Total Tax Rate Analysis, prepared by DPFG, calls for 1,160 for‐sale residential dwelling units and 292 for‐rent dwelling units, for a total of 1,452 residential dwelling units, and 390,774 square feet of mixed‐use restaurant/retail and office/R&D development.
Presented below is an exhibit of the Point Molate Project:
The use of public, land‐secured financing mechanisms like community facilities districts (CFDs) and assessment districts (ADs) are often used as part of the development of public infrastructure for master planned communities throughout the State of California. In fact, most new developments and redevelopments throughout the San Francisco Bay Area are encumbered by community facilities districts to aid in the financing of public improvements. Interviews with both land developers and merchant homebuilders in emerging areas and infill locations with onerous infrastructure costs, affirm land‐secured financing is necessary for residential development, and several merchant builders we’ve interviewed confirm land‐secured financing must be in place prior to acquiring developable residential lots/land for home development.
For instance, the following developments, which contain single‐family, multifamily and non‐residential (office, retail and industrial) land uses, are encumbered by a CFD for the purposes of funding public improvements:
3 Treasure Island (City and County of San Francisco) East Garriso n (County of Monterey) Mission Rock (City and County of San Francisco) Oyster Point (C ity of South San Francisco) Alameda Landing (City of Alameda) University District (City of Rohnert Park) Warm Springs (City of Fremont) Napa Pipe Redevelopment (City of Napa) Dublin Crossing (City of Dublin)
In an interview with a land developer of master planned communities, he noted land developers (sellers) will typically insist on using land‐secured financing, especially in a market where most, if not all, of the competition has it, in order to remain competitive of land prices; without the ability to transfer land‐secured debt to a buyer (in this case, a merchant homebuilder), the land prices will necessarily be higher and less appealing to a buyer. Similarly, for homebuilders, not having a CFD may seem favorable from a marketing standpoint (think sales banner out front: “NO MELLO‐ROOS”), but shoppers see the corresponding higher home prices for that builder’s homes when compared to the competition and often don’t spend enough time in the sales office to understand that the cost of ownership is the same.
For‐Sale Residential Analysis
According to the information provided and available for this analysis, the proposed Point Molate Project will include three for‐sale residential product lines: 185 single‐family homes (3,500 square foot average unit size), 173 low rise apartment and townhomes (1,800 square foot average unit size) and 802 mid‐rise condominiums (1,500 square foot average unit size). In the collection of market data we surveyed the local Multiple Listing Service (MLS) for recent resales of homes proximate to former or existing refineries, similar to the subjects location proximate to the Chevron refinery. In addition, we utilized The Gregory Group, who surveys active new home projects in California and Nevada, to analyze current base prices of active projects in the surrounding market area.
We surveyed four areas proximate to former or existing refineries, which included the neighborhood immediately south of the Chevron Richmond Refinery, as well as the area east of the Chevron Richmond Refinery, neighborhoods adjacent to the Phillips 66 San Francisco Refinery and the NuStar Energy within Hercules and Rodeo, and the neighborhoods adjacent to the Shell Martinez Refinery.
A summary of detached single‐family home resales within each of these queried locations since January 1, 2021 is provided in the table below. Further detail of these quires as provided by the MLS are provided at the end of this letter.
4 There is also one active detached project within Richmond, developed by William Lyon Homes; this is a small lot (2,000 sf) subdivision of 95 homes. The project summery as provided by The Gregory Group is shown on the following page; this project is located at the southeast quadrant of Marina Way S. and Wright Avenue, south of Interstate 580. It is east of the Harbor Channel and north of the Inner Harbor Basin, approximately 0.8 miles north of the waterfront.
Nighborhood:
South of Chevron
Richmond Refinery
East of Chevron
Richmond Refinery
Adjacent to Phillips 66
San Francisco Refinery &
NuStar Energy
Adjacent to Shell
Martinez Refinery
No. of Sa l es Si nce 1/2021 2 19 42 32
Home Price
Minimum $1,575,000 $490,000 $750,000 $385,000
Maximum $1,800,000 $805,000 $1,425,000 $1,125,000
Avera ge $1,687,500 $622,833 $1,032,448 $774,154
Home Size
Minimum 2,300 991 2,053 1,231
Maximum 3,161 2,869 4,200 3,118
Avera ge 2,731 1,814 2,856 1,890
Price per SF
Minimum $569.44 $263.03 $277.38 $298.27
Maximum $684.78 $600.40 $488.00 $564.13
Avera ge $627.11 $356.39 $365.89 $425.56
Days on Market
Minimum 4 2 0 3
Maximum 41 163 92 68
Avera ge 23 26 19 17
Year Bui l t
Minimum 2006 2001 2000 2002
Maximum 2014 2020 2021 2019
Avera ge 2010 2006 2007 2011
5 The homes within this project are smaller than the average single‐family home (detached) proposed for the subject (3,500 square feet). Further, given its location further removed from the waterfront, a base price for the subject above this project is reasonable.
Of the recent single‐family home resales (detached) within the immediate area of the Chevron Richmond Refinery, the homes located to the south, most proxima te to the water are considered most similar to the subject. Two homes sold within this surveyed area:
Address Year Built Bed / Bath Home Size Sales Price 500 Tremont Avenue 2014 3 bed/3 bath 2,300 SF $1,575,000 531 Santa Fe Avenue 2006 4 bed/ 4 bath 3,161 SF $1,800,000
Considering the subject would be new construction, and considering its hillside location, based on the data herein a base price for the average 3,500 square foot home within the range of $1,800,000 and $2,000,000 is considered reasonable (approximately $514 to $571 per square foot).
6 As for the attached for‐sale product, there was limited resales within the queried areas. Specifically, there were five attached resales within a project in Martinez, adjacent to the Shell Martinez Refinery, which ranged from $650,000 and $714,688. These homes were constructed in 2016 and were between 1,874 and 2,074 square feet in size.
There are two active attached projects located in El Cerrito and Martinez. Again, given the inland location of Martinez, limited reliance is given to the active project in this market area. El Cerrito is located southeast of Richmond, east of Interstate 80. While this project does not feature a waterfront location, or close proximity to the waterfront, we have considered the current base pricing of this project in order to estimate the base price of the subject’s attached for‐sale product types (low rise apartments and townhomes, and mid‐rise condominiums).
The low‐rise apartments and townhomes are proposed to have an average unit size of 1,800 square feet, and mid‐rise condominiums 1,500 square feet. Based on the subject’s location and development along the hillside of Point Molate, it is reasonable to expect base prices towards the upper end of the range indicated by the Village 29 project (excluding the smallest (410 sf units)), which range from $928,952 to $1,598,499). Therefore, a base price for the average 1,800 square foot townhome unit within the range of $1,377,000 and $1,440,000 is considered reasonable (approximately $765 to
7 $800 per square foot), and for the 1,500 square foot condominium unit a price between $1,425,000 and $1,485,000 is reasonable (approximately $950 to $990 per square foot).
Finally, we will examine the ability to pay among prospective buyers for the highest estimated price points concluded for each of the for‐sale residential components. First, we will estimate the required annual household income based on typical mortgage parameters in the subject’s market area.
Specifically, we will employ a loan‐to‐value ratio of 80% (down payment of 20%), mortgage interest rates of 3.00%, 360 monthly payments, and a 40% ratio for the housing costs as a percent of monthly income (inclusive of principal, interest, all taxes and insurance). As alluded to above, property tax payments are accounted for in the analysis. Total taxes (ad val orem taxes, direct charges and bond payments) of 2.0% of assessed value, which includes future prop osed CFD Special Taxes, is utilized for this analysis.
The following table shows the estimate of the annual household income that would be required to afford homes priced at the estimated price points.
In the following table we show the income brackets within a seven‐mile radius of the subject along with estimates of the percentage of households able to afford the low rise townhomes priced at $1,440,000 within each income bracket. Although, a representative area of typical buyers for the subject property would likely characterize a broader area.
8 For‐Rent Residential
The for‐rent residential component is proposed to include three product lines: 68 low rise apartments and townhomes (1,500 square foot average unit size), 157 mid‐rise apartments (1,000 square foot average unit size) and 67 affordable units (800 square foot average unit size).
In the collection of market data we searched for multifamily properties have sold since January 1, 2020 within market areas surrounding Richmond, which included, but not limited to, Oakland, Berkley, Martinez, San Pablo, El Cerrito and Alameda. We compiled 21 sales; although, a majority of these properties were constructed between 1960 and 2000. Only four sales were of newer construction, between 2003 and 2020, and are summarized in the following table:
Considering the sales above, the estimated value of $400,000 per low rose apartment/townhome unit as shown in the finance place is supportable, as well as the $450,000 per mid‐rise apartment unit.
Due to the limited information available related to the affordable for‐rent units (i.e., very low, low, moderate income restrictions, etc.), it is difficult to opine on the anticipated sale price, as affordable housing transactions can be influenced by deed restrictions, housing assistance programs and whether low‐income housing tax credits (LIHTC) are available. Thus, a value to some degree less than the market rate units is probable.
Non‐Residential
Address City Specific Use Sale Date
Effective
Sale Price Occupanc
Gross
Building
Area SF
GLA/
Rentable
Area
No.
of
Units Price/Units
Year
Built
1401 Jackson St. Oakland Multifamily-Retail 2/24/2020 $20,500,000 100% 39,0 41 39,041 45 455,556$ 2009 334 Main St. Martinez Garden/Low Rise 4/2/2020 $1,500,000 100% 2,530 2,530 4 375,000$ 2003 625 16th Street Oakland Mid/High-Rise 6/2/2020 $77,900,000 0% 130,00 09 6 , 0 0 5 1 4 0 5 5 6 , 4 2 9$ 2020 4901 Broadway Oakland Multifamily-Retail 3/31/2020 $80,995,000 94% 9 8,618 98,618 130 623,038$ 2018
9 The non‐residential component is proposed to include approximat ely 55,000 square feet of rentable restaurant/retail space, 304,580 square feet of rentable mixed use office R&D space, and 31,194 square feet of rentable office space.
According to CompStak, a nationwide commercial real estate data platform, the average commercial (office, retail and industrial) lease rate over the past six months in the Richmond/San Pablo submarket was $35.40 per square foot and an average net effective lease rate of $37.68 per square foot. The average lease term was four years and six months, while the ave rage tenant improvement allowance was $3.47 per square foot and average free rent was 2.3 months.
For purposes of analyzing non‐residential land uses encumbered by a CFD, we identified the Pacific Commons Power Center, which is part of the City of Fremont Comm unity Facilities District (CFD) No. 1 (Pacific Commons). This project was predominately constructed between 2004 and 2006. We queried CoStar Property Analytics for recent leasing activity of commercial properties (office, retail, R&D) within the Pacific Commons Power Center and the surrounding properties within the boundaries of the City of Fremont CFD No. 1 (Pacific Commons), a map of which is provided on the following page (CFD boundary lines are approximate).
10 Address Property Type Tenant/Occupant
Building
Class
Rentable
Building Area
(SF)
CoStar Estimated
Rent ($/SF/Yr.)*
Current Asking
Rent ($/SF/Yr.)
43950 Pacific Commons Blvd. Department Store Target B 138,000 $20.00 ‐ 25.00 43923 Pacific Commons Blvd. Freestanding Dick's Sporting Goods B 46 ,000 $22.00 ‐ 26.00 43917 Pacific Commons Blvd. Freestanding Century Theaters C 60,000 $ 21.00 ‐ 25.00 43621 Pacific Commons Blvd. Freestanding Costco B 119,118 $28.00 ‐ 3 4.00 43612 Pacific Commons Blvd. Freestanding B 168,593 $25.00 ‐ 31.00 43349 Pacific Commons Blvd. Fast Food In‐N‐Out Burger B 3,160 $30.00 ‐ 37.00 43330 Pacific Commons Blvd. Restaurant B 14,300 $31.00 ‐ 38.00 43810 Cushing Pky. Freestanding B 22,718 $15.00 ‐ 19.00 5318‐5338 Curie St. Freestanding B 6,680 $27.00 ‐ 33.00 43960‐43986 Christy St. Freestanding B 12,000 $20.00 ‐ 25.00 43810 Christy St. Freestanding B 7,539 $31.00 ‐ 38.00
43782 Christy St. Freestanding Kohl's B 98,888 $28.00 ‐ 35.00 43706‐43756 Christy St. Freestanding B 92,077 $22.00 ‐ 27.00 43522‐43598 Christy St. Freestanding B 78,247 $29.00 ‐ 35.00 43405‐43425 Christy St. Freestanding B 8,906 $29.00 ‐ 36.00 43316 Christy St. Restaurant B 6,603 $31.00 ‐ 37.00
* The CoStar Estimated Rent™ is CoStar’s estimated starting rent for new leases in a building. Estimated Rents are determined through a proprietary algorithm that includes several key data points, such as current historical asking rents, historical lea se transactions, market submarket trends, and more.
11 According to CoStar, the market retail lease rate for the city of Fremont is $33.40 per square foot and the market industrial lease rate is $16.53 per square foot. Based on the market averages for the city of Fremont as reported by CoStar, the data for commercial properties encumbered by a CFD (Pacific Commons) are generally consistent, if not slightly less than lease rates of unencumbered commercial properties.
In the collection of market data we searched for new lease comparable for commercial properties (office, retail, R&D) within market areas surrounding Richmond, which included, but not limited to, Oakland, Berkley, El Cerrito and Alameda. Our query identified six full service leases, three triple net leases and two modified gross leases. A majority of the comparables are of newer construction, or renovated within the last 20 years. The comparables are summarized in the following table by lease reimbursement method.
Address Property Type
Building
Class
Rentable
Building Area
(SF)
CoStar Estimated
Rent ($/SF/Yr.)*
Current Asking
Rent ($/SF/Yr.)
44320 Nobel Dr. Light Distribution B 105,700 $14.00 ‐ 17.00 44259 Nobel Dr. R&D C 60,000 $13.00 ‐ 16.00
44235 Nobel Dr. R&D B 74,166 $21.00
44217 Nobel Dr. Light Manufacturing B 65,332 $15.00 ‐ 18.00 44201 Nobel Dr. Light Manufacturing B 129,931 $15.00 ‐ 18.00 44091‐44131 Noebl Dr. Light Manufacturing B 187,298 $10.00 ‐ 12.00 44051‐44061 Nobel Dr. Light Manufacturing B 53,250 $11.00 ‐ 13.00 6700 Automall Pky. Warehouse B 474,454 $10.00 ‐ 12.00
44509 Pacific Commons Blvd. Warehouse B 178,910 $10.00 ‐ 12.00 44508 Pacific Commons Blvd. Warehouse B 104,399 $10.00 ‐ 12.00 44109 Pacific Commons Blvd. Warehouse B 369,180 $10.00 ‐ 12.00 44108 Pacific Commons Blvd. Manufacturing B 101,191 $14.00 ‐ 17.00 5588 Cushing Pky. Warehouse A 814,852 $10.00 ‐ 12.00
5567 Cushing Pky. Warehouse A 163,193 $10.00 ‐ 12.00
44307 Christy St. R&D B 88,246 $15.00 ‐ 19.00
44300 Christy St. R&D B 42,604 $10.00 ‐ 12.00
44200 Christy St. R&D B 42,515 $15.00 ‐ 19.00
5210 Bunche Dr. R&D B 35,109 $15.00 ‐ 18.00
5165‐5177 Brandin Ct. R&D B 15,112 $9.00 ‐ 11.00
5121‐5127 Brandin Ct. Manufacturing B 21,619 $13.00 ‐ 16.00 5120 Brandin Ct. Warehouse B 15,400 $13.00 ‐ 16.00
5071‐5087 Brandin Ct. Light Manufacturing B 32,626 $15.00 ‐ 18.00 5070 Brandin Ct. Manufacturing B 56,257 $12.00 ‐ 15.00
5020 Brandin Ct. R&D B 76,599 $12.00 ‐ 14.00
5005‐5055 Brandin Ct. Light Manufacturing B 70,074 $12.00 ‐ 14.00 * The CoStar Estimated Rent™ is CoStar’s estimated starting rent for new leases in a building. Estimated Rents are determined through a proprietary algorithm that includes se veral key data points, such as current historical asking rents, historical lease transactions, market submarket trends, and more.
12 Focusing on the newer construction, or properties renovated within the last 20 years, the market suggests a commercial lease rate within the following ranges: $62.28 to $68.88 per square foot, full service, and $45.00 to $65.00 per square foot, triple net. The modified gross lease comparables are of older construction (1962 and 1987); thus, limited reliance is placed on these comparables.
Considering the lease data presented herein, the estimated market lease rate for the subject’s non‐ residential components in the range of $60.00 to $70.00 per square foot, full service, is considered reasonable given the subject will be of new construction, but also considers the additional CAM related to special taxes (proposed CFD).
Sara Gilbertson
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # 3002204
Eric Segal, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
California Certificate # AG026558
Address City Start Date
Rentable Area
(Lease)
Lease
Term
Lease
Reimbursement
Method Lessee
Effective Rental
Rate ($/SF/Yr)
Effective Rental
Rate ($/SF/Mo)
Property
Class
Year
Built
Year
Renovated Stories
1221 Broadway Oakland 12/1/2021 79,357 126 Full Service Fivetran $65.04 $5.42 A 1976 24 1300 Clay St. Oakland 11/15/2021 9,441 128 Full Service Terrphase Engineering $62.28 $5.19 A 1990 2002 11 501 14th St. Oakland 10/1/2021 8,448 64 Full Service Allied Administrators $51.84 $4.32 B 1990 3 426 17th St. Oakland 9/1/2021 9,243 84 Full Service Haley & Aldrige $63.48 $5.29 B 1927 2001 7 1111 Broadway Oakland 9/1/2021 14,647 91 Full Service Gibbs Law Group $68.88 $5.74 A 1990 2002 24 1999 Harrison St. Oakland 5/1/2021 9,106 39 Full Service Husch Blackwell $64.20 $5.35 A 1985 2006 27 Minimum 8,448 39 $51.84 $4.32
Maximum 79,357 128 $68.88 $5.74
Av erage 21,707 89 $62.62 $5.22
2580 Bancroft Way Berkeley 8/1/2021 3,400 180 Triple Net Raising Cane's $65.00 $5.42 A 2021 8 11720-11760 San Pablo Ave. El Cerrito 7/19/2021 898 36 Triple Net Gangnam Tofu $27.00 $2.25 B 1977 4 2450 Valdez St. Oakland 7/1/2021 4,123 120 Triple Net Limon Rotisserie $45.00 $3.75 A 2019 7 Minimum 898 36 $27.00 $2.25
Maximum 4,123 180 $65.00 $5.42
Av erage 2,807 112 $45.67 $3.81
3017 Telegraph Ave. Berkeley 8/1/2021 2,462 120 Modified Gross Yip, P. $37.76 $3.15 B 1987 3 396-398 Colusa Ave. Kensington 1/1/2021 1,075 36 Modified Gross Natura Health & Wellness $30.00 $2.50 B 1962 1 Minimum 1,075 36 $30.00 $2.50
Maximum 2,462 120 $37.76 $3.15
Av erage 1,769 78 $33.88 $2.82
MLS Resale Data
Map Report
Listings
#Listing #StatusAddress City ZIP CodeArea TypePrice BedsBathsSq FtAcres 140950983Closed500 Tremont Ave Richmond94801 Richmond-Point Richm RESI$1,575,0003 3 23000.1492 240954299Closed531 Santa Fe Ave Richmond94801 Richmond-Point Richm RESI$1,800,0004 4 31610.1376 Presented By: Eric Segal Lic: AG026558 / Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer Phone: 415-435-3883 Lic:Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from various sourcesand has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045 Map data ©2021 Google
Statistical Summary
Criteria
Map Draw 1 Shape Property Types RESI, RESL, INCP Status Closed (1/1/2021 or after) Year Built 2000 or more Listing Statuses
Active Pending Closed Other Total
0 0 2 0 2
Aggregate Statistics
Minimum Average Median Maximum Tot. Val.
Bedrooms 3 4 4 4
Bathrooms 3 3 3 4
Square Feet 2,300 2,731 2,730 3,161
Approx Lot Size Acres 0.14 0.14 0.14 0.15
Approx Lot Size SqFt 5,996 6,248 6,248 6,500
Year Built* 2006 2010 2010 2014
Listing Price $1,699,000 $1,699,500 $1,699,500 $1,700,000 Listing Price Per Sq. Ft. $537.49 $638.31 $638.31 $739.13 Lot Size Listing Per Acre $11,392,615.38$11,867,792.02$11,867,792.02$12,342,968.65 Closed Price $1,575,000 $1,687,500 $1,687,500 $1,800,000 $3,375,000 Closed Price Per Sq. Ft. $569.44 $627.11 $627.11 $684.78 Lot Size Closed Price Per Acre$10,554,923.08$11,815,820.44$11,815,820.44$13,076,717.81 DOM 4 22 22 41
CDOM 4 22 22 41
*Calculations for this field only use listings with valid values; listings with blank or zero values are excluded DOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 1 50 105.94
31-60 Days 1 50 92.65
61-90 Days 0 0
91-120 Days 0 0
120+ Days 0 0
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
Totals/Averages 2 100 99.30
CDOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 1 50.00 105.94
31-60 Days 1 50.00 92.65
61-90 Days 0 0.00
91-120 Days 0 0.00
120+ Days 0 0.00
Totals/Averages 2 100 99.30
Eric Segal
Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer
Phone: Primary:415-435-3883 Office: 415-435-3883 Email: [email protected] Lic: AG026558 Office Lic.:
Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from varioussources and has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045Generated: 12/13/2021 10:35 AM
Map Report
Listings
#Listing #StatusAddress City ZIP CodeArea TypePrice BedsBathsSq FtAcres 140915899Closed642 5th N St Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$545,00042 20720.1993 281807312Closed11 Willard Ave Richmond 9480120803 RESI$490,00043 13610.0574 340922734Closed1541 Giaramita St Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$629,00042 16860.1148 440926889Closed535 Marina Bay Pkwy PkwyRichmond 94804Richmond-South INCP$1,050,000 0 41580.1256 540929019Closed145 Ellison Ln Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$608,00043 20550.0597 640942310Closed1318 York St Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$520,00033 15800.0574 740946808Closed116 Spears Cir Richmond 94801Richmond-North & EasRESI$805,00053 24010.0597 840947576Closed481 Metro Walk Way Richmond 94801Richmond-North & EasRESI$581,00044 17600.0293 940946807Closed1533 Hoffman Blvd Richmond 94804Richmond-South RESI$775,00042 28690.2009 1040949853Closed251 S 3rd St Richmond 94804Richmond-South RESI$600,00033 16310.0646 11421561858Closed479 Metro Walk Way Richmond 94801Richmond/San Pablo RESI$585,00044 16490.0253 1240954442Closed140 Spears Cir Richmond 94801Richmond-North & EasRESI$720,00043 24010.0551 1340955718Closed407 Malcolm Dr Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$750,00033 20670.0590 1440956997Closed310 Village Ln Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$590,00044 17600.0325 1540960863Closed580 Sanford Ave North Richmond94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$595,00032 9910.1148 1681856442Closed272 Malcolm Dr Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$675,00033 18290.0823 1781859461Closed465 Metro Walk Way Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$595,00044 16660.0300 1840966470Closed448 Marina Way Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$608,00034 16400.0224 1940970459Closed1344 Battery St Richmond 94801Richmond-North & WesRESI$540,00032 12260.0574 Presented By: Eric Segal Lic: AG026558 / Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer Phone: 415-435-3883 Lic:Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from various sourcesand has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045 Map data ©2021 Google
Statistical Summary
Criteria
Contains selected listings. Map Draw 1 Shape Property Types RESI, RESL, INCP Status Closed (1/1/2021 or after) Year Built 2000 or more Listing Statuses
Active Pending Closed Other Total
0 0 19 0 19
Aggregate Statistics
Minimum Average Median Maximum Tot. Val.
Bedrooms 0 3 4 5
Bathrooms 0 2 3 4
Square Feet 991 1,937 1,760 4,158
Approx Lot Size Acres 0.02 0.08 0.06 0.20
Approx Lot Size SqFt 975 3,318 2,570 8,750
Year Built* 2001 2006 2006 2020
Listing Price $449,999 $614,505 $575,000 $1,098,000
Listing Price Per Sq. Ft. $236.21 $333.18 $335.44 $552.98 Lot Size Listing Per Acre $2,760,138.25$11,388,236.95$9,234,720.00$25,689,230.77 Closed Price $490,000 $645,316 $600,000 $1,050,000 $12,261,000 Closed Price Per Sq. Ft. $252.53 $350.92 $354.76 $600.40 Lot Size Closed Price Per Acre$2,735,046.08$11,983,802.70$9,408,960.00$27,163,569.23 DOM 2 25 16 163
CDOM 2 27 17 163
*Calculations for this field only use listings with valid values; listings with blank or zero values are excluded DOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 15 78 105.82
31-60 Days 3 15 99.89
61-90 Days 0 0
91-120 Days 0 0
120+ Days 1 5 108.89
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
Totals/Averages 19 100 104.87
CDOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 14 73.68 105.81
31-60 Days 4 21.05 101.31
61-90 Days 0 0.00
91-120 Days 0 0.00
120+ Days 1 5.26 108.89
Totals/Averages 19 100 105.34
Eric Segal
Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer
Phone: Primary:415-435-3883 Office: 415-435-3883 Email: [email protected] Lic: AG026558 Office Lic.:
Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from varioussources and has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045Generated: 12/13/2021 10:39 AM
Map Report
Listings
#Listing #StatusAddress City ZIP CodeArea TypePrice BedsBathsSq FtAcres 122029852Closed163 Trestle Cv Hercules94547 21137 RESI$945,0005 4 31700.1295 222030132Closed160 Watermark Ter Hercules94547-265821137 RESI$1,085,0004 3 30270.1605 340914545Closed701 San Pablo Ave Rodeo94572 Rodeo INCP$2,400,000 0 176520.6200 440913953Closed172 Watermark Ter Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$1,100,0005 4 32390.1753 540925020Closed181 Copper Beech Gln Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$750,0004 3 21230.0959 640928942Closed512 Laurelwood Dr Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$830,0005 3 27030.1104 740932406Closed163 Trestle Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$945,0005 4 31700.1295 840933373Closed160 Maritime Ter Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,135,0004 5 34890.2689 940934253Closed139 Dockside Bay Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,040,0006 4 36340.2302 1040933007Closed1042 Gardenia Loop Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$920,0005 4 28030.0803 1140935034Closed121 S Arbor Bay Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,125,0005 5 34890.1287 1240936703Closed1975 Vista Del Rio St Crockett94525 Crockett/Port CostaRESI$1,165,0004 4 42000.3444 1340937534Closed124 Jacaranda Ct Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$810,0004 3 21080.1031 1440937502Closed1045 Rock Harbor Pt Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,270,0005 4 34100.1399 1540938177Closed118 Hidden Cove Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,200,0005 4 32280.1661 1640938875Closed1159 Lantern Bay Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$950,0004 3 24590.1060 17221017058Closed1942 Tioga Loop Hercules94547-2793Hercules-1302 RESI$910,0004 4 24190.0538 18221021129Closed1851 Shasta Ln Hercules94547-2748Hercules-1302 RESI$855,0003 3 25550.0501 1940940532Closed121 Watermark Ter Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,250,0004 4 33890.1519 2040943741Closed181 Trestle Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$1,128,8884 3 25060.1440 21321021922Closed2009 Shasta Ln Hercules94547-2788Hercules-1301 RESI$920,0004 4 24410.0451 22321022611Closed1045 S Shelter Bay Hercules94547-2633Hercules-1301 RESI$1,005,0005 3 31700.1148 23321027090Closed1012 N Shelter Bay Hercules94547-2617Hercules-1302 RESI$1,264,0005 4 34100.1449 2440948399Closed1039 Regatta Pt Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,425,0005 5 38320.1545 25321027921Closed759 Edward Werth Dr Rodeo94572-1458Rodeo RESI$769,9995 3 2300 2640949943Closed112 White Cap Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,200,0004 3 24590.1014 2781845098Closed2007 Tioga Loop Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$922,5004 4 24190.0433 2840948082Closed1060 Victoria Park Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$1,310,0005 4 34100.1391 2940951906Closed169 Trestle Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,275,0004 4 29370.1430 3040950434Closed154 Driftwood Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,050,0004 3 24590.1165 3140953674Closed1009 Gardenia Loop Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$1,078,0004 3 30340.0781 32421564184Closed1066 Gardenia Loop Hercules94547-2621Hercules-1301 RESI$1,104,0005 4 28030.0871 3340955207Closed115 Boxwood Ln Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$960,0004 3 21080.1258 3440958189Closed130 Copper Beech Gln Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$860,0004 3 22570.0792 3540958929Closed169 Copper Beech Gln Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$990,0005 3 24180.0890 3681855250Closed1150 Waverly Cir Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$870,0004 3 24000.0933 3781857555Closed1970 Tioga Loop Hercules94547 Hercules-1301 RESI$901,0004 4 24190.0444 3840962687Closed515 Laurelwood Dr Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$900,0004 3 24000.1088 3940963160Closed202 Stone Pine Ct Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$845,0003 3 20530.0997 Map data ©2021 Google
#Listing #StatusAddress City ZIP CodeArea TypePrice BedsBathsSq FtAcres 4040965281Closed1027 Gardenia Loop Hercules94547 Pinole RESI$1,017,0004 3 30340.0781 4140966833Closed145 Driftwood Cv Hercules94547 Hercules-1302 RESI$1,000,0005 3 27300.0918 42321088115Closed109 Watermark Ter Hercules94547-2648Hercules-1301 RESI$1,250,0005 5 34890.1301 Presented By: Eric Segal Lic: AG026558 / Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer Phone: 415-435-3883 Lic:Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from various sourcesand has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045
Statistical Summary
Criteria
Contains selected listings. Map Draw 1 Shape Property Types RESI, RESL, INCP Status Closed (1/1/2021 or after) Year Built 2000 or more Listing Statuses
Active Pending Closed Other Total
0 0 42 0 42
Aggregate Statistics
Minimum Average Median Maximum Tot. Val.
Bedrooms 0 4 4 6
Bathrooms 0 3 3 5
Square Feet 2,053 3,208 2,803 17,652
Approx Lot Size Acres 0.04 0.13 0.11 0.62
Approx Lot Size SqFt 1,885 5,839 4,905 27,007
Year Built* 2000 2007 2004 2021
Listing Price $750,000 $1,005,729$936,250 $2,450,000
Listing Price Per Sq. Ft. $138.79 $339.05 $352.95 $427.00 Lot Size Listing Per Acre $2,889,480.00$9,335,088.98$8,226,635.60$20,279,174.34 Closed Price $750,000 $1,065,009$1,011,000$2,400,000 $44,730,387 Closed Price Per Sq. Ft. $135.96 $360.41 $369.76 $488.00 Lot Size Closed Price Per Acre$3,383,160.00$9,900,954.44$8,834,288.25$21,317,824.93 DOM 0 22 10 151
CDOM 0 23 10 151
*Calculations for this field only use listings with valid values; listings with blank or zero values are excluded DOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 33 78 107.52
31-60 Days 5 11 99.10
61-90 Days 2 4 109.63
91-120 Days 1 2 101.01
120+ Days 1 2 97.96
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
Totals/Averages 42 100 103.04
CDOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 31 73.81 107.86
31-60 Days 7 16.67 99.87
61-90 Days 2 4.76 109.63
91-120 Days 1 2.38 101.01
120+ Days 1 2.38 97.96
Totals/Averages 42 100 103.27
Eric Segal
Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer
Phone: Primary:415-435-3883 Office: 415-435-3883 Email: [email protected] Lic: AG026558 Office Lic.:
Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from varioussources and has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045Generated: 12/13/2021 10:29 AM
Map Report
Listings
#Listing # StatusAddress City ZIP Code Area TypePrice BedsBathsSq FtAcres 140903570 Closed14 Goree Ct Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$640,000 3 2 16790.2124 240934620 Closed1241 Santa Fe Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$540,000 2 2 0.0918 340935099 Closed113 Tierney Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$650,000 4 4 2065 440935929 Closed516 Falling Star Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$670,000 3 3 15160.0644 5421516446Closed965 Shadow Hill Martinez94553-4849MartinezRESI$718,000 3 3 17260.0672 640938863 Closed221 Tierney Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$710,000 4 4 1874 740939073 Closed4472 Actriz Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESL$3,100 4 3 17720.1377 840939250 Closed527 Falling Star Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$775,000 4 3 21460.0682 940939485 Closed12 Emshee Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$925,000 4 3 26610.1808 1040941621 Closed1147 Vine Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$850,000 4 3 21770.1217 1140942523 Closed117 Tierney Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$701,000 4 4 2074 1281837268 Closed810 Waterbird Pl Rio Vista94571 Rio vistaRESI$385,000 2 2 12310.1211 1340944787 Closed800 Little Valley Rd Martinez94553 MartinezRESL$3,000 3 3 15160.0683 1440944298 Closed258 Ladybug Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$760,000 3 3 15160.0483 1540945544 Closed602 Falling Star Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$698,000 3 3 15160.0681 1640945771 Closed1131 Vine Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$830,000 3 3 20550.1217 1740945340 Closed16 Emshee Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$975,000 5 3 29760.1808 1840946705 Closed836 Little Valley Rd Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$725,000 3 3 15810.0593 1940947505 Closed2220 Pomona Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$735,000 3 3 17260.1012 2040948938 Closed4424 Actriz Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$777,000 4 3 17720.1395 2140952119 Closed1355 Plaza Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$762,500 3 2 16470.2553 22421553575Closed1161 Plaza Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$720,390 3 2 12770.1138 2340952443 Closed129 Ladybug Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$790,000 3 3 15160.0731 2440951478 Closed611 Falling Star Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$700,000 3 3 15720.0526 2540954999 Closed977 Shadow Hill Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$840,000 3 3 17260.1001 2640955800 Closed1040 Delacy Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$852,000 5 3 25840.1851 2740957266 Closed808 Little Valley Rd Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$740,000 3 3 15810.0647 2840959638 Closed140 Silva Ct Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$1,125,0004 3 29290.2904 2940960558 Closed4536 Actriz Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$785,148 4 3 17710.1907 3040961212 Closed801 Tierney Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$714,688 4 4 2073 3140961273 Closed4456 Actriz Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$930,000 5 4 31180.2134 3240961835 Closed926 Shadow Hill Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$815,000 4 3 21460.0715 3340962370 Closed615 Falling Star Dr Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$735,000 3 3 15720.0526 3440962970 Closed301 Tierney Pl Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$710,000 4 4 2073 3540964907 Closed177 Ladybug Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$725,000 3 3 15160.0445 3640965107 Closed1035 Sierra Ave Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$795,000 3 3 18250.1205 3740967558 Closed252 Explorer Way Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$910,000 4 3 23710.2787 3840967896 Closed29 Ladybug Ct Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$749,900 3 3 15820.0480 3940969379 Closed157 Ladybug Ln Martinez94553 MartinezRESI$795,000 3 3 15820.0552 Map data ©2021 Google
Presented By: Eric Segal Lic: AG026558 / Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer Phone: 415-435-3883 Lic:Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from various sourcesand has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045
Statistical Summary
Criteria
Map Draw 1 Shape Property Types RESI, RESL, INCP Status Closed (1/1/2021 or after) Year Built 2000 or more Listing Statuses
Active Pending Closed Other Total
0 0 39 0 39
Aggregate Statistics
MinimumAverage Median Maximum Tot. Val.
Bedrooms 2 3 3 5
Bathrooms 2 3 3 4
Square Feet 1,231 1,896 1,726 3,118
Approx Lot Size Acres 0.04 0.12 0.07 0.29
Approx Lot Size SqFt 1,938 5,205 3,184 12,651
Year Built* 2002 2011 2011 2019
Listing Price $3,000 $695,218 $699,950 $979,000
Listing Price Per Sq. Ft. $1.75 $375.48 $388.02 $508.22 Lot Size Listing Per Acre $22,506.00$7,657,069.93$5,880,600.00$15,731,498.45 Closed Price $3,000 $724,737 $740,000 $1,125,000 $28,264,726 Closed Price Per Sq. Ft. $1.75 $392.50 $403.89 $564.13
Lot Size Closed Price Per Acre$22,506.00$7,991,060.32$6,331,757.14$16,295,665.63 DOM 3 16 11 68
CDOM 3 16 11 68
*Calculations for this field only use listings with valid values; listings with blank or zero values are excluded DOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 35 89 104.70
31-60 Days 3 7 99.34
61-90 Days 1 2 98.39
91-120 Days 0 0
120+ Days 0 0
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
Totals/Averages 39 100 100.81
CDOM Statistics for Closed Listings
# of Listings % of Total SP % LP
0-30 Days 34 87.18 104.80
31-60 Days 4 10.26 99.53
61-90 Days 1 2.56 98.39
91-120 Days 0 0.00
120+ Days 0 0.00
Totals/Averages 39 100 100.91
Eric Segal
Seevers Jordan Ziegenmeyer
Phone: Primary:415-435-3883 Office: 415-435-3883 Email: [email protected] Lic: AG026558 Office Lic.:
Copyright: 2021 by San Francisco Assoc of REALTORS - All data, including all measurements and calculations of area, is obtained from varioussources and has not been, and will not be, verified by broker or MLS. All information should be independently reviewed and verified for accuracy. Copyright ©2021 Rapattoni Corporation. All rights reserved. U.S. Patent 6,910,045Generated: 12/13/2021 11:05 AM
Appraiser Qualifications
Eric Segal, MAI
Integra Realty
Resources ‐ Sacramento
irr .com
T 916‐435‐3883
F 916‐435‐4774
590 Menlo Drive
Suite 1
Rocklin, CA 95765
Experience
Mr . Segal is a Certified General real estate appraiser and holds the Appraisal Institute's MAI designation. In 1998, Mr . Segal began his career in real estate as a research analyst/appraiser trainee for Richard Seevers and Associates. By 1999, he began writing narrative appraisal reports covering a variety of commercial properties, with an emphasis on residential master planned communities and subdivisions. Today, Mr . Segal is a partner in the firm and is involved in appraisal assignments covering a wide variety of properties including office, retail, industrial, multifamily housing, master planned communities, and specializes in the appraisal of Mello‐Roos Community Facilities Districts and Assessment Districts for land‐secured municipal financings, as well as multifamily developments under the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Multifamily Accelerated Processing (MAP) Guide. He has developed the experience and background necessary to deal with complex assignments covering an array of property types, with a particular focus on urban redevelopment in the cities of San Francisco, Monterey, Alameda and San Mateo. He has developed the experience and background necessary to deal with complex assignments covering an array of property types. Eric is currently Managing Director of the Integra‐San Francisco office and Senior Managing Director of the Integra‐Sacramento office.
Professional Activities & Affiliations
Appraisal Institute, Member (MAI) Appraisal Institute, January 2016 Licenses
California, Certified General, AG026558, Expires February 2023 Nevada, Certified General, A.0207666‐CG, Expires January 2023 Arizona, Certified General, CGA ‐ 1006422, Expires January 2022 Washington, Certified General, 20100611, Expires June 2023 Education
Academic:
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (Concentrations in Finance and Real Estate & Land Use Affairs), California State University, Sacramento
Appraisal and Real Estate Courses:
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
Appraisal Principles
Basic Income Capitalization
Highest & Best Use and Market Analysis
Advanced Income Capitalization
Report Writing and Valuation Analysis
Self‐Storage Economics and Appraisal Seminar
Appraisal Litigation Practice and Courtroom Management
Hotel Valuations: New Techniques for today’s Uncertain Times Computer Enhanced Cash Flow Modeling
Advanced Sales Comparison & Cost Approaches
Advanced Applications
Supervisor‐Trainee Course for California
[email protected] ‐ 916‐435‐3883 x228
Sara Gilbertson
Integra Realty
Resources ‐ Sacramento
irr .com
T 916‐435‐3883
F 916‐435‐4774
590 Menlo Drive
Suite 1
Rocklin, CA 95765
Experience
Ms. Gilbertson is a licensed appraiser with Integra Realty Resources, a real estate appraisal firm that engages in a wide variety of real estate valuation and consultation assignments. She joined the firm in April 2011 after completing her bachelor's degree at California State University, Sacramento and has been writing narrative appraisal reports for a variety of commercial properties. She has experience in writing narrative appraisal reports covering a variety of commercial properties, as well as special use properties including self storage facilities, hotels and mobile home parks. She also specialized in the appraisal of residential master planned communities and subdivision, as well as Mello Roos and Assessment Districts for land secured municipal financings. Ms. Gilbertson has developed the experience and background necessary to deal with complex assignments covering an array of property types.
Licenses
California, Certified General Real Estate Appraiser, 3002204, Expires May 2022 Education
Academic:
Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (Concentration in Real Estate and Land Development), California State University, Sacramento
Appraisal Institute Courses:
Basic Appraisal Principles
Basic Appraisal Procedures
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice
Real Estate Finance and Statistics and Valuation Modeling Sales Comparison Approach
Report Writing and Case Studies
Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use
Site Valuation and Cost Approach
Basic Income Capitalization
4‐Hour Federal and California Statutory and Regulator Laws Quantitative Analysis
Business Practices and Ethics
Advanced Market Analysis and Highest and Best Use
Advanced Income Capitalization
Advanced Concepts and Case Studies
7‐Hour National USPAP Update Course
[email protected] ‐ 916‐435‐3883 x248
About IRR
Integra Realty Resources, Inc. (IRR) provides world‐class comme rcial real estate valuation, counseling, and advisory services. Routinely ranked among leading property valuation and consulting firms, we are now the largest independent firm in our industry in the United States, with local offices coast to coast and in the Caribbean.
IRR offices are led by MAI‐designated Senior Managing Directors , industry leaders who have over 25 years, on average, of commercial real estate experience in their local markets. This experience, coupled with our understanding of how national trends affect the local markets, empowers our clients with the unique knowledge, access, and historical perspective they need to make the most informed decisions.
Many of the nation's top financial institutions, developers, corporations, law firms, and government agencies rely on our professional real estate opinions to best understand the value, use, and feasibility of real estate in their market.
Local Expertise...Nationally!
irr.com
January 25, 2022
City Council
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM: Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin
Subject:
Healthy Options at Point of Sale
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact to receive the report. Any financial impacts related to policy options will be brought to City Council for consideration.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Richmond currently has a Health in All Policies Framework of which this policy aligns.
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
In Richmond, unhealthy food and beverages are
promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Over the past
two years, HOPS youth advocates assessed the food
retail landscape and heard from residents. HOPS youth
advocates want to present to the City Council their
findings and policy options.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE a report on research conducted by Healthy
Options at Points of Sale (HOPS) youth advocates; and
DIRECT staff to draft an ordinance to be considered by
the Council within 60 days requiring large retail stores to stock healthier checkout items – Councilmember Gayle
McLaughlin (510-620-6636).
DISCUSSION:
AGENDA
REPORT
January 25, 2022
In Richmond, unhealthy food and beverages are promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Snacks high in salt, saturated fat, and added sugars dominate checkout aisles, which are designed to prompt impulse purchases. Such curated food environments in largely low income communities of color have been shown to contribute to health issues such as dental cavities, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes; these especially impacts families. 1 in 2 children of color in the US will be diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in their lifetime (Attachment 1).
Over the past two years, HOPS youth advocates assessed the food retail landscape and heard from residents. HOPS youth advocates want to present to the City Council their findings and policy options. HOPS youth advocates want to bring the community together and change these numbers by including more healthy foods such as fruits and nuts.
In 2020, the Berkeley City Council unanimously passed a Healthy Checkout Ordinance https://hco-berkeley.org/ with large retail stores in Berkeley having to replace junk foods, candy, and soda in checkout aisles with healthier items containing less added sugar and sodium. The City of Richmond can and should do similarly.
We, in the City of Richmond, are dedicated to health equity and currently have in place a Health in All Polices Framework. A Healthy Checkout Ordinance would be in-line with this framework.
Richmond can implement Healthy Checkout to promote and support the health of all residents!
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:
Attachment 1 – Healthy Retail Ed Packet
Attachment 2 – PowerPoint
January 2022
Healthy Retail Education Packet
Table of Contents
Richmond Checkout Fact Sheet
The results of advocates' two-year community assessment of Richmond's food landscape.
Rethinking Retail in California
Background about Healthy Retail efforts throughout the state.
Frequently Asked Questions
FAQ about the Richmond initiative and the HOPS advocate team.
Berkeley Healthy Checkout Article
An article covering the City of Berkeley's passage of Healthy Checkout in 2020 from the Berkeley High Jacket.
Qualifying Products Sample List
A non-exhaustive list of example products that could be sold at checkout under Healthy Retail.
NANA Model Nutrition Standards
The nutrition standards that informed the ordinance suggestions, focused on snacks sold in convenient to-go settings.
Ordinance Template
A template ordinance for the City of Richmond, written by public health lawyers at Center for Science in the Public Interest. p1
p2
p4
p5
p8
p15
p17
40% 0.9% 60%
ofFOODSsoldatcheckoutsareUNHEALTHY ofFOODSsoldatcheckoutsareUNHEALTHY In Richmond, a city facing food apartheid with only 3 full service grocers, unhealthy food and beverages are promoted repeatedly throughout stores. Snacks high in salt, saturated fat, and added sugars dominate checkout aisles, which are designed to prompt impulse purchases. Such curated food environments in largely
low income communities of color have
been shown to contribute to health issues
such as dental cavities, heart disease,
and type 2 diabetes. This especially
impacts families; 1 in 2 children of
color in the US will be diagnosed
with type 2 diabetes in their lifetime.
Over the past two years, HOPS youth
advocates assessed the food retail landscape
and heard from residents. When it came to the checkout
experience, many shoppers describe overwhelming feelings of stress.
Healthy Options at Point of Sale (HOPS)
We want to bring the
community together and
change these numbers by
including more healthy foods
such as fruits and nuts. The
City of Richmond can
implement Healthy Checkout
to promote and support the
health of all residents!
"
Candy accounts for 40percent of all food atcheckout.
Fresh fruit and vegetablesmake up less than onepercent of products sold atcheckout. 2/32/3
A majority of beveragesavailable at grocerycheckouts areunhealthy.
Questions? Contact Ingrid De Santiago at [email protected] " Few stores
stock fresh
fruits and
veggies
Social
responsibility
to youth
Desire
to purchase
from local
farmers
Exposure
to greater
healthy
variety
100%100%
support fromsupport from
intervieweesinterviewees
Rethinking Retail in California:
The Healthy Checkout, Healthy Families Act
California Is Facing a Public Health Crisis
•
•
Grocery Stores are a Prime Place for Policy Change
•
•
•
Sugary drinks at a Berkeley store checkout
Californians Want Healthier Checkout Options
Retailers Across the State Are Already Taking Steps to Support Health
"I care for the health of my
people, my community. As
a manager at a local grocery
store, I believe healthy
checkout is good for both
the clients and our business"
-Javier, Mi Tierra Foods
Healthy Options at Point of Sale (HOPS)
Do stores currently get money or discounts for product placement? Yes, some stores receive payments, or slotting fees, from food manufacturers to place and promote particular products throughout the store, including in the checkout aisle.
Once the ordinance is passed, how will it be implemented and enforced? HOPS plans to provide outreach to store managers and Richmond residents to ensure that both stores and the community understand what products fit into healthy checkout. The Contra Costa Environmental Health Department is well positioned to enforce the ordinance as they already conduct annual inspections of retail stores.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does HOPS define healthy?
For the assessments phase HOPS referenced the National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity (NANA) standards in which healthy beverages are 100% juice, plain low-fat milks, and water, and healthy snacks are composed predominantly of fruits, nuts and vegetables. In order to streamline implementation and enforcement, HOPS will focus on limiting added sugars to 5g and sodium to 200mg on products sold at checkout.
What will the impact be on small stores and/or small local businesses? HOPS is advocating to phase this ordinance in first with retail stores with over 4,000 square feet. Additionally, we are gathering retailer input throughout the process will support small businesses with implementation.
Why a healthy checkout ordinance instead of “junk food” tax? Currently, we don’t think our friends and neighbors are ready for a “junk food” tax, though some countries, including Mexico and Chile, have enacted taxes on “non essential” foods and beverages including calorie dense candy bars and sugar sweetened beverages.
HOPS believes a policy approach that increases the availability of healthy food at checkout will help provide a more level playing field by reducing the promotion and marketing of less healthy foods and helping all Richmond residents have a more positive experience in the checkout aisle. HOPS is not trying to prohibit or restrict the sale of candy, chips, or sodas throughout other parts of the store.
How to ensure the new, healthy options will be affordable? Retailers count on customers making impulse purchases at checkout and are skilled at offering low-dollar products to increase last-minute consumer purchases. In order to continue profiting from last minute consumer purchases, merchants will price items at a price point that consumers will purchase.
For more information contact Ingrid De Santiago at [email protected].
f
Ø
Chewing Gum & Mints
Trident Spearmint Gum
Brand: Trident
Parent Company: Mondelez
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0 mg
Ice Breakers Duo Watermelon
Brand: Ice Breakers
Parent Company: Hershey Trust Company
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0 mg
Extra Classic Bubble
Brand: Extra
Parent Company: Wrigley Jr. Company
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0mg
Altoids Peppermint
Brand: Altoids
Parent Company: Wrigley Jr. Company
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 35mg
Fruit and Vegetables
Dried Chili Mango
Brand: Peeled
Parent Company: Peel Snacks
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: Varies
No Sugar Added Organic Applesauce
Brand: Mott’s
Parent Company: Keurig Dr. Pepper
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 5mg
Diced Yellow Cling Peaches in 100% Fruit Juice
Brand: Dole
Parent Company: Dole Food Company, Inc.
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 5mg
Terra Original Chips
Parent Company: Hain Celestial Group
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 110mg
Brand: Terra
Whole Fruits and Vegetables
Brand: Varies
Parent Company: Varies
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 30mg
Nuts, Seeds & Legumes
Snak Club Yogurt Trail Mix
Brand: Snak Club
Parent Company: Insignia Capital Group
Added Sugar: 3g
Sodium: 0mg
Dry Roasted Pistachios
Brand: Planters
Parent Company: Kraft-Heinz
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 150mg
Mesquite Barbeque Crunchy Broad Beans
Brand: Bada Bean Bada Boom
Parent Company: Enlightened
Added Sugar: 1g
Sodium: 150 mg
Vegan White Cheddar Hippeas
Brand: Hippeas Organic Chickpea Snacks
Parent Company: Green Park Snacks Ltd.
Added Sugar: 1g
Sodium: 140mg
Blue Diamond Whole Natural Almonds
Brand: Blue Diamond
Parent Company: Co-op
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0 mg
Whole Grains
Smart50 Sea Salt Popcorn
Brand: Smartfood
Parent Company: PepsiCo
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 150mg
Boom Chicka Pop Sea Salt Popcorn
Brand: Angie’s Boom Chicka Pop
Parent Company: Conagra Brands
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 130mg
Kids Organic Whole Grain Bites
Brand: Quaker
Parent Company: PepsiCo
Added Sugar: 4g
Sodium: 55 mg
Apple Cinnamon Crunchy Rice Rollers
Brand: Crunchy Rollers
Parent Company: General Mills
Sodium: 0 mg
*Estimate (contains 3g total sugar)
Added Sugar: 3g*
Kracklin’ Kamu Brand Ancient Grain – Sea Salt
Brand: Kracklin' Kamut
Parent Company: Big Sandy Organics
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 180mg
Yogurt & Cheese
Chobani Clingstone Peach Less Sugar
Greek Yogurt
Brand: Chobani
Parent Company: Chobani Global Holdings, Inc.
Added Sugar: 5g
Sodium: 50mg
Siggi’s Vanilla Skyr
Brand: Siggi’s
Parent Company: Lactalis
Added Sugar: 5g
Sodium: 55mg
Tillamook Medium Cheddar
Parent Company: Tillamook County Creamery
Association (TCCA)
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 125mg
Sargento String Cheese
Brand: Sargento
Parent Company: Gentine family
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 190mg
Brand: Tillamook
Multi-Category Foods
Blueberry Vanilla Cashew Kind Bar
Brand: Kind
Parent Company: Mars
Added Sugar: 4g
Sodium: 20mg
Toasted Coconut Almond Granola
Brand: Bear Naked
Parent Company: Kellogg’s
Added Sugar: 5g
Sodium: 10mg
Kashi Peanut Peanut Butter Granola Bar
Brand: Kashi
Parent Company: Kellogg’s
Added Sugar: 5g
Sodium: 100mg
Mint Chip Brownie Lärabar
Brand: Lärabar
Parent Company: General Mills
Added Sugar: 4g
Sodium: 0 mg
Tart Cherry and Apple Superfood Bites
Brand: Urban Foods
Parent Company: Urban Foods
Added Sugar: 3g
Sodium: 0 mg
Spindrift, Blackberry
Brand: Spindrift
Parent Company: VMG Partners
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0mg
La Colombe Pure Black Cold-Pressed Coffee
Brand: La Colombe
Parent Company: La Colombe
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 25mg
Aquafina
Brand: Aquafina
Parent Company: PepsiCo
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0mg
Minute Maid 100% Orange Juice
Brand: Minute Maid
Parent Company: Coca-Cola
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 25 mg
Bubly, Strawberry
Brand: Bubly
Parent Company: PepsiCo
Added Sugar: 0g
Sodium: 0
Beverages
National Alliance for Nutrition and Activity Model Nutrition Standards for “Grab-and-Go” Foods and Beverages1
Often, there is a lack of healthy options when eating away from home, particularly selections from vending machines and checkout aisles. Applying nutrition standards for foods and beverages in these “grab-and-go” venues can improve access to healthier options and support people’s ability to eat well.
These guidelines are an update of the 2012 NANA standards for municipal, state, and federal government leased or operated vending machines or vending machines on public property.
They can also be used in private worksites, checkout aisles, concession stands, and other convenience-oriented food venues. In 2020 they were revised to reflect updates to the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and the current food and beverage marketplace. They are similar, though not identical, to the United States Department of Agriculture’s Smart Snacks guidelines for schools.
Beverage Standards:
• 100% of beverages must be one or a combination of the following:
o Water, including carbonated water (no added caloric sweeteners); o Coffee or tea with no added caloric sweeteners (if condiments are provided, sites may provide sugars and sugar substitutes and milk/creamer products that have less fat than cream, such as whole or 2% milk);
o No more than 200 calories per container of fat-free dairy milk, 1% low-fat dairy milk, or calcium- and vitamin-D-fortified plant-based milks that contain at least 6 grams of protein per 8 oz;
o 100% fruit/vegetable juice or juice combined with water or carbonated water (limited to a maximum of 12-ounce container; no added caloric sweeteners; and ≤ 200 milligrams of sodium per container); and
o Low-calorie beverages that are ≤ 40 calories per container.
Food Standards:
Provide a variety of healthier foods with more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains and moderate amounts of saturated fat, added sugars, and sodium. • 100% of snack foods and side dishes must meet all of the following criteria as offered (per package/container):
o No more than 200 calories;
o Less than 10% calories from saturated fat (which would be no more than 2 grams of saturated fat for a 200 calorie snack, for example) with the exception of packages that contain 100% nuts or seeds; snack mixes that contain components
1 Adapted from the NANA Model Beverage and Food Vending Machine Standards and the NANA Model Nutrition Standards for Checkout, with input from members of the NANA Steering Committee.
other than nuts and seeds must have no more than 10% of calories from saturated fat;
o No more than 10% of calories from added sugars and a maximum of 5 grams of added sugars, with the exception of yogurts that contain no more than 10 grams of added sugars per 5.3 oz container;
o No more than 200 mg of sodium; and
o One of the following must be listed as the first ingredient (or second ingredient after water):
Fruit or non-fried vegetable;
Fat-free/low-fat dairy or calcium- and vitamin D-fortified plant-based alternative;
Legumes, nuts, or seeds; or
Non-fried whole grain, with at least 50% of the grain ingredients being whole grain (indicated by the product having whole grain as the first ingredient, from the manufacturer, or if the product has a whole grain claim stating that at least 50% of the grains are whole grain). o Sugarless chewing gum can be sold without having to meet the above nutrition standards.
• 100% of entrée-type foods (e.g., sandwich, pizza, burger) must meet all of the following criteria per item as offered (per package/container):
o No more than 400 calories;
o Less than 10% calories from saturated fat (which would be less than 4.5 grams saturated fat for a 400 calorie entrée-type item, for example); o No more than 10% of calories from added sugars and a maximum of 10 grams of added sugars;
o No more than 480 mg of sodium; and
o One of the following must be listed as the first ingredient (or second ingredient after water):
Fruit or non-fried vegetable;
Fat-free/low-fat dairy or calcium- and vitamin D-fortified plant-based alternative;
Lean protein food (e.g., fish, legumes, poultry); or
Non-fried whole grain, with at least 50% of the grain ingredients being whole grain (indicated by the product having whole grain as the first ingredient, from the manufacturer, or if the product has a whole grain claim stating that at least 50% of the grains are whole grain).
Healthy Retail Ordinance: Model Language
Healthy Retail Placement and Checkout Ordinance
##.##. Findings.
A.Diets with an excess of added sugars and sodium are correlated with chronic health issues including hypertension, type 2 diabetes, tooth decay, and stroke.
B.The safety of many low/reduced-calorie sweeteners is questionable, especially for children.
Many have not been well tested, some appear to pose a risk of cancer, and some can cause gastrointestinal distress, especially when consumed in large amounts.
C.Grocery and convenience stores are Americans’ top source for foods and beverages. More than 70 percent of Americans’ caloric intake comes from food items purchased at large grocery retailers.
D.The environments in which food choices are made affect those choices. The placement of unhealthy snack foods and beverages near the checkout registers and on aisle endcaps and freestanding displays throughout retail stores increase the likelihood that consumers will make unplanned purchases of unhealthy foods. The placement of unhealthy snack foods and sugar-sweetened beverages at checkout, therefore, undermines public health initiatives and consumers’ desire to make healthy choices.
E.Providing customers with the choice to avoid undue pressure to purchase high-calorie, low-nutrient food when they shop is in the interest of the health, safety, and welfare of all who live, work, and do business in Richmond.
##.##. Purpose.
A.The purpose of the ordinance is to encourage healthy purchases and improve the health of Richmond by providing healthy alternatives to consumers in checkout areas and limiting consumer exposure to sugar-sweetened beverages and unhealthy foods at Small Retail Stores and Large Retail Stores in Richmond.
##.##. Definitions.
A.“Added Sugars” means sugars added during the processing of foods and beverages, or are packaged as such, and include sugars (free, mono and disaccharides), sugars from syrups and honey, and sugars from concentrated fruit or vegetable juices that are in excess of what would be expected from the same volume of 100 percent fruit or vegetable juice of the same type, as defined in Section 101.9 of Title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
B.“Aisle Endcap” means product displays placed at the endpoints of aisles that contain products for sale.
C.“Alcoholic Beverages” means beverages regulated as alcohol under STATUTE.
D.“Artificial Sweeteners” means sweeteners with few to no calories that have a higher intensity of sweeteners per gram than sucrose.
E.“Category List” means the list of foods and beverages which meet the standards ofRMC XXX.
F.“Checkout Area” means any area that is accessible to a customer of the Retail Store that is:
1.Within 3 feet in any direction of any Register; or
2.Designated primarily for or utilized primarily by customers to wait in line to make a purchase at a register; up to and including the Checkout Endcap.
G.“Checkout Endcap” means product displays placed at endpoints of areas designated primarily for or utilized primarily by customers to wait in line to make a purchase.
H.“Freestanding Display” means a freestanding fixture, not attached to another structure that displays products for sale.
I.“Health Checkout Areas Standards” means the standards for foods and beverages set forth in [HEALTHY CHECKOUT AREAS (A)-(D)].
J.“Healthy Retail Placement standards” means the standards for foods and beverages set forth in [HEALTHY RETAIL PLACEMENT (A)-(C)].
K.“Large Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public with a total floor area of 4001 square feet or more and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.
L.“Prepared Foods” refer to foods sold or served that are produced by the retailer for immediate consumption.
M.“Refrigerated Beverages” means beverages that must be or should be refrigerated or frozen for freshness and are traditionally displayed for sale in refrigerators or freezers.
N.“Register” means a device used for monetary transactions that calculates the sales of goods and displays the amount of sales for the customer.
O.“Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.
P.“Small Retail Store” means a commercial establishment selling goods to the public with a total floor area between 0 and 4000 square feet and selling 25 linear feet or more of food and beverage products.
##.##. Healthy Checkout Areas.
Each Retail Store shall at all hours during which the Retail Store is open to the public ensure that all foods and beverages displayed for sale in the Checkout Areas meet the following standards:
A.Beverages with no Added Sugars and no Artificial Sweeteners.
B.Beverages must be in the following categories: waters, milk and milk alternatives, 100% juice, coffee, and tea.
C.Food items with no more than 5 grams of Added Sugars and 200 milligrams of sodium per labeled serving.
D.Prepared foods are exempted from the above requirements.
The City of Richmond will conduct an annual review of qualifying beverage categories in the Healthy Checkout Areas Standards. There will be a 180-day phase-in period if changes to the Healthy Checkout Area Standards are made.
##.##. Healthy Retail Placement.
Each Retail Store shall at all hours during which the Retail Store is open to the public ensure that foods and beverages displayed for sale in the store meet the following standards:
A.Beverages with Added Sugars and/or Artificial Sweeteners may only be displayed for sale in one aisle within the store and in the two Aisle Endcaps at each end of that aisle. Beverages with Added Sugars and/or Artificial Sweeteners may not be displayed in any other locations within the store.
B.Beverages with Added Sugars and/or Artificial Sweeteners may not be displayed for sale in Freestanding Displays.
C.Refrigerated Beverages and Alcoholic Beverages are exempted from the above requirements.
There will be a 180-day phase-in period if changes to the Healthy Retail Placement Standards are made.
##.##. Enforcement.
A.[The City]is authorized to issue all rules and regulationsconsistent with this ordinance.
B.[HOW WILL COMPLIANCE BE ADMINISTERED, e.g. duringregular inspections by Contra Costa Environmental Health of Retail Stores]
C.[The City] may require information necessary to determinecompliance with this Chapter. ##.##. Violations – Penalties.
A.A Retail Store found to be in violation of this Chapter may be subject to [PENALTY] B.This section shall not limit[the City/Enforcementagency]from recovering costs from implementing this Chapter or investigating complaints.
##.##. Effective Date.
This ordinance and the legal requirements set forth herein shall take effect and be in force for Large Retail Stores as of [DATE]and Small Retail Storesas of[DATE (six months after large stores)].
For more information, please contact the Center for Science in the Public Interest at [email protected].
�����������
hops
Healthy Options At Point Of Sale
the HOPS Team
HOPS is a youth led, community driven, health advocacy project.
What is Healthy retail?
a campaign to ADVOCATE FOR minimum nutrition standards
for snacks & beverages sold at checkout and To keep
sodas in the soda aisle.
- Fresh & Dried Fruit
and veggies
- Nuts
- Water
- Whole grains
- 100% juice
- And more!
Why focus on healthy retail?
Healthy retail is
good for both
customers and
businesses
The majority of
food purchases come
from grocery stores
Product placement
is a powerful
retail marketing
technique
Paid product
placement
prompts
impulse buys
1 2 3 4
● Lack of local FOOD stores that have convenient food & DRINKS that are also healthy
● Growing NUMBER of health issues in the community
○ Heart disease, Diabetes, cavities, and cancer
● Sugary beverages are found in 30 places in an average store Why do we need It?
Richmond Community Assessment
33 food stores assessed
Checkouts at grocery and corner stores, pharmacies,
department stores, and more
5 Focus Groups
Participants in the virtual
focus groups were all residents of Richmond
8 key interviews
With local health providers, educators, food service
professionals, etc
3 Retailer Interviews
Local grocery and convenience store
owners were interviewed and asked about their
store CHECKOUT ASSESSMENT HIGHLIGHTS
overall, 60% OF BEVERAGES AT CHECKOUT are UNHEALTHY
compared to only 17% healthy
and 16% ‘other’. These are not very nutritional,
but have low to no added sugar. They are
mostly alcohol and coffee.
Similarly, 65% OF FOOD SOLD IS UNHEALTHY
28% are in between, like gum, trail mix, bread, and
fresh or hot prepared foods.
while only 6% of food
present is healthy, and
CANDY MAKES UP 40% OF ALL FOOD
sold at checkout, and 25% of all
products at checkout, including
beverages and non-food
merchandise!
NON-FOOD MERCHANDISE like:
beauty,
And electronics
Bath,
home goods,
Make up 28% OF PRODUCTS AT
CHECKOUT
Focus Group & Key interview findings
● Unanimous support for healthy checkout
● Main motivations were
○ targeted marketing at children
○ Diet related long term health effects on youth
○ Lack of access in low income neighborhoods to quality foods
○ many leave richmond to grocery shop
○ Desire to support local farmers in their purchases
Retailer Interview findings
● Full support for healthy checkout
● Main Concerns
○ lack of demand
○ short shelf life of produce
○ Customers have the choice to eat healthy
survey of 562 richmond voters
● 77% support for the policy
● 73% low income shoppers support
● parents especially concerned for youth
Keeping soda in the soda aisle
National survey
of people would SWITCH
from their regular
grocery store to one
that stocks sugary
beverages in only
one place;
of SNAP participants
say they’d purchase
fewer sugary
beverages if they were
offered in only one place
in the store, and
of parents who shop
with their kids agree.
58%
82%
36%
77%
of parents who
shop with their
kids agree.
Healthy retail suggestions
Fully Stock checkouts with nutritious snacks:
● Foods with
○ 5 or less grams of added sugar per serving
○ 200 mg or less of sodium per serving
● Beverages
○ No added sugar
○ No added sweeteners
○ List of qualifying items
● Exemptions for Pre-prepared, homemade
foods
Healthy retail suggestions:
Keep Soda in the soda aisle
● Sugar sweetened beverages in or on end cap of
one drink aisle only
● No sugary drinks in freestanding displays
Enforcement
● Environmental health department
○ Integrate into annual inspections
● Large retail stores >4000 sq ft first
○ 11 stores
● small stores phased in 6 months later
○ 84 stores
What impact will healthy retail have?
● Give access to nutritious food and drinks
● Exposure to a greater variety of produce and healthy snacks ● Make it easier for kids to make healthier choices
● Begin to change snacking norms
● Help positively influence
public health
“It would encourage my son to choose
healthier snacks when we're checking out
instead of asking for candy! And, although I'm a
fairly healthy shopper I definitely fall victim to
items at the checkout lane.” -ResidentPage 162 of 170
THank you
(January 25, 2022)
Community Development
DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Michelle Milam, Crime Prevention Manager
Subject:
Report on Unhoused Interventions
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Depending on the City Council input, financial impacts may vary. No funds are being expended at this time.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
Staff is providing an update on the status of unhoused
interventions and seeking City Council input on proposed next steps
STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:
Staff is providing an update on the status of unhoused
interventions and seeking City Council input on proposed next steps
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
RECEIVE an update on the status of certain unhoused
interventions and PROVIDE staff input on next steps –
Community Development Department (Lina Velasco 510-
620-6706).
DISCUSSION:
This is the first of a series of presentations staff will be bringing forward to the City Council to provide an update on unhoused interventions and homelessness prevention activities in the City. At this meeting, City staff will be providing an overview of certain activities related to the unhoused being undertaken by the City or supported with City AGENDA
REPORT
(January 25, 2022)
funds. Based on the overview, staff is seeking City Council input on proposed next steps, including subsequent presentations outlining additional resources being offered by Contra Costa County and various community based organizations.
City Committees Focused on Homelessness and Unhoused Interventions
The following are City-organized committees related to Homelessness and Unhoused Interventions.
Homeless Task Force:
In 2017, the City Council established a homeless taskforce. A series of nine policy findings were established by a collaborative team of city, community members, non- profits, and the county to provide direction to Richmond on how to impact homelessness. These policy findings are utilized to develop an annual list of priorities for the City of Richmond. The homeless taskforce is open to the public and meets on the last Thursday of every month. During the pandemic the taskforce meets at 1:00 pm on Zoom. Michelle Milam is the lead staff member for this task force.
City Council Ad-Hoc Committee #1
On March 16, 2021, the City Council voted to authorize the creation of an ad hoc committee to develop a long-term sustainable, and well-funded plan for assisting unhoused residents of Richmond. This ad hoc committee, which consisted of Mayor Butt, Councilmember Jimenez, and Councilmember McLaughlin, was directed to work with the Homeless Task Force and engage the community in the process in determining long term solutions. This committee was also to explore a safe parking program in a non-residential area. This ad-hoc committee meets monthly, and as needed. Current members are Councilmember Jimenez and Councilmember McLaughlin. Lina Velasco is the lead staff member for this task force.
City Council Ad-hoc Committee #2
On December 7, 2021, the City Council voted to establish an ad hoc committee, which consisted of Mayor Butt, Councilmember Bates, and Councilmember Martinez, to discuss next steps with Rydin Road and Castro Street encampments. In addition, $50,000 was allocated for vehicle needs and a request to provide an accounting summary of expenditures related to the Housing Consortium of East Bay (HCEB) contract by city staff. Current member is Councilmember Martinez. The Mayor’s staff was organizing this committee.
Implementation Subcommittee of the Reimagining Public Safety Community Task Force - Unhoused Interventions
Following the City Council’s approval of recommendations of the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, an implementation subcommittee related to Unhoused Interventions was formed to support the implementation of three key recommendations: SOS! Richmond’s (SOS) Streets Team and shower services to support scattered sites and encampment outreach, as well as the implementation of an interim sheltering site. A
(January 25, 2022)
Request for Proposals was issued in August 2021 seeking a consultant to assist in the identification of potential interim sheltering sites; however, no responses were received.
In September 2021, the City Council authorized a $983,975 sole source contract with Rebuilding Together Eastbay-North to fund SOS! Richmond to provide outreach and support to unsheltered people who reside in homeless encampments and scattered sites within the City.
As reported by the Reimagining Task Force at the January 18, 2022 City Council meeting, between mid-October and December 2021, SOS has been providing shower services. They have reported an average of 3.5 events per week (Rydin, Castro, Bay Area Rescue Mission (BARM)), with over 300 showers during this period. In addition, on average, SOS collects approximately a ton of trash per day at twelve hotspot locations.
Currently twenty-two SOS employees, who are current and formerly unhoused encampment residents, are reported to be performing successfully and improving quality-of-life in encampments and neighborhoods. Three of the 22 staff members have secured permanent housing during this period and 3 are in recovery. The goal is to provide at least 16 hours per team member per week. Five are at or near full-time status.
Castro Stakeholders’ Meeting
On a monthly basis, City staff hosts stakeholder’s meeting related to the Castro encampment to provide updates and address concerns. Michelle Milam is the lead organizer for this meeting. The meeting is attended by area business, neighborhood councils, city staff (Fire Marshal, Code Enforcement Manager, Director of Community Development, Police Department) and current service providers, Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB), C.O.R.E., and SOS.
Rydin Stakeholders’ Meeting
On a monthly basis, City staff hosts stakeholder’s meeting related to the Rydin encampment to provide updates and address concerns. Michelle Milam is the lead organizer for this meeting. The meeting is attended by area business, neighborhood councils, city staff (Fire Marshal, Code Enforcement Manager, Director of Community Development, Police Department) and current service providers, Housing Consortium of the East Bay, C.O.R.E., and SOS.
Projects
Homelessness Strategic Plan
On November 2, 2021, the City Council authorized a contract with Homebase to support the City in the development of a Strategic Plan to develop a long-term plan to reduce and prevent homelessness in our city and strengthen the physical health, mental health, and social service supports for our unhoused residents in Richmond. This work is anticipated to kick-off in February 2022 and take about 8-10 months to complete. A
(January 25, 2022)
steering committee will be formed to inform development of the plan, as well as holding community input sessions, and stakeholder interviews.
As part of this effort, the City entered into a collaboration agreement with AllHome, who is providing $50,000 in funding, to support the development of the Homelessness Strategic Plan, which will be designed to meet the regional goal of reducing unsheltered homelessness in the City by 75% by 2024. The Plan will also assist the City in identifying priorities for implementation and building community consensus on interventions.
City Programs and Activities Serving the Unhoused
Scattered Sites Support
On June 22, 2021, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance adding a new Section 9.40.018 “Safe Parking Sites Pilot Program” to the Richmond Municipal Code to allow private property owners to host up to four vehicle households for a limited duration.
The Safe Parking Sites Pilot Program (program) creates opportunities for safe and secure places for car and recreation vehicle dwellers to park and sleep, reduce the number of people living illegally in their vehicles on City streets, decrease enforcement actions and resulting legal costs to homeless individuals, and provide resources to secure permanent housing and economic stability. The program allows a variety of community-based organizations, such as non-profits and educational institutions, to become host sites for up to four vehicle households.
As part of the program, the City agreed to provide a Housing Navigator to assist scattered safe parking site dwellers to find permanent housing, and to enter program participants into the Contra Costa County’s Continuum of Care (CofC).
As part of the recommendations from the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force, funding to support scattered safe parking site and encampments using the SOS! Richmond Streets Team; however, approximately $75,000 were reserved for a Housing Navigator.
In addition to the funds for a Housing Navigator, the City Council authorized a $983,975 contract with Rebuilding Together Eastbay-North (RBTEBN) to fund SOS! Richmond to provide outreach and support unsheltered people who reside in encampments and scattered sites within the City.
Rydin/Castro Safe Parking Program
In March 2021, the City approved a sole source contract with Housing Consortium of the East Bay (HCEB) to provide program management and housing navigation services in the amount not to exceed $560,000 at the Rydin and Castro encampments to sunset both encampments by December 31, 2021.
(January 25, 2022)
On December 7, 2021, the Richmond City Council voted to not enforce its notice to Abate the Rydin encampment, and rather voted to create an ad-hoc committee to gather input from encampment residents regarding their needs to assist them in transitioning to other interim housing options. Since that date, the ad hoc committee #2 met with Rydin residents to understand needs. With the input received, the ad hoc committee asked staff and HCEB to develop a vehicle repair application form, which was translated into Spanish and distributed at Rydin. Completed applications are due on January 28 and funding recommendations will be reviewed following that date and brought to the Council for approval.
The current HCEB contract ends on February 12, 2022. Without a contract amendment, any services provided by HCEB will end – this includes evening and overnight security, site supervisor, streets team, on-site office unit rental, and housing navigator. The cost of portables and trash pick-up can continue via the RBTEBN/SOS contract.
Since December 7, Collaborising has been meeting with residents and HCEB. HCEB expressed interest and agreed to a community resolution process. Councilmember Martinez, the only remaining member of the Ad hoc committee #2 has requested a meeting to begin to discuss the recommendations Collaborising had collected from Rydin residents.
Daily complaints from local businesses are coming in for Rydin about new vehicles coming in. Since Rydin is a public street, even with staff support, it is difficult to prevent encampment growth. There has been a stakeholder group of the businesses, staff and contractors that meeting monthly to discuss issues and provide updates. The directive of the council was no evictions at the December 7 meeting, which essentially is taken to mean no enforcement of the vehicle code so input is needed on how city staff should be addressing newcomers at the encampment.
City staff understand that there are several complex issues intersecting. As such, to gain clarification, City staff respectfully suggests that the City Council consider providing input on the matters noted below as well as other items related to the unhoused. This will ensure proper policy direction is followed and the needs of stakeholders are addressed:
Alternative housing options will be offered prior to abatement: Please confirm that the Police Department, Fire Department, and Public Works staff are able to ensure public safety and enforce applicable State and City codes. There has also been an influx of tents in areas that have been blocked from vehicle access as vacancies has been achieved. In coordination with CORE, City Public Works staff may respectfully and thoughtfully transition and address new non-program participants.
The amount of debris at Rydin is continuing to increase. Please confirm the City Council is respective of requiring all outdoor belongings to be removed or offered for storage (up to two large totes containers per household) to remain at the
(January 25, 2022)
encampment? This work will be done in collaboration with other community- based organization, along with Abatement, Fire, and HCEB.
Castro Concerns
City staff is extremely concerned that there are some households with children at the Castro encampment. This areas continues to have extreme dumping and blight challenges. Not all of the dumping is generated by the residents there, but from illegal dumpers that use the site as a place to discard unwanted items. Complaints are also being received about the impact the encampment on the use of the Bay Trail segment and potential hazards the encampment vehicles driving on the Bay Trail to users of the trail. There are well over 100 people at the last count at Castro and 27 people have been placed into housing through CORE and HCEB.
Castro has developed a culture of criminal activity that discourages people from feeling safe to take resources. The neighborhood remains in opposition of having the encampment there.
Funding
The City, with support from HTA, submitted an encampment resolution grant application for Castro. City staff anticipates hearing back regarding our application in March/April. It is a 2-year grant with the bulk of the work frontloaded into year 1.
Funds were also awarded by Chevron to the Richmond Community Foundation to add a social worker to the CORE team to expand the support services for the unhoused.
State Budget
On January 10, 2022, Governor Newsom released his budget proposal for the 2022-2023 fiscal year, called the California Blueprint. Below is a high -level overview of proposed expenditures related to the unhoused.
Homelessness ($2 billion total)
o $1.5 billion: solutions to get people off the streets and into shelters/treatment o $500 million: encampments resolution (up from $50M in FY 21-22) o $10 million: Returning Home Well
In the course of his remarks, Governor Newsom spent significant time emphasizing interim housing and the need to get people out of encampments, local accountability for outcomes and "leaning into conservatorship" reform to help people who are not able to make decisions to help themselves. When asked about specifics he indicated that those would be provided to the Legislature in the weeks ahead. Notably missing was any additional funds for rental assistance beyond what the U.S. Treasury has provided through the COVID-19 Emergency Rental Assistance Program. CA recently requested an additional $1.9B from U.S. Treasury and was informed last week that it can only expect $62M, which is far short of the remaining unmet need for rental arrearage in the state. Governor Newsom committed to ongoing advocacy to secure additional federal
(January 25, 2022)
funds, even though CA has already received 30% of the reallocated funds recouped from other parts of the country that failed to use or didn't need them. If no further federal funds are made available, this may be an issue that will be addressed in the May revise. However, by March 31, 2022, all state protections related to tenants awaiting rental assistance will have expired.
Health and Behavioral Health
o Universal Healthcare Coverage by 2024 regardless of age or immigration status o Community-based mobile crisis intervention resources - $1.4B o Stabilization and diversion for people with severe mental illness - $571M o CalAIM reform - $2.8B - coupled with last year's investment of $1.2B, CA will be reforming the entire approach. In this section the Governor spoke about "achieving true Whole Person Care." There were no details provided today, but the implementation of this reform package will be critical to an adequate response at scale for those who are chronically homeless.
Housing ($2 billion total)
Governor Newsom mentioned that investments will focus on incentives for density near jobs, schools, parks and transit/infill development that is both sustainable and reduces sprawl that could overlap with areas of the state susceptible to wildfire. o Sustainable Housing Developments
$500 million: Infill Infrastructure Grant Program ($225 million in 2022 -23, and $275 million in 2023-24)
$300 million: Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities ($75 million in 2022-23, and $225 million in 2023-24)
$100 million: State excess sites development
$100 million: adaptive reuse incentive grants
o Affordable housing
$200 million ($50 million in 2022 -23, and $150 million in 2023 -24): Mixed - income housing development loans
$200 million: portfolio reinvestment program
$100 million: mobile home park rehabilitation
The State budget is anticipated to provide more funding targeted toward supporting the unhoused to transition from encampments to interim and permanent housing options.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is seeking input from the City Council regarding next steps pertaining to the unhoused to enable appropriate coordination with local community based organization and Contra Costa County. This is the first of a series of presentations staff will be bringing forward to the City Council to provide an update on unhoused interventions and homelessness prevention activities in the City. A summary of the expenditures and contract compliance for funds expended by the City is in progress and will be forthcoming in the near term. Staff will be providing additional reports and input sessions with the City Council.