Agenda — Richmond City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 2 of 4)

Category Field 1 23456 Total
Total Population 18,640 20,201 19,593 20,525 18,926 18,905 116,790 Population Deviation -825 736 128 1,060 -539 -560 1,885 Pct. Deviation -4.24% 3.78% 0.66% 5.45% -2.77% -2.88% 9.68% Hispanic/Latino 36% 47% 24% 61% 73% 25% 45%
NH White 20% 21% 26% 6% 5% 20% 16%
NH Black 19% 11% 24% 24% 14% 25% 20%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 23% 18% 22% 7% 7% 26% 17%
NH Native Amer. 0% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1%
Total 10,930 11,341 12,549 9,411 7,371 13,093 64,696
Hisp 21% 27% 14% 33% 53% 19% 26%
NH White 33% 32% 30% 11% 9% 28% 25%
NH Black 25% 20% 36% 43% 23% 24% 29%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 19% 19% 18% 11% 14% 27% 19%
Native Amer. 1% 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1%
Total 8,547 10,480 11,502 8,866 6,989 12,357 58,741
Latino est. 20% 31% 14% 33% 52% 19% 26%
Spanish-Surnamed 19% 29% 13% 30% 48% 17% 24%
Asian-Surnamed 10% 7% 9% 2% 3% 10% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
NH White est. 42% 41% 41% 12% 11% 39% 34%
NH Black 25% 19% 34% 51% 32% 30% 31%
Total 6,708 8,309 9,149 5,711 4,505 10,054 44,436
Latino est. 18% 30% 14% 33% 54% 18% 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 17% 28% 13% 31% 50% 17% 23%
Asian-Surnamed 10% 7% 9% 2% 3% 10% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 3% 2% 2% 1% 1% 3% 2%
NH White est. 42% 41% 41% 12% 11% 39% 34%
NH Black 25% 19% 34% 51% 32% 30% 31%
Total 4,606 5,877 6,707 3,541 2,665 7,083 30,479
Latino est. 14% 26% 11% 28% 50% 16% 21%
Spanish-Surnamed 14% 25% 10% 27% 48% 15% 20%
Asian-Surnamed 8% 6% 7% 2% 2% 8% 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 2% 1% 1% 1% 2% 3% 2%
NH White est. 49% 44% 45% 13% 11% 42% 38%
NH Black est. 24% 20% 34% 53% 33% 30% 31%
age0-19 23% 23% 21% 30% 31% 20% 25%
age20-60 58% 58% 59% 55% 58% 54% 57%
age60plus 19% 19% 20% 16% 11% 26% 18%
immigrants 33% 38% 29% 38% 43% 28% 35%
naturalized 46% 40% 46% 33% 29% 66% 42%
english 47% 45% 63% 38% 22% 57% 46%
spanish 33% 39% 18% 50% 69% 20% 38%
asian-lang 13% 10% 11% 9% 7% 13% 11%
other lang 7% 6% 8% 3% 2% 10% 6%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than
Very Well" 22% 26% 14% 25% 39% 16% 23%
hs-grad 39% 43% 41% 48% 40% 43% 42%
bachelor 20% 18% 22% 12% 9% 24% 18%
graduatedegree 13% 10% 16% 3% 3% 11% 10%
Child in Household child-under18 34% 33% 26% 43% 51% 28% 35% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 66% 72% 67% 62% 68% 63% 66% income 0-25k 12% 16% 18% 25% 13% 13% 16%
income 25-50k 18% 14% 20% 25% 31% 17% 20%
income 50-75k 16% 17% 16% 18% 23% 15% 17%
income 75-200k 44% 47% 38% 30% 31% 47% 40%
income 200k-plus 10% 6% 8% 2% 2% 9% 7%
single family 60% 82% 56% 62% 71% 72% 67%
multi-family 40% 18% 44% 38% 29% 28% 33%
rented 53% 42% 53% 65% 58% 36% 50%
owned 47% 58% 47% 35% 42% 64% 50%
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
Immigration
Age
Language spoken at
home
City of Richmond - Map 105
2020 Census
Total Pop.

Citizen Voting Age Pop
Housing Stats
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Total population data from California's adjusted 2020 Census data. Citizen Voting Age Population, Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Turnout and Registration data from California Statewide Database ("Latino" figures calculated by NDC using Census Bureau's Latino undercount by surname estimate).

Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)

Page 262 of 789 ends

2 3
1 6
5 4
580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern
Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkw
y Hilltop Dr
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Canal Blvd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
Meade S
t
Garrard Blvd
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Morton Ave
Isabel St
Coach Dr
Jacuzzi A
ve
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta RdTriangle
Ct
41s
t St
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pabl
o Da
m
Rd
Wharf St
Gar
den
Trac
t Rd
W Cutting Blvd
Sant
a Rita Rd
Berk Ave
46th St
S 58th St
30th St
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
S 50th St
Belvedere Av
e
Hinkley Ave
Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
27t
h St
3rd St6th St
Rheem Ave
Gertrude Ave
16th StLincoln Ave
33rd St
Bristlecone Dr
123
Club Ln
25th St
Key Blvd
Fran Way
Andrade Ave
Tulare Ave
12th St
Da Villa
19th St
7th St
Jerilynn Ave
Regatta Blvd
36th St
Brookside Dr
Grays Cir
S 47th St
Sonoma St
S 15th St
44th St21s
t StFactory St
S 23rd St
Market Ave
Ells S
t
S 56th St
Waverly Dr
Maine Ave
Pine Ave
S 27th St
Griffin Dr
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
Map 106
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
106
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER
Not Pop Balanced
Not Contiguous

Page 263 of 789 ends

Demographics not available for maps that are
non-contiguous or not population balanced.

Page 264 of 789 ends

6 5
3 1
4 2
580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkwy Hilltop DrMarkovich Ln
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Canal Blvd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
Meade St
Garrard Blvd
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Morton Ave
Isabel St
Taft Ave
31st St
Coach Dr
34th St
Jacuzzi Ave
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta Rd
39th St
Triangle Ct
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pablo Dam
Rd
Garden Tract Rd
W Cutting Blvd
42nd St
Santa Rita Rd
Berk Ave
46th St
S 58th St
Banks Dr
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
28th St
Hinkley Ave
Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
3rd St6th St Key Blvd
Costa Ave
Gertrude Ave
16th St
Bristlecone Dr
123
Club Ln
25th St
Buena Vista Ave
Fran Way
12th St
Moran Ave
Da Villa
19th St
7th St
Jerilynn Ave
Regatta Blvd
Brookside Dr
Bissell Ave
Grays Cir
Sonoma St
S 15th St
22nd St
Factory St
Castilla Ave
S 23rd St
Arno Ct
Market Ave
Ells St
S 56th St
Waverly Dr
Maine Ave
24th St
Bush AveS 29th St
Hill Ave
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
Map 106b
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
106b
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER

Page 265 of 789 ends

Category Field 1 23456 Total
Total Population 19,606 19,914 19,651 19,609 18,046 19,964 116,790 Population Deviation 141 449 186 144 -1,419 499 1,918
Pct. Deviation 0.72% 2.31% 0.96% 0.74% -7.29% 2.56% 9.85% Hispanic/Latino 68% 69% 45% 24% 25% 35% 45%
NH White 5% 9% 11% 36% 27% 10% 16%
NH Black 20% 9% 30% 15% 16% 28% 20%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 5% 11% 12% 22% 29% 25% 17%
NH Native Amer. 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% 0% 1%
Total 7,950 9,262 10,925 12,277 12,667 11,614 64,696
Hisp 41% 46% 21% 14% 20% 23% 26%
NH White 10% 18% 16% 45% 37% 17% 25%
NH Black 35% 19% 49% 22% 15% 33% 29%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 11% 16% 13% 18% 27% 23% 19%
Native Amer. 1% 1% 2% 1% 0% 1% 1%
Total 7,721 8,255 9,950 12,101 11,813 8,901 58,741
Latino est. 39% 50% 24% 13% 18% 24% 26%
Spanish-Surnamed 36% 46% 23% 12% 17% 22% 24%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 4% 9% 11% 11% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2%
NH White est. 11% 24% 19% 55% 50% 20% 34%
NH Black 46% 20% 50% 21% 18% 43% 31%
Total 4,796 5,991 6,965 10,144 9,857 6,683 44,436
Latino est. 40% 49% 25% 12% 18% 23% 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 37% 46% 24% 12% 16% 21% 23%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 5% 4% 9% 11% 11% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 2% 1% 2% 3% 3% 2%
NH White est. 11% 24% 19% 55% 50% 20% 34%
NH Black 46% 20% 50% 21% 18% 43% 31%
Total 2,903 3,825 4,681 7,625 7,359 4,086 30,479
Latino est. 33% 45% 21% 10% 16% 20% 21%
Spanish-Surnamed 32% 43% 20% 10% 15% 19% 20%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 4% 3% 7% 9% 8% 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 2% 2%
NH White est. 13% 26% 20% 59% 53% 22% 38%
NH Black est. 49% 21% 52% 20% 19% 47% 31%
age0-19 31% 28% 27% 18% 20% 24% 25%
age20-60 55% 58% 57% 59% 54% 59% 57%
age60plus 14% 15% 16% 23% 26% 17% 18%
immigrants 42% 42% 32% 28% 28% 35% 35%
naturalized 28% 34% 36% 49% 62% 51% 42%
english 28% 29% 51% 63% 58% 45% 46%
spanish 61% 59% 38% 18% 20% 31% 38%
asian-lang 8% 9% 8% 11% 12% 15% 11%
other lang 3% 2% 4% 8% 10% 9% 6%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than
Very Well" 30% 36% 23% 13% 18% 21% 23%
hs-grad 43% 40% 51% 33% 40% 46% 42%
bachelor 9% 12% 12% 28% 26% 18% 18%
graduatedegree 2% 5% 6% 22% 13% 8% 10%
Child in Household child-under18 48% 43% 38% 23% 28% 34% 35% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63% 68% 66% 69% 67% 66% 66% income 0-25k 22% 16% 25% 14% 8% 13% 16%
income 25-50k 33% 25% 18% 17% 12% 20% 20%
income 50-75k 16% 20% 19% 16% 13% 18% 17%
income 75-200k 27% 37% 35% 40% 54% 43% 40%
income 200k-plus 2% 3% 3% 12% 11% 5% 7%
single family 65% 77% 64% 57% 86% 54% 67%
multi-family 35% 23% 36% 43% 14% 46% 33%
rented 62% 51% 60% 48% 26% 59% 50%
owned 38% 49% 40% 52% 74% 41% 50%
Housing Stats
Voter Registration (Nov
2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Total population data from California's adjusted 2020 Census data. Citizen Voting Age Population, Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. Turnout and Registration data from California Statewide Database ("Latino" figures calculated by NDC using Census Bureau's Latino undercount by surname estimate).

Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
Immigration
Age
Language spoken at
home
City of Richmond - Map 106b
2020 Census
Total Pop.

Citizen Voting Age Pop

Page 266 of 789 ends

2 4
6 3
1 5
580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern
Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkw
y Hilltop DrMarkovich Ln
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr
W Ohio Ave
Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
Canal Blvd
Meade S
t
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Carlson Blvd
Morton Ave
Isabel St
Taft Ave
Coach Dr
Jacuzzi A
ve
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta Rd
Gar
rard B
lvd
Triangle
Ct
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pabl
o Da
m
Rd
Wharf St
Gar
den
Trac
t Rd
W Cutting Blvd
Sant
a Rita Rd
46th St
S 58th St
30th St
Banks Dr
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
Belvedere Av
e
Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
27t
h St
Rheem Ave
Key Blvd
Gertrude Ave
16th StLincoln Ave
Bristlecone Dr
123
W
ilson Ave
Club Ln
State Ave
25th St
7th St
Fran Way
Andrade Ave
Potrero Ave
12th St
Moran Ave
Ohio Ave
Da Villa
19th St
Jerilynn Ave
B St
Regatta Blvd
33r
d St
Brookside Dr
Grays Cir
Sonoma St
National Ct
21s
t StFactory St
Beck St
Market Ave
Ells S
t
S 56th St
Waverly Dr
Bush Ave
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
Map 107
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
107
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER
Not Pop Balanced
Not Contiguous

Page 267 of 789 ends

Demographics not available for maps that are
non-contiguous or not population balanced.

Page 268 of 789 ends

2 1 6
3 5
4 580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkwy Hilltop DrMarkovich Ln
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Canal Blvd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr
W Ohio Ave
Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Morton Ave
Isabel St
Taft Ave
31st St
Coach Dr
Jacuzzi Ave
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta Rd
Gar
rard Blvd
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pablo Dam
Rd
Wharf St
Monterey St
Garden Tract Rd
W Cutting Blvd
Santa Rita Rd
Berk Ave
S 58th St
Banks Dr
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
S 31st St
Belvedere Ave
28th St Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
6th St
Rheem Ave
Key Blvd
Duboce Ave
Coalinga Ave
16th StEsmond Ave
Bristlecone Dr
123
W
ilson Ave
Club Ln
33rd St
25th St
Bissell Way
Fran Way
Moran Ave
Ohio Ave
Da Villa
Jerilynn Ave
B St
20th St
Brookside Dr
Grays Cir
Sonoma St
Cypress Ave
S 15th St
S 22nd St
S 19th St
S 12th St
National Ct
Chesley Ave
Castilla Ave
Market Ave
Waverly Dr
Southwind Cir
Bush Ave
Sea Shell Dr
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
37th St
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
S 56th St
NDC 201
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
201
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER

Page 269 of 789 ends

Category Field 1 23456 Total
Total Population 19,495 18,741 20,175 19,464 19,675 19,240 116,790 Population Deviation 30 -724 710 -1 210 -225 1,434
Pct. Deviation 0.15% -3.72% 3.65% -0.01% 1.08% -1.16% 7.37% Hispanic/Latino 73% 37% 61% 24% 24% 47% 45%
NH White 5% 19% 7% 20% 26% 21% 16%
NH Black 13% 19% 24% 25% 25% 11% 20%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 7% 21% 7% 27% 22% 19% 17%
NH Native Amer. 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total 7,712 10,628 9,656 13,706 12,152 10,841 64,696
Hisp 53% 22% 33% 19% 13% 27% 26%
NH White 9% 32% 11% 28% 31% 33% 25%
NH Black 23% 27% 43% 24% 36% 20% 29%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 15% 17% 10% 28% 19% 19% 19%
Native Amer. 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Total 7,243 8,487 8,909 12,648 11,302 10,152 58,741
Latino est. 52% 21% 32% 19% 14% 30% 26%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 19% 30% 17% 13% 28% 24%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 9% 2% 11% 9% 7% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%
NH White est. 11% 41% 12% 39% 42% 42% 34%
NH Black 31% 26% 52% 30% 33% 19% 31%
Total 4,700 6,595 5,823 10,318 8,934 8,066 44,436
Latino est. 54% 19% 33% 18% 13% 29% 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 50% 18% 31% 17% 12% 27% 23%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 9% 2% 11% 9% 7% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%
NH White est. 11% 41% 12% 39% 42% 42% 34%
NH Black 31% 26% 52% 30% 33% 19% 31%
Total 2,811 4,455 3,709 7,320 6,475 5,709 30,479
Latino est. 50% 14% 28% 16% 11% 25% 21%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 14% 26% 15% 10% 24% 20%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 7% 2% 9% 8% 6% 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2%
NH White est. 12% 48% 13% 42% 46% 45% 38%
NH Black est. 32% 25% 54% 30% 32% 20% 31%
age0-19 31% 24% 29% 20% 22% 22% 25%
age20-60 58% 59% 55% 54% 58% 58% 57%
age60plus 11% 17% 16% 26% 20% 19% 18%
immigrants 43% 33% 38% 28% 29% 38% 35%
naturalized 29% 46% 32% 65% 48% 40% 42%
english 22% 47% 39% 56% 64% 46% 46%
spanish 69% 36% 50% 19% 17% 38% 38%
asian-lang 7% 11% 9% 14% 12% 10% 11%
other lang 2% 6% 3% 11% 8% 6% 6%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than
Very Well" 39% 22% 23% 17% 14% 25% 23%
hs-grad 40% 38% 49% 44% 40% 43% 42%
bachelor 9% 20% 12% 24% 22% 19% 18%
graduatedegree 3% 12% 3% 11% 16% 10% 10%
Child in Household child-under18 52% 34% 40% 29% 28% 32% 35% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 68% 66% 61% 63% 68% 72% 66% income 0-25k 13% 13% 25% 13% 18% 15% 16%
income 25-50k 31% 19% 23% 17% 20% 14% 20%
income 50-75k 23% 16% 19% 14% 16% 16% 17%
income 75-200k 31% 42% 30% 48% 38% 48% 40%
income 200k-plus 2% 10% 2% 9% 8% 7% 7%
single family 71% 54% 63% 77% 55% 82% 67%
multi-family 29% 46% 37% 23% 45% 18% 33%
rented 57% 58% 62% 32% 55% 42% 50%
owned 43% 42% 38% 68% 45% 58% 50%
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
Immigration
Age
Language spoken at
home
City of Richmond - Map 201
2020 Census
Total Pop.

Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)

Page 270 of 789 ends

2 1 6
3 5
4 580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkwy Hilltop DrMarkovich Ln
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Canal Blvd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr
W Ohio Ave
Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Morton Ave
Isabel St
Taft Ave
31st St
Coach Dr
Jacuzzi Ave
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta Rd
Gar
rard Blvd
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pablo Dam
Rd
Wharf St
Monterey St
Garden Tract Rd
W Cutting Blvd
Santa Rita Rd
Berk Ave
S 58th St
Banks Dr
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
S 31st St
Belvedere Ave
28th St Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
6th St
Rheem Ave
Key Blvd
Duboce Ave
Coalinga Ave
16th StEsmond Ave
Bristlecone Dr
123
W
ilson Ave
Club Ln
33rd St
25th St
Bissell Way
Fran Way
Moran Ave
Ohio Ave
Da Villa
Jerilynn Ave
B St
20th St
Brookside Dr
Grays Cir
Sonoma St
Cypress Ave
S 15th St
S 22nd St
S 19th St
S 12th St
National Ct
Chesley Ave
Castilla Ave
Market Ave
Waverly Dr
Southwind Cir
Bush Ave
Sea Shell Dr
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
37th St
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
S 56th St
NDC 202
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
202
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER

Page 271 of 789 ends

Category Field 1 23456 Total
Total Population 19,495 19,700 20,175 18,505 19,675 19,240 116,790 Population Deviation 30 235 710 -960 210 -225 1,670
Pct. Deviation 0.15% 1.21% 3.65% -4.93% 1.08% -1.16% 8.58% Hispanic/Latino 73% 36% 61% 25% 24% 47% 45%
NH White 5% 19% 7% 21% 26% 21% 16%
NH Black 13% 20% 24% 24% 25% 11% 20%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 7% 22% 7% 27% 22% 19% 17%
NH Native Amer. 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total 7,712 11,516 9,656 12,818 12,152 10,841 64,696
Hisp 53% 21% 33% 19% 13% 27% 26%
NH White 9% 31% 11% 28% 31% 33% 25%
NH Black 23% 27% 43% 23% 36% 20% 29%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 15% 18% 10% 27% 19% 19% 19%
Native Amer. 1% 1% 2% 0% 1% 1% 1%
Total 7,243 9,129 8,921 12,006 11,290 10,152 58,741
Latino est. 52% 21% 32% 19% 14% 30% 26%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 19% 30% 17% 13% 28% 24%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 10% 2% 11% 9% 7% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%
NH White est. 11% 40% 12% 39% 42% 42% 34%
NH Black 31% 27% 51% 29% 33% 19% 31%
Total 4,700 7,131 5,835 9,782 8,922 8,066 44,436
Latino est. 54% 18% 33% 18% 13% 29% 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 50% 17% 31% 17% 12% 27% 23%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 10% 2% 11% 9% 7% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 2% 2%
NH White est. 11% 40% 12% 39% 42% 42% 34%
NH Black 31% 27% 51% 29% 33% 19% 31%
Total 2,811 4,868 3,717 6,907 6,467 5,709 30,479
Latino est. 50% 14% 27% 16% 11% 25% 21%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 14% 26% 15% 10% 24% 20%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 8% 2% 8% 8% 6% 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 2% 2% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2%
NH White est. 12% 47% 13% 43% 46% 45% 38%
NH Black est. 32% 27% 54% 29% 32% 20% 31%
age0-19 31% 24% 29% 20% 22% 22% 25%
age20-60 58% 58% 55% 54% 58% 58% 57%
age60plus 11% 18% 16% 26% 20% 19% 18%
immigrants 43% 33% 38% 28% 29% 38% 35%
naturalized 29% 46% 32% 66% 48% 40% 42%
english 22% 47% 39% 57% 64% 46% 46%
spanish 69% 34% 50% 20% 17% 38% 38%
asian-lang 7% 12% 9% 13% 12% 10% 11%
other lang 2% 7% 3% 10% 8% 6% 6%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than
Very Well" 39% 22% 23% 16% 14% 25% 23%
hs-grad 40% 39% 49% 43% 40% 43% 42%
bachelor 9% 19% 12% 25% 22% 19% 18%
graduatedegree 3% 13% 3% 11% 16% 10% 10%
Child in Household child-under18 52% 34% 40% 29% 28% 32% 35% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 68% 66% 61% 63% 68% 72% 66% income 0-25k 13% 13% 25% 13% 18% 15% 16%
income 25-50k 31% 19% 23% 16% 20% 14% 20%
income 50-75k 23% 16% 19% 15% 16% 16% 17%
income 75-200k 31% 43% 30% 47% 38% 48% 40%
income 200k-plus 2% 10% 2% 9% 8% 7% 7%
single family 71% 59% 63% 74% 55% 82% 67%
multi-family 29% 41% 37% 26% 45% 18% 33%
rented 57% 54% 62% 34% 55% 42% 50%
owned 43% 46% 38% 66% 45% 58% 50%
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
Immigration
Age
Language spoken at
home
City of Richmond - Map 202
2020 Census
Total Pop.

Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)

Page 272 of 789 ends

2 1 6
3 4
5 580
580
80 Fire Trl No 3
Ri
chm
ond Ln
Fire Trl 4
Fire Trl 5
W
estern Dr
Clark-Boas Trl
Nim
itz W
ay
Richmond Pkwy Hilltop DrMarkovich Ln
Duarte Trl
N Castro St
Giant Hwy
Morningside DrCampus Dr
Atlas Rd
Castro
St
Gateview Cir
S Harbor W
ay
Mozart Dr
W Ohio Ave
Carriage Dr
Park Central
Dornan Dr
Nelson Dr
Canal Blvd
Meade St
S 14th St
Blum
e Dr
Lakeshore Ct
Meeker Ave
Carlson Blvd
Isabel St
Taft Ave
Coach Dr
Jacuzzi Ave
Ocean Ave
la Cresenta Rd
39th St
Gar
rard Blvd
Fascination CirMoyers Rd
Vista Heights Rd
San Pablo Dam
Rd
Wharf St
Garden Tract Rd
W Cutting Blvd
42nd St
Santa Rita Rd
46th St
S 58th St
Banks Dr
Park Ave
Castro Ranch Rd
Belvedere Ave
Kern St
Lakeside Dr
Brookwood Ln
Fieldcrest Dr
6th St
Rheem Ave
Key Blvd
Duboce Ave
Coalinga Ave
16th StEsmond Ave
Bristlecone Dr
123
Club Ln
31st St
State Ave
25th St
Bissell Way
Fran Way
Tulare Ave
Potrero Ave
Ohio Ave
Da Villa
Jerilynn Ave
B St
20th St
Regatta Blvd
Brookside Dr
Grays Cir
Sonoma St
S 12th St
National Ct
Chesley Ave
Beck St
Market Ave
Ells St
S 56th St
Waverly Dr
Pine Ave
San Mateo St
Wildcat Canyon Rd
Diane Dr
Tri Ln
Rd 20
NDC 203
City of Richmond
2021 Redistricting
National Demograpics Corporation January 18, 2022
Map layers
203
Elementary Schools
Secondary Schools
Landmark Point
Landmark Area
Water Area
Railroad
River
Streets
©2021 CALIPER

Page 273 of 789 ends

Category Field 1 23456 Total
Total Population 19,495 20,168 19,440 19,233 19,534 18,920 116,790 Population Deviation 30 703 -25 -232 69 -545 1,248
Pct. Deviation 0.15% 3.61% -0.13% -1.19% 0.35% -2.80% 6.41% Hispanic/Latino 73% 35% 46% 26% 35% 52% 45%
NH White 5% 10% 9% 27% 34% 14% 16%
NH Black 13% 28% 31% 15% 11% 19% 20%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 7% 25% 11% 28% 17% 13% 17%
NH Native Amer. 0% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1% 1%
Total 7,712 11,766 10,423 13,353 11,697 9,745 64,696
Hisp 53% 23% 23% 20% 19% 28% 26%
NH White 9% 17% 12% 37% 46% 22% 25%
NH Black 23% 33% 50% 16% 19% 34% 29%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 15% 23% 13% 27% 16% 14% 19%
Native Amer. 1% 1% 0% 0% 2% 1% 1%
Total 7,243 9,032 9,082 12,389 11,489 9,506 58,741
Latino est. 52% 24% 22% 19% 18% 32% 26%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 22% 21% 18% 17% 29% 24%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 11% 4% 11% 8% 5% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2%
NH White est. 11% 20% 15% 49% 56% 27% 34%
NH Black 31% 43% 56% 18% 18% 34% 31%
Total 4,700 6,785 5,971 10,310 9,507 7,163 44,436
Latino est. 54% 23% 23% 18% 15% 31% 25%
Spanish-Surnamed 50% 21% 21% 17% 15% 30% 23%
Asian-Surnamed 3% 11% 4% 11% 8% 5% 8%
Filipino-Surnamed 1% 3% 1% 3% 2% 1% 2%
NH White est. 11% 20% 15% 49% 56% 27% 34%
NH Black 31% 43% 56% 18% 18% 34% 31%
Total 2,811 4,155 3,910 7,662 7,121 4,820 30,479
Latino est. 50% 20% 18% 16% 12% 28% 21%
Spanish-Surnamed 48% 19% 17% 15% 12% 27% 20%
Asian-Surnamed 2% 8% 4% 9% 7% 4% 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% 2%
NH White est. 12% 22% 17% 52% 60% 29% 38%
NH Black est. 32% 47% 58% 19% 17% 35% 31%
age0-19 31% 24% 29% 20% 20% 25% 25%
age20-60 58% 59% 55% 55% 58% 58% 57%
age60plus 11% 17% 17% 26% 22% 17% 18%
immigrants 43% 35% 33% 29% 30% 39% 35%
naturalized 29% 51% 38% 60% 42% 35% 42%
english 22% 45% 54% 57% 51% 43% 46%
spanish 69% 31% 31% 20% 32% 45% 38%
asian-lang 7% 15% 7% 12% 12% 8% 11%
other lang 2% 9% 7% 11% 5% 3% 6%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than
Very Well" 39% 21% 19% 18% 18% 25% 23%
hs-grad 40% 46% 50% 40% 33% 47% 42%
bachelor 9% 18% 13% 27% 25% 13% 18%
graduatedegree 3% 8% 6% 13% 19% 7% 10%
Child in Household child-under18 52% 34% 41% 28% 25% 35% 35% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 68% 66% 65% 67% 66% 66% 66% income 0-25k 13% 13% 22% 9% 16% 24% 16%
income 25-50k 31% 20% 25% 13% 20% 16% 20%
income 50-75k 23% 18% 18% 13% 14% 18% 17%
income 75-200k 31% 44% 31% 55% 39% 38% 40%
income 200k-plus 2% 5% 4% 11% 11% 4% 7%
single family 71% 55% 59% 86% 60% 71% 67%
multi-family 29% 45% 41% 14% 40% 29% 33%
rented 57% 58% 68% 27% 45% 52% 50%
owned 43% 42% 32% 73% 55% 48% 50%
Household Income
Education (among those
age 25+)
Immigration
Age
Language spoken at
home
City of Richmond - Map 203
2020 Census
Total Pop.

Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)

Page 274 of 789 ends

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, February 1, 2022, at the hour of 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a public hearing via Zoom to consider the following item:

Discuss the draft maps; discuss the election sequence; and select a map of voting district boundaries as part of the City’s requirement to redistrict the City after the release of the 2020 census data.

At the public hearing described in this notice, the City Council may receive staff presentations regarding the draft district maps, discuss the draft maps, and potentially eliminate some of the draft maps from further consideration.

All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this matter.

Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk via email at [email protected] at any time prior to the hearing scheduled herein or by mail: City Hall, 450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor, Richmond, 94804. Mailed statements must be received by 1 p.m. the day of the hearing. Oral statements may be made at said hearing via Zoom:
https://zoom.us/j/99312205643?pwd=MDdqNnRmS2k4ZkRTOWhlUldQOUF1Zz09 Passcode: ccmeeting
See published agenda for other ways to participate. Spanish translation services will be available at all redistricting public hearings. Translation for other languages may be available upon request prior to the day of the hearing.

By Order of the Richmond City Council:

Pamela Christian
City Clerk

Dated: January 19, 2022
Published: January 22, and January 29, 2022

AVISO: Para obtener ayuda interpretativa con esta noticia, por favor llame a la oficina de la Secretaria Municipal, al (510) 620-6513.

Page 275 of 789 ends

How to get involved??
visit:
www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Redistricting
Share your specific thoughts now, draw a
map or attend a public hearing!
Send comments and draft maps to:
[email protected]
For more information, visit:
www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Redistricting (510) 620-6513, ext. 9 The City Council will be holding the final
two post-draft public hearings on January
18 and February 1, 2022, at 7 p.m.

Due to COVID-19, this may be a virtual
event.

Spanish Translation will be available!
The City of Richmond is Redistricting after
the 2020 Census count in time for the
November 2022 Election
City Council Redistricting!!

Page 276 of 789 ends

¿Como participar?Visite:www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Redistricting ¡¡Cambio de distritos del
Concejo Municipal!!

Para mas informacion, visite:
www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Redistricting (510) 620-6513, ext. 9 Comparta sus ideas especificas ahora,
dibuje un mapa, o participe en una
audiencia pública! Envíe comentarios y
mapas preliminares a:
[email protected]

La Ciudad de Richmond está cambiando los
distritos de la ciudad debido al Censo del 2020
para la Elección de noviembre 2022.

El Concejo Municipal de la Ciudad de Richmond
tendrá las dos últimas audiencias públicas
posteriores al mapa preliminar, el 18 de enero y 1
de febrero, 2022, a las 7 p.m. Debido a COVID-19,
esto puede ser un evento virtual.

Traducción en español estará disponible.

Page 277 of 789 ends

www.ci.richmond.ca.us/Redistricting

JOIN THE

CONVERSATION
Redistricting determines which
neighborhood and communities are
grouped together into a district for
purposes of electing a
councilmember.

UNASE A LA
CONVERSACIÓN
La redistribución de distritos
determina qué vecindarios y
comunidades se agrupan en un
distrito con el propósito de elegir
un concejal.

Page 278 of 789 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

Community Development

DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:
(List all relevant/responsive staff
persons)
Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Hector Lopez, Senior Planner
Subject:
(This will appear on the agenda)
Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of a
conditional use permit and design review (PLN20-043)
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no costs to the general fund associated with these actions.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
(List all dates items were heard or
council action took place)
December 2, 2021 , January 11, 2022 , and January 18,
2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

On October 18, 2021, an appeal was filed by Claire
Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson, property owners of
360 Western Drive, objecting to the Planning
Commission’s conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN20 -043) to construct a
two-story, single-family residence on a va cant parcel , within the RL1 zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district, at 357 Western Drive.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:
(This will appear on the agenda)
ADOPT a Resolution Denying the Appeal and Affirming
the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of a
Conditional Use Permit and Design Review, to construct a single-family residence on a vacant parcel located within the RL1 zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district at 357 Western Drive – Community Development
Department (Lina Velasco 510-620-6706). This item was
continued from the December 7 , 2021 , January 11 ,
2022, and January 18, 2022 meetings. The public
AGENDA
REPORT

Page 279 of 789 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

hearing is closed on this item; for council discussion
and resolution only.

DISCUSSION:

On October 18, 2021, an appeal (see Attachment 4) was filed by Claire Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson, property owners of 360 Western Drive, objecting to the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN20-043) to construct a two-story, single-family residence on a vacant parcel, within the RL1 Zoning district and -S, Shoreline overlay district, at 357 Western Drive.

Project Description:

The subject property (“project site”) is a 6,000 square foot parcel located on Western Drive, between Santa Fe Avenue and Casey Drive in the Point Richmond neighborhood.

The L-shaped parcel was created through a subdivision with the abutting parcel to the north approved by the City Council in 2009. The Planning Commission and City Council on appeal approved a parcel map, with conditions requiring the future residence on the subject lot be visually compatible with surrounding buildings. In addition, the parcel map was conditioned to provide two visual co rridors to maintain views of the San Francisco Bay and restricting building heights and window placement (see Resolution No.128-09)

The proposed project is a 2,340 square foot, two -story structure, consisting of three bedrooms, three bathrooms, and a 440 square foot, two-car garage to be constructed on a vacant 6,000 square foot parcel (see Project Plans in Attachment 2).

Page 280 of 789 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

Zoning Analysis:

The proposed residential use requires a conditional use permit since the project site is located within the -S, Shoreline Overlay zone. In addition, a two -story structure requires major Design Review by the Design Review Board (DRB). When multiple applicat ions that require public hearings are filed for the same projects, all issues are to be heard together by the review authority with the most authority, and other review bodies shall provide recommendations to that review authority unless more specific proc edures for a specific application or procedure are prescribed. Therefore, the DRB’s review was in the form of a recommendation to the Planning Commission.

Design Review Board Recommendation: On November 18, 2020, the DRB held a public hearing to conside r a recommendation on the project design to the Planning Commission. The DRB and staff recommended that the applicant make additional changes and return to the DRB for a recommendation at a future meeting. During the DRB’s deliberation, the applicant state d that they did not want to make any additional changes to the design and instead requested that a vote be taken. Given that the Board wanted additional changes to be incorporated into the design to make the proposed design more compatible with surrounding structures, the DRB unanimously voted 7 -0 to recommend denial of the proposed design to the Planning Commission based on the applicant’s desire to not make additional design changes and provide additional exhibits.

Planning Commission Review: On February 4, April 1, September 16, and October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission held public hearings to consider the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the proposed project. During the hearing, several neighbors expressed their opposition to the proposed design. The neighbors expressed that modifying the butterfly roof to be a flat roof would reduce the height and massing of the structure.

The Planning Commission suggested the applicant work with staff and consult with members of the Design Review Board. It was recommended that the applicant return to a future meeting with additional exhibits, demonstrating the potential Bay views from the street. The applicant met with two Design Review Board members for input and subsequently revised the ir project plans and provided the additional exhibits requested by the Planning Commission.

At the September 16, 2021 meeting, the applicant stated that the project design had already been modified to reduce the height and address the comments originally expressed by the DRB, including removal of a roof deck proposed at the rear of the structure.

During its deliberations, the Planning Commission expressed that a compromise between the desires of the applicant and the neighbors was appropriate. The Planning Commission directed staff come back at a future meeting with d raft findings and conditions fo r approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review with the following modifications:

Page 281 of 789 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

1. The design of the roof be modified to decrease the slope of the butterfly roof and/or ceiling height to reduce the overall height.

2. The metal roofing material be coated to ensure it is non-reflective.

3. A green wall or landscaping be incorporated on the north elevation to reduce the massing and bulk of the building.

During the October 7, 2021 Planning Commission meeting, the applicant presented a n alternative design of the proposed butterfly roof. The Planning Commission found that the alternative design met the intent of a modified roof design that resulted in an overall height reduction. The Planning Commission ultimately determined there was sufficient grounds to make the required findings and approve the project.

APPEAL ACTION:

Pursuant to Section 15.04.803.140.E of the Zoning Ordinance, t he City Council determines whether an underlying decision is supported by substantial evidence and/or constitutes an abuse of discretion. The same standards and evaluation criteria, including the findings required, apply as they were for the original application. The appellate body's review is limited to the issue(s) raised in the petition for the appeal.

The City Council may affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. When a decision is modified or reversed, the City Council must state the specific reasons for modification or reversal. The City Council may also choose to refer a matter back to the Planning Commission or Design Review Board for further consideration and a decision if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal, which may include substantial changes to the original proposal.

BASIS OF APPEAL:

The appeal letter (see Attachment 4) submitted by Claire Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson (“Appellants”) asserts the Planning Commission decision was in error because the process lacked information presented to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission to make an informed decision.

Staff’s Response to Issues Raised in the Appeal:

Pursuant to Section 15.04.803.050 of the Zoning Ordinance, when multiple applications that require a public hearing are filed for the same project, all issues shall be heard together by the review authori ty with the most authority, and other review bodies shall provide recommendations to that review authority. If a project requires design review, and a conditional use permit, the Design Review Board shall make a recommendation to the Planning Commission. I n this case, the DRB unanimously voted 7 -0 to recommend denial of the proposed design to the Planning Commission based on the applicant’s desire to not make additional design changes requested by the DRB to enable the DRB to make certain required Design Review findings. Following the DRB meeting, the applicant agreed to make additional design changes requested by the Planning Commission to address concerns and comments raised to support making the required design review findings to approve the project.

Page 282 of 789 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

With respect to the Planning Commission direction to the applicant to work with staff and consult with members of the Design Review Board, it is not a violation of due process.

The DRB members asked to work with the applicant were primarily focused on making sure the applicant provided accurate and complete exhibits for Planning Commission review.

The applicant made some modifications to the project and provided additional exhibits demonstrating the impact of proposed project on Bay views from Western Drive. Based on the new information provided at or prior to the meeting held on October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission conditionally approved the project. With respect to the question of whether it was a late submission, the Planning Commission considered that it was a minor change meeting the intent for a modified roof with a lower slope. All exhibits provided during the meeting were adequate to determine the impact of Bay views from the street as required by the Shoreline Overlay District. Given the to pography of the site and the surrounding, the street intersection of Casey Drive and Western Drive will be partially affected. This is the main view down the street to the north. Portion of this view from this angle will be preserved due to the neighboring buildings being located at a much lower elevation. In front of the property, the new building will block the left side view, but the view of the Bay will be retained on the right side since the abutting buildings are located at a lower elevation.

It appears that existing Bay views from the home located across the street at 360 Western Drive will be partially blocked and the nearby homes across the street may not be affected since they are at higher elevations.

With respect to the issue that the property is not adequately served by public facilities and services, such as water, sewer, and other public facilities, it is uncertain at this time. There is a moratorium for parcels located within the tributary of the Keller Beach line; this issue is discussed later in this report.

In staff’s opinion, there were no abuse of discretion by the Planning Commission since the Design Review Board decision was only a recommendation and ultimately many of the design comments requested by the DRB were eventually integrated into the final project design.

City Council Public Hearing on Appeal

On December 7, 2021, the City Council held a public hearing regarding the appeal.

Several comments were raised regarding sewer service to the proposed project given concerns were raised about the ability of the project to connect to the Keller Beach Sewer System (KBSS) due to the degraded condition of the line. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council directed staff to return to the meeting on January 11, 2022 on ce issues related to the potential moratorium on connections to the KBSS were considered.

The item was continued to January 18, and again to February 1 awaiting consideration of an urgency moratorium related to the KBSS.

Page 283 of 789 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

On January 18, 2022, the City Council adopted an urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on the issuance of building permits for projects that would require new sewer connections to the KBSS. The moratorium is also anticipated to be extended beyond the original 45-day period, possibly up to 2 years, should the Public Works Department and City Council find that the imminent threat to the health and safety has not been abated.

The moratorium adopted by the City Council does allow projects to be approved that require new connection s; however, building permits cannot be issued until options for connecting to the City sewer system are identified that do no further impact the KBSS.

The capacity to serve the property exists at the City’s water treatment plant, and therefore, the requir ed use permit finding regarding there being adequate utilities and public services to serve the site of the proposed use can be made. However, building permits requiring sewer connections to KBSS cannot be issued until the moratorium is lifted or an alternative design for the extension of a sewer main to an alternative segment is approved pursuant to Section 5(b) of the moratorium. Further, under Section 6 of the moratorium, any City entitlement approvals that are impacted by the moratorium will be tolled for the period that the moratorium is in place.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends the Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s conditional approval of the project. The project complies with the RL-1, Single-family Very Low Density Residential District regulations and is consistent with the Hillside Residential land use designation under the General Plan. The revised design represents a significant improvement and rel ates well to the surrounding buildings in the neighborhood. The revised design approved by the Planning Commission addressed many of the concerns raised by the public comments, including reducing the overall building height and slope of the butterfly roof.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1: Resolution Denying the Appeal and Upholding the Planning Commission’s conditional approval
Attachment 2: PC Resolution No.21-17 and Project Plan
Attachment 3: PC Resolution No.128-09
Attachment 4: Appeal letter from neighbor at 360 Western Drive Attachment 5: Supplemental Letter Submitted by Appellant on January 10, 2022

Page 284 of 789 ends

1 RESOLUTION NO. 21-X

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMON D DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING T HE PLANNING COMMISSIO N’S CONDITIONAL APPROVAL

OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUC T A SINGLE-

FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A VAC ANT PARCEL WITHIN THE -S, SHORELINE OVERLAY ZONE, AT 357 WESTERN DRIVE (PLN20-043).

WHEREAS, Rudi Garbelmann ( the “applicant”) requests approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for th e construct ion of a single-family residence (“Project”) at 357 Western Drive (APN: 558-185-006) (“subject site”) within the -S, Shoreline Overlay Zone; and WHEREAS, on October 7, 2021, at a publ ic hearing the Planning Commission reviewed the Project and voted to approve the Conditional Use Permit and D esign Review, subject to conditions to be incorporated in the attached plans (Exhibit A) ; and

WHEREAS, on October 18, 2021, an appeal was filed by Claire Arbour, Simon Winer, and Ron Elson , property owner s surrounding the project site, objecting to the Planning Commission approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review (PLN20-043).

WHEREAS , on December 7 , 2021 , the City C ouncil conducted a prop erly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code S ection 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during th e hearing, including the staff report ; and

WHEREAS, the proposed projects is categorically exempt under Section 153 03(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA ): In urbanized areas, up to three single -family residences may be constructed under this exemption.

WHEREAS, on the basis of the application , plans, materials and te stimony received at or befor e the p ublic hearing, the City Council makes the following findings, with supportin g statements of fact, regarding the a pplication consistency, as required by Section 15.04.805.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance, for approval of the Major Design Review:

A. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential, and the zoning designation is RL1 with an –S, Shoreline Overlay District (which i s the area within the 100-foot shoreli ne band) . The proposed project complies with General Plan Policy LU4.I, which encourages protecting, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline, including being harmonious with the site’s surrounding.

B. Any applicable design guidelines;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Not Applicable. There are no applicable design guidelines in this neighborhood.

Page 285 of 789 ends

2 Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission fo r the prop osed residence. The project also observes the view corridor conditions on the parcel map.

D. The design review criteria in Section 15.04.805040.

The project must satisfy these criteria to the extent they apply. Criteria Met? A. The overall design of the pro ject, including its sc ale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner.

Yes No

B. The project design evide nces a sense of place; does not overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale and heights of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.

Yes No

C. The project’s design elements, materials, signage, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and applied in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.

Yes No

D. Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.

Statement of Fact (A-F): Criteria Satisfied. The project will incorporate c onditions of approvals that will modify the roof, ensure the roofing material is non -reflective, and landscape is provided along the north elevation to reduce the mass and bulk. T hese additional change s will help to enhance the design of the new residence with the p revailing pattern of homes in this neighborhood.

WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, t he City Council makes the following findings with supporting statements of fact required by Sections 15.04.806.040 and 15.04.306.030 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance for approval of Conditional Use Permit for uses and development within an – S, Shoreline Overlay District:

A. The location of the proposed conditional use is in accordance with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and the land use designations for the project site; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential and the zon ing designation is RL1 and –S, Shoreline Overlay District (which is the area within 100 -feet of the shoreline) . The proposed project complies with General Plan Policy LU4.I, wh ich encourages protect ing, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline. Thi s includes protecting to the maximum extent feasible views of the Bay from the street for the benefit and welfare of the public. The project design is conditioned to modify massing and bulk.

Page 286 of 789 ends

3 B. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood;
Supporting Statement of Fac ts: Criterion Satisfied. Given that conditions of approv al will be incorporated, the design of the proposed residence will be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding buildings, and the design will appropriately consider the s ensitive nature of the coastal zone.

C. The proposed use will not create any nu isances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The propo sed residential use is not anticipated to generate emissio ns or off -site impacts that will affect the residential character of the coastal zone of the area. have atypical emissions since it will be designed to meet the City energy reach code and current CalGreen Building Standards.

D. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Not Satisfied. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the RL1 Zonin g District, such as se tbacks, parking requirements , lot coverage, and the –S, Shoreline Overlay District for the reason stated in Findings A and B above, as well as specified in the agenda reports.

E. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The site is accessible and adequately served by public facilities and services, including water, sewer, and streets.

WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the underlying decision by the Plan ning Commission approving the project is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED , on the b asis of the written appeal, plans, materials, agenda report, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the City Council does hereby denies the appeal and affirms the Planning Commission’s conditional use permit and design review for the Project.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I CERTIFY, that t he foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on February 1, 2022.

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

Page 287 of 789 ends

4 ABSENT:

__________________________

CITY CLERK

_____________________
Tom Butt
MAYOR

Approved as to form:

_____________________________

CITY ATTORNEY

Page 288 of 789 ends

Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 21-17

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH MODIFICATIONS (PLN20-043) TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 357 WESTERN DRIVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

WHEREAS, Rudi Garbelmann (the "applicant") filed Planning Application PLN20-043 with the City of Richmond requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling on a vacant parcel (the "proposed project" or "project") at 357 Western Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 558-185-006) (the "subject site" or "premises"); and WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review are subject to the provisions of Articles 15.04.306, 15.04.805 and 15.04.806 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a), up to three single-family residences may be constructed under this exemption; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020, the Design Review Board held a public hearing and voted to recommend denial to the Planning Commission of the design review citing their inability to make certain required Design Review findings pursuant to Section 15.04.805.050, specifically findings A, C, and D; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with the provisions of Sections 15.04.806 and 15.04.805 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance related to Conditional Use Permits and Design Review, respectively, as well as all other applicable regulations, including but not limited to Sections 15.04.306 and 15.04.201.030 of the Richmond Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, April 1, September 16, and October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted properly noticed public hearings pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, including the agenda reports; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings, with supporting statements of fact, regarding the applications consistency, as required by Section

15.04.805.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance, for approval of the Major Design Review:

A. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential, and the zoning designation is RL1 with an -S, Shoreline Overlay District (which is the area within the 100-foot shoreline band). The proposed project complies October 7, 2021 1 of6 Resolution No. 21-17

Page 289 of 789 ends

with General Plan Policy LU4.1, which encourages protecting, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline, including being harmonious with the site's surrounding.

B. Any applicable design guidelines;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Not Applicable. There are no applicable design guidelines in this neighborhood.

C. Any approved Tentative Map, Use Permit, Variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required; and
Statement of Fact: Criteria Satisfied. Pursuant to Section 15.04.306.030, a conditional use permit is required for new uses or development with the -S, Shoreline Overlay district. A Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission for the proposed residence. The project also observes the view corridor conditions on the parcel map.

D. The design review criteria in Section 15.04.805040.

The project must satisfy these criteria to the extent they apply.Criteria Met? A. The overall design of the project, including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner.

YesNo D
B. The project design evidences a sense of place; does not overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale and heights of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.

YesNo D
C. The project's design elements, materials, signage, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and applied in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.

YesNo D
Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.

YesNo
E. The proposed building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.YesNo F. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character of the buildings on site. Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, and signage.YesNo D Statement of Fact (A-F): Criteria Satisfied. The project will incorporate conditions of approvals that will modify the roof, ensure the roofing material is non-reflective, and landscape is provided along the north elevation to reduce the mass and bulk. These additional changes will help to enhance the design of the new residence with the prevailing pattern of homes in this neighborhood.

WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with supporting statements of fact required by Sections 15.04.806.040 and 15.04.306.030 of the October 7, 20212 of 6Resolution No. 21-17

Page 290 of 789 ends

Richmond Zoning Ordinance for approval of Conditional Use Permit for uses and development within an -S, Shoreline Overlay District:

A. The location of the proposed conditional use is in accordance with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and the land use designations for the project site; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential and the zoning designation is RL1 and -S, Shoreline Overlay District (which is the area within 100-feet of the shoreline). The proposed project complies with General Plan Policy LU4.1, which encourages protecting, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline. This includes protecting to the maximum extent feasible views of the Bay from the street for the benefit and welfare of the public. The project design is conditioned to modify massing and bulk.

B. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood;
Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. Given that conditions of approval will be incorporated, the design of the proposed residence will be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding buildings, and the design will appropriately consider the sensitive nature of the coastal zone.

C. The proposed use will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The proposed residential use is not anticipated to generate emissions or off-site impacts that will affect the residential character of the coastal zone of the area. have atypical emissions since it will be designed to meet the City energy reach code and current CalGreen Building Standards.

D. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and Supportina Statement of Facts: Criterion Not Satisfied. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the RL1 Zoning District, such as setbacks, parking requirements, lot coverage, and the-S, Shoreline Overlay District for the reason stated in Findings A and B above, as well as specified in the agenda reports.

E. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The site is accessible and adequately served by public facilities and services, including water, sewer, and streets.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review set forth in Exhibit A (PLN20-043), subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. Development is to be constructed in compliance with the Project Plans in Exhibit A, October 7, 2021 3of6 Resolution No. 21-17

Page 291 of 789 ends

attached, submitted to and dated August 9, 2021, by the Planning Department. Any modifications shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who shall determine whether the modification requires additional approval.

2. The design of the roof shall be modified to decrease the slope of the butterfly roof and/or ceiling heights per the revised elevation submitted on September 28, 2021 (see Attachment 1).

3. Material samples for the proposed metal roof shall be provided to ensure it is a non- reflective finish, subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Director. If the coating of the roofing material is found to be reflective, substitute roofing material shall be required.

4. The north elevation shall integrate design features or landscaping to reduce the mass and bulk of the building.

5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designed and located so that all direct light is confined to the property and is satisfactory to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. Lighting shall be indirect (up or down with alabaster lens or with alabaster color lens) with a maximum 3000K if LED.

6. Failure to abide and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this approving action shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said action by the Richmond Planning Commission.

7. Illuminated building street address numbers, as required by the Fire Department, shall be provided.

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

9. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Richmond Public Services/Engineering Department for all work within the Public right-of-way. All curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement shall conform to City of Richmond standards. Should any infrastructure be damaged or destroyed as a result of the construction of the project, the applicant shall be responsible for returning the infrastructure to an acceptable condition as determined by the City of Richmond Public Works Director.

October 7, 2021 4of6 Resolution No. 21-17

Page 292 of 789 ends

10. The applicant shall repair all damaged sidewalk, pavement, existing curb and gutter along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Director and City Engineer prior to occupancy. The applicant shall replace any damaged landscaping, improvements, or street improvements caused by the installation of utility services and construction of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning and Building Services Director.

11. All new electrical lines and connections to the site shall be under grounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning and Building Services Director.

12. Any relocation of existing improvements or public utilities shall be accomplished under the direction of the City or impacted utility company's requirement at no expense to the City or utility company

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

I CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on October 7,2021.

AYES: Commissioners Agarwal, Harrison, Huang, and Soofani NOES:

ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Brubaker
ABSENT: Chair Tucker and Vice Chair Loy
October 7, 2021 5 of 6 Resolution No. 21-17

Page 293 of 789 ends

'Tuc^i^

DAVID TUCKER

CHAIR, RICHMOND PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved as to form:

JAI^S ATENCIO

SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Exhibit A: Project Plans
Attachment 1: Building Elevation Dated September 28, 2021.

October 7, 2021 6 of 6 Resolution No. 21-17

Page 294 of 789 ends

PROJECT TEAM
OWNER

RUDI GARBELMANN
P.O. BOX 70371
RICHMOND. UM607
[email protected]
(415)636.1786

ARCHFTECT

GUNKEL ARCHTTECTURE
22?5 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELET, CA. 94702
[51D.)9B4-)])Z

NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE, RICHMOND, CA 94801

DESCRIPTION OF WORK
lUaiON OF NEW SINGLE-FAMUT DWELUNG P^TOIUES) 0

SYMBOLS
©
[NmUOR ELEVATION

DEMDUTION NOTE

IMPHOVEMENTNOTE

RNISH NOTE
®
0 m

PROJECT INFORMATION
LOTSE£ 6,000 SF
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT; 3?-C"
ACTUAL HEIGHT; IB'-) I'ATHIGH POINT ONLY, RECT OF HOUSE IS LCWEft MAX FLOOR AREA, AU.OWED: 2.BOO SF
TOTAL HJOOK AREfc U40 SF 1?TAND 2ND R.OOn + -WO EF GARAGE ^JBO SF TOTAL MAX COVERAGE Z700,-<5X
PROFOS® COVEBASE: l.»M SF, 32-;
SPRINKLERS: YES

CODE COMPLIANCE
201T CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODEtlNCOftPOStATES B'TADOPTK

CODE COUNCIL ICQ
20t? CALIFORNIA KESID&HIU.CODE-APFUES TO ONEANDTWO?M1LT HOUSE ANOTOWNHONES L£SS THAN I STOIUB IN HBGHT. (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTC THE 2019 .CODE)
'CAUFO?
CODE'
AGENCY. NFPA) • •
PLUMBING CODE WITtiCUjroRNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBUSHEDBTTHElMTERNATIONAL/iSSOOATION :1M&WMO)
2019 CALGREEN CODE -APPUES TO CEflTAIN NEW BU1LD1NC3 ONLY . AU. NEW RESIDEtfflAL BUILDINGS 3 ENERGY REPOKT.

ASSESSOR'S MAP
r- m?M&«
"'-""•ill-""™

VICINITY MAP
*>»<„

SHEET INDEX

ARCHITECTURAL

BUILSABLE AREA DIAGRAM

STTE PLAN DIAGRAM
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
•LANDSCAPE PLAN
:STTE FLAW ROOF PLAN

UNE ELEVATIONS
UNEBBWT10NS
^^
.S3-
^.0-
^<«
rt.
>

DESIGN REVIEW UPDATE
TO. I

Page 295 of 789 ends

Neighborhood Outreach & Design Review Timeline
11 meetincis over 22 months
Project Kick-off
Met with neighbors
Second Neighborhood
Council Meeting -
Project ADDroval
DRB Subcommittee
Meeting
Planning
Commission
Meeting #1
Feb Oct Nov April
DRB Subcommittee
Review Meeting
for PC
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #4
2020 2020 2021 2021
First Neighborhood
Council Meeting
DRB Study Session DRB Final
Meeting-Staff
Recommended
Approval
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #2
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #3
Improvements made along the way include:

1. Reduction in the height of the house facing neighbors during neighborhood council

2. Narrowed the foyer in front of the house facing the neighbors during DRB review

3. Reduced the pitch of the roof to make it less stark and changed reflective building materials for DRB

4. Provided additional view studies requested by the Design Review Board

5. Met with DRB subcommittee again & provided additional view studies requested by the Planning Commission

6. Removed the rooftop deck to preserve the privacy of the neighbors during PC

7. Further reduced the pitch of the roof and added a flat roof section for the PC BCDC Shoreline Overlay District Restrictions
The BCDC issued a permitto build in 2012 (permit #M1986.015.02B) with the following restrictions to accommodate neighbors' privacy and protect public views, which was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission:

1. Maximum height limited to 28ft for the first 29ft of the street-side property line

2. No windows for the first 29ft of the street-side property line

3. No rooftop deck for the first 29ft of the street-side property line

4. A larger rear setback to maintain a distance of 17ft from the cliff's edge

5. An established view corridor 5ft wide, along the southern property line

6. An established view corridor 10ft wide, along the northern property line We have followed all BCDC restrictions, and have actually lowered the house by over 6ft under the maximum allowable height to further protect neighbors' views, in addition to narrowing the footprint of the home by 6ft to provide a more expansive water view for neighbor Simon Winor across the street.

Project Revisions:

Since project kick-off in late 2019, we have met with neighbors multiple times and made numerous revisions. The home is much shorter and narrower than current standards allow and lower than previously established BCDC restrictions. We installed story poles and worked closely with our neighbors through the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council and after revisions, received unanimous approval from the Council. Compared to other homes in the neighborhood, this project is quite modest in size and celebrates the diversity of home designs that define the unique character of the Point. We then made additional changes for the DRB but unfortunately the members could not reach a consensus to provide a recommendation to the Commission.

Oct
2021
u
a:
3 u
UI
I
u
D:
<
J
Ill
^
z
3 0
UJ
3 z
UJ
><
0 J
m
2:
z
<in
in
0-
rM
Sb
m ^ n
I!8
[U '
a:
? ^h co< U 5.

U UI
I 0
D S
IT v
s ^ri y ^
S Z 0
iu 5 I
m 0 n-
.^r]*l
%-l
^yj'
LU 0
> °°
gs
Q<
zu
a: .
iu Q
:fcz; So
^1
^5
"5

REVIEWS AND

REVISIONS
1 AT
TI.O

Page 296 of 789 ends

357 Western D r,
Richmond, CA 94801
5®^jSB^
^z

VIEW ANGLE

STUDY-KEY
iTl.la

Page 297 of 789 ends

3AI ANGLE 3 BUTTERFLY ROOF
2AI ANGLE 2 BUTTERFLY ROOF

IAI ANGLE I BUTTERFLY ROOF
u
D:
3 D
HI
I
u
n:
<
-I
3 d
s
E<E
th
u
u
z
w
sua
^
lu n
QNz ^
UJ 0
><
3 <5i u
<c
a.
iyui [j
s i
?1 US m
lh<
s
0 u
u
fr
3 hu
u
I-
I
u
n
<i
Ill
^
z
3 0
,2.'
s^?1
u
0 I
LU
>
a;
Q
z
a.

LU
I-
wLU
^
[s^
mm
m
^
CO
0^
0 in
u
z
0 I
u.
/S9
0 co
'T
CT<
<
u
Q
z
0 2:

I
u
a:

VIEW ANGLE
STUDY
DESIGN FtEVtE^
•••••

Page 298 of 789 ends

Page 299 of 789 ends

"M I '
"y^A;^.-' /
N78°36'10"E 43.82'..^--'' .'^•bv--SK \. /
..^\\y ^ i .-•'.
>
s?> c
°s
> >
n oa
1^
_2

HEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 984 - 1112

Page 300 of 789 ends

N 78°36' 10" E 43.82'^ - ' /^;,
•\\.i-
^•Wlh
57vifwc^RRIDVOR^ 4 A^^\Y)t/f-f^^^EV^bRRl5o^J:
^.^
•I
•
w
0 z
<
3 c
-I
a S2
> ^
s?^3 Z

NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE; (510) 984 " 1112

Page 301 of 789 ends

3 I SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
LEGEND
OMGINALLYSUBMm-ED

TO NEIGHBORHOOD

COUNCIL
ORIGINALLY SUBMm-ED

TO DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD

PORTIONS OF HOUSE TO

BE BELOW CURRENT
GRADE

EXISTING GRADE UNE

NORTH EAST ELEVATION
ya
^u
I
u
D:
<
_1
HI
2 z
b
>-
E
<c
Ui
u
u
x
a
s
LL) n
3 9
z '»
u d.
5<
0 <
n 0
^
Q.
z >< UI
'" ^.
sllS 3
0 u
u
E.

D
u
h
I
D
D:
<JHI
^
z
3 0
^K?
u
0 B
LU
>
c:
z
a:

LU
I-
C/t
LU
5:

LH
m
HEIGHT
n
•^
§
0 m
IU
0 D.
0 00
•^"
V-
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
0;

DIAGRAMS
1 ATE 9i:
.TE
T1.4

Page 302 of 789 ends

WEST ELEVATION W/ 2 HOUSES ON LEFT ADJUSTED TO COMPARE HIEGHT UI
a
HI
E
I
u
tt,
<
J
u
z
z
0 >
-I
E
2,
u
u
x
w
sux
ill n0NTiu d'
><
8 <
m "
<
a.

I ^'"' i
s Ii i
s g0 ::
u
HI •
Q:

D ^
^ §LJ
h
I °
D m
[E *-"

5...:u u
x z
I!o i
s
u
0 a
UJ 0
> c°
53;
Q<
zu
u: -
LU Q
fcz
LU 0
^1
1^1
!^u
m ~i

BAY VIEW
STUDY
o/
Tl
IATE ?/:

UPDATE

1.5

Page 303 of 789 ends

s"£";=3°;3*ia»;
'S3U'S""3S
;SwSSv!-£
'S35?S£E£S
•Ka
^r5!!Sr
£3S
OmSnSS^L"ssssa"
SS5S
""r.
••-
^^^'sSiiiS's^l
'V^S:H.!a£l"^
k KA^I 5?£w -^?S
• K.gzSaS
'ICa-ss?2
lis?.:S2Ka
S;3S'| .saa,
^(ril S'^^T
SSSKSK^
""'ssss.^'
•SS3,'
-[g^^;g3,| _,„^ |.,S..|.3sass
gBS.sSS
^^"^"ss^^
- tt»H
' ngzs.a^
'""—"
m
^2£7^
ssssas
BBS;
WSi
ts S.5 ^t; S ? EAS *Ss ^ S^?ii 5S ^ 5?'
uuiin'iiiniii
y§t lili
ffiijjliiii111s 11 III IiliiUlilili
ilSBPII! tliilii ii
Illp
illliUI
ill? IHis IffillII IIill! il ^
MIll
Sja
ft0
&

CONDITIONS

OF APPROVAL

NEW SIHCLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

OUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE; (510) 984 - m2

Page 304 of 789 ends

SURVETOR'S NOTB
DATE OF SURVEY: MAY 2021.

2. UTILITIES FOUND ARE BASED UPON SURFACE EVIDENT RNDINGS,RECORDS OF UTILITIES WERE NOT UTIUZED FOR THIS SURVEY LEGEND

BOUNDARY (SMALL LOT)
TREES SHOWN ARE THOSE OF SIZE S1GN1F1 CANCEL TOE SITE CONTAINS OTHER TREES UNDER G" AND ARE NOT SHOWN FOR MAP CLARlpr, TBEE CLASS1HCA710N5 ARE TO THE BEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE SURVEYOR. AN ARBORIST MUST SPECIFY ACTUAL -TREE TfPE. TREE TRUNK LOCA-nONS ARE APPROXIMATE. TREES THAT CROSS A PROPERTY UNE AT GROUND LEVEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE JOINTLY OWNED BY THE RESPECTIVE PROPERPr OWNERS. CONSULT AN AR80R15T FOR DETAILS.

5. PHYSiCAL 1TD-IS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE LIMITED TO THOSE SURFACE ITEMS VISIBLE AS OF THE DATE OF TOIS SURVEY AND FROM AVAILABLE RECORD DATA. SUBSURFACE OBJECTS, IF ANY, MAY NOT BE SHOWN. SAID SUBSURFACE 03JECTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT UMITCD TO, UNDERGROUND UTILITY UNES, UTIUTC VAULTS. CONCRETC FOOTINGS, SLABS, SHORING, STRUCTURAL PILES. PIPING, UNDERGROUND TANKS, AND ANY OTHER SUSSURFACE STRUCTURES NOT REVEALED BY A SURFACE ]NSPECT10N.

6. DlMENStDMS SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.

BASIS OF BEARINGS

BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE

FOUND REBAR AND CAPS

MARKING -THE NORTHERN

UNE OF WESTERN DRIVE

FLOW LINE OF THE SANITARY

SEWER MANHOLE AT THE

INTERSECTION OF WESTERN

AND SANTA FE
INVERT ELEV.= 36.82 FEET
8ASED ON NGVD1929 DA-TUM

GREENHILL/SCHWIMMER
D.N. 2019-900857
PARCEL MAP MS 756-08
BOOK 213 OF PARCEL MAPS 18
-SARBERMAW]
ZOIS<008G577
GIN]
APN 558-030-003
SURVEYORS STATaiElffi
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS^

I CONFORMANCE
TtiE REQUIREMEtiTTS OF THE LAND SURVEYORACT IN W\\

PARCEL WAS ESTABLISHED BY FOUND MONUMENTATION

LOCATING THE SUBJECT PARCEL
H.OWL1NE

TOP OF CUF
EDGEOFPAVEMEN1

CONCRETE

LIP OF GUTTER
GROUND
ASPHALT COr

TOP OF CURB

FINISH FLOOR
SETBACK UN Page 305 of 789
aueoniMis
_vyAj.-^&Z??/.

PLANTING SUGGESTIONS
DEdDUOUS TREES
Japanese Maple
Be+ula

DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
Rosa 'Iceberg'

EVERGREEN SHRUBS
Euonymous 'Green Spire'
Junipers
Laurel nobilis
Pittosporum 'Golf Ball'
Nandina 'Monum'
Thuga 'Emergald Green'
or "Daniellow'
Thuga Green Giant'
Podocarpus

PERENNIALS
Salvia species Penstemon
species Phormium 'Tom
Thumb'

GRASSES & SEDGES
Carex species'
Chondropetalum
tec+orum

SUCCULENTS
Agave species
Dudleya species

GROUNDCOVERS
Ceanothus
Junipers
Manzanita

CLIMBERS
Clematis species Lonicera
species
ve-tisvJAf
C^M^f
^^'^_\^e?[?£N&!£!^;. -
Wit veuc-c
^ Al-i-Tj-WnHtri-HPeyerMApa?
viwl &Oizp-rDse=i^'6e ^-s' HT".
t^KAyet..

P.ff^'SFFJ-evs.
t^,'
".Wffl//w^/A~.
^D: .^...MS^^v\w3-
-Tor o^.'u.ors-

CHRISTINE KRAUSE DESIGN STUDIO
CHRISTINEKRAUSEDESIGN.COM
[email protected]
CHRISTINEKRAUSEDESIGN.COM

GARBELMAN RESIDENCE
157 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
DRAWING: PLANTING. DESIGN PLAN
•SCALE: 1/8"=1-0" '
DATE: 6 JAN 2020
REVISED: 27 MAY 2020
DRAWN BY: Christine Krause

Page 306 of 789 ends

DRAINAGE
!. SITE RETAINING WALLS & FOUNDATIONS TO
HAVE FRENCH DRAINS AT BASE TTP. HARD PIPE

TO DISSIPATORS OR LANDSCAJ'JNG
Z. ALL ROOF DRAINS ROUTED TO DISSIPATOR IN

HARD PIPE

OUTFAU, DISSIPATOR
SII°23'50"E 0.60'
377 WESTERN DRIVE
(E) SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
\
NOTE: ALL ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE COLLECTED TO DOWNSPOUTS TO BE CONNECTED TO (N) TIGHTLINE DRAIN SYSTEM -S--_^
Nw

SITE PLAN
5 o
z ^
Ill O*
><
8 m
<
Q.

S 3
Q B
u
tU '
Q:
? s
< U fr
U UI
\_
I °
U 5
a: '-"
u I
u u
^ z
5 0
31 s
K
iu o
> co
'^
Q<i*u.Q<
UEiu
LU Q
0 ^
wX B LU 0
y»
u
^5
m5

SITE PLAN/

ROOF PLAN

VIEW UPDATE
AO.I

Page 307 of 789 ends

AWN FX AWN
(S'.fi-AJ.F,) (5'-6"AJ.F.) (S'.6"A.F.F.}
4>
N
HI
ec.
3 u.
[U
i<
_I
Ill
2 z
3 0
5 E
<Eu;
u
0 a
tfl
Iua
m n
0Nz ^
LU 0'
><
3 <^ u
<
a.
z >< m'"' i
£ ^?; 5
N ffl
»(
6 u
1U
u:
3hu
u
I-
I
D
or
3 LU
^
z
3 0
/z-
s^*
u
0 z
UI
>
OL
z
a:

LU
h-
(/)
UJ
^
in
m
m
^r
a
0 0
m
u
z
0 I
a.
/5l
000
^-
0 <
u
Q
z
0 s
I
D
Q^

FIRST FLOOR
DES1GI
PLAN
REV ^
<TE ?/21
Al
UPDATE
•o0FIRST FLOOR. PLAN

Page 308 of 789 ends

3'-0nx3'-0" 3'.0"x3'^"
t-i'-O" ABOVE (I W ABOVE
2ND[€OORTF.1— — —FO~rER FLOORT — ~T — — ^i
N
Ul
a.
3 u
1U
h
u
a
<
_1
Ill
g
z
3 0
5 E
<E
Ui
u
•I
u
x
w
I
<?1
U fN0
Nz ^
U 0
^
0 <
^ u
<
Q.
z >
< ^
" iii
^m g
K uK m
na<
0 D
UJ
a.
3 I-
D
1U
h
I
D
IT
<J
UI
^
z
3 0
^
u
0 Ill
>
c^
z
aL
LU
I-
wLU
^
N
U1
m
N
s
0-
0 ^
LU
z
0 I
D.
w
0 co
^0^
<
D
Q
z
0 s
z
u
0;
SECOND
FLOOR.

REV1E
DATE 9/2E
Al
PLAN
•
IATE

ISECOND FLOOR PLAN

Page 309 of 789 ends

r ^
;0
0 0
>
2 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 984 - 1112

Page 310 of 789 ends

Page 311 of 789 ends

SOUTH ELEVATION
g [p

WEST ELEVATION

MATERIALS
[T] NATURAL WOOD
SIDING
[2] MEDIUM GREY
INTEGRAL COLOR.

CEMENT PLANTER.
[3] NATURAL WOOD,
TRELUS
[4] MEDIUM WHITE

INTEGRAL COLOR

CEMENT PLASTER
Fs1 CLEAR ANODIZED
ALUMINUM FASOA.

WINDOWS & DOORS
[|j OBSCURED GIASS
[7] STANDING SEAM

METAL ROOF W/

KYNAR MEDIUM GRAY
FINISH
s:. —=;a
PS] miNLESS STEEL
RAILS. POSTS &
CABLES
u
a
s
I
u
^
u
2 3
0 5
E
KUi
u
0 x
w
Iid
a
U t
IIIll (
s
q .
~i (
£
Il
" i
!P i°< i
P! i
»1
e
B
0 u
u
D:
3huUl
h
I
D
D:
<
-J
u
^
z
3 0
X-5
UJ
>
a:
z
Q;
LU
I-
t/1
LU
^
[^
wm
n
•q-
co
0'
0 in
u
z
0 I
a.
0 co
•^-
<r
<
u
Q
z
0 2:
x
u
(^

ELEVATIONS
DESK
D/SATE < ZB/21
Al.l
'DATE
I

Page 312 of 789 ends

>
»
®
w
^ij z
0 m
z

NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

OUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 9B4 - 1112Page 313 of 789
m
1^1
m
Ill0
l1

1.1 si
B
S3
B
Q
E B B
I
B B
&
w
9 w
<>
-f
0 z

NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801

GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (S10) 984 - 1112Page 314 of 789
-^.|3| SECTION
I
JJ_

REAR OF HOUSE
u
St
?
u
u
i
u
Ct
<
-1
s
z
3 0
5 c
Ct
Uh
u
0 a
(8
I
'y
llj m
QNz y
u ^
i
3 <^ 0
<
a.
i yU1 ui
s i?; i?N m
^
="
u
ii
0 u
u
a.

D
I-
u
UJ
h
I
u
(t
<
1U
X
z
3 u
'z-'
?$
LU
>
aL
z
a.

LU
I-
LO
UJ
^
^
in
m
m
t
co
t>
0 in
u
z
0 I
Q.
0 co
^-
0^
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
tt.

BUILDING

SECTIONS
UP
A3.®

STAIR SECTION
^SSs^
GARAGE
HIGHE?rEX]SI'NS.G«?E---
LOWEST EXISTING GRADE"

RETAINING WALL IN FRONT OF SECTION
^
1R11EWAK
-<&_-—
_ _ _ — -T.STSf

SECTION

Page 315 of 789 ends

uu o
> co
SI
zu
a: -
LU Q

Page 316 of 789 ends

eiK. - -1706 (01.9) :3NOHd
W03'3anj.33-LIH3aV-]3XNnO
COZtr6 V3 A3~13>ia3a
3nN3AV 0-ISVd NVS S6ZZ
aynj-osjLiHsuv ^^>^Nno
108fr6 V3 'QNONH
3AI-aa N~a3J.S3AA ;
3MOH
jniuwd aiDNis
Attachment 1

Page 317 of 789 ends

EI a E]

SOUTH ELEVATION
M
St
?
u
1U
I
u
a
<
J
u
2 z
3 0
5 E
a,
u
ia
w
Iux
fc^
uj n01\z ^
u as
><
s <
ffl "
<
D.
z >
< ^
" i
£ IS uF! 3
•ai
="
u
0 3;
0 u
UJ
0:
3 I-
uUJ
I-
I
u
D:
<
-1
HI
^
z
3 0
/z.l
N
^co
ok
0 in
u
z
0 I
Q.
^
UJ
>
a:

Q
z
aL
LU
I-
LO
LU
^:

N
wm
0 00
^0^
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
a:

ELEVATIONS
DESIG1 REV I E^
1ATE ?/3
Al<
UPDATE
• 3

MATERIALS
T [P Q] NATURAL WOOD SIDING
[2] MEDIUM GREY INTEGRAL
COLOR CEMENT PLASTER.
[3] NATURAL WOOD. TRELUS
[4] MEDIUM WHITE INTEGRAL
COLOR. CEMENT PLASTER.
[5} CLEAR ANOD1ZED ALUMINUM
FASC1A, WINDOWS & DOORS
[6] OBSCURED GLASS
0 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
W/ KYNAR. MEDIUM GRAY FlNISHl
[8] STAINLESS STEEL RAILS. POSTS 8
CABLES

WEST ELEVATION

Page 318 of 789 ends

Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 128-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTt-V COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

ADOPTING A MFTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING PARCEL MAP MS 756-08 TO CREATE ONE LOT AT 367 WESTERN DRIVE CKOWALSKI, APN 558-185-003)
WHEREAS, Stephen & Patti Kowalski (the "appUcmt"), filed an application wifh the City of Richmond for approval of proposed parcel map MS 756-08 (title "Parcel Map") to subdivide the existing parcel (the "subdivision." or "project') at 367 Western Drive (APN: 558- 185-003) (the "project site" or "subject site") into two standard residential parcels of 10,806 Square Feet and 6,002 Square Feet, respectively; and
WHEREAS, fhe Parcel Map is subject to the provisions of California Government Code Sections 66410-66499.58, known as the Subdivision Map Act, and Chapter .15.08 of fhe Richmond Municipal Code known as the Richmond Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map is not categorically exempt from fhe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by way of CEQA Guidelmes Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, due to the fact fhat the slope is greater than 20 percent. Therefore, staff conducted an Initial Study; determined that the project could have potentially significant impacts infhe areas ofAesflietics, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which includes a Preliminary Soils Investigation and Initial Geology and Soils Analysis. Based on such investigation and analysis, staff determined that implementation of specific mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to less-fhan-significaat; and WHEREAS the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment in accordaace wifh fhe California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and a response to comments was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning District at -fhe subject property is zoned SFR-2, Single Family Very Low Density Residential District, which permits residential dwellings on lot sizes of 6,000 SP or greater, and fhe General Plan designation of the site is 942, Very Low Density Residential (0 to 5 DU/Acre), which allows single family residential dwellings in areas typified by relatively large lots greater than 6,000 SF; and
WHEREAS, fhe City Council has reviewed fhe Parcel Map for conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance, 'Zoning Ordiaance and all other applicable regulations offhe Richmond Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a properly noticed public hearmg pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented during the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on fhe basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted at or prior to the public hearing, the City Council makes the foUowmg findings with statements of fact to support fhe findings as required by California Government Code Section 66474 for fhe approval of Parcel Map:

Findrng 1. The proposed Map is consistent with the applicable General a&d Specific Plans.

Statement in Support of Findine: Criterion Satisfied. The Richmond General Plan designation for the project site is 942, Very Low Residential. The subdivision meets all . the applicable provisions of the Richmond General Plan by creating a buildable lot which is equal to or greater than 6,000 SF. The proposed Lot 2 would meet the development standards for the minimum lot size in the SPR-2 Zoning District, v?ith a. proposed area of 6,002 SP. The proposed Lot 2 will also meet the development standards for the miiumum lot width of 60 Feet in the SFR-2 Zoning District; the proposed lot width will be 69 ft.
128-09
Page I

Page 319 of 789 ends

Findme 2, The design of lots, streets, open space, draiaage, sewers, water and other improvements are consistent with fhe Zoning Ordinance.

Statement in Support ofFindmg: Criterion Satisfied. The subdivision wiU result in a lot configuration fcat is common in fhis neighborhood. The project site is adjacent to existing residential buildiags, wifti landscaping and drainage, sewer, water and ofher utility improvements fhat are consistent with fhe Richmond Zoning Ordmmce. If any new utilities are desired, tiiey would be required to comply with. fce Riclunond Zonmg Ordinance and fhe requirements of the Public Works Department and respective utility company.

FindmeS. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.

Statement in Support ofFmding: Criterion Condifionally Satisfied. The subdivision is for fhe purpose of subdividing the existing lot into two lots for an additional residential dwelling unit. The newly created Lot I would be physically suitable for development with fhe implementation of fhe laiti.gati.ons indicated m fhe Mitigating Monitormg and Reporting Program (Attacbnent 2). New off-street parldng would be required for Lot 1 as a result offhis subdivision in order to meet fhe parking requirements offhe Richmond Zoning Ordmanoe.

Pindme; 4. The site is physically suitable for fhe proposed density of development.

Statement in Support ofPinding: Criterion Satisfied. The subject site is presently served by a31 requisite public facilities and services such as gas, water md eleotncity, and fhe lot size of 6,002 SP is larger fhan tie imnimnm required lot size in Ifae 942 General Plan designated district, and fhe SER.-2 Zoning Distnct.

Fiadmg 5. The design oftiae subdivision or fhe proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or fheir habitat
Statement in Support of Fmdine: Criterion Satisfied. The subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage because fhe existing lot is currently part of an exiting residential property. Future improvements of fhe lot would be typical of ofher improvements in this neighborhood and -would have to conform to fee Development Standards offhe SFR-2 Zonmg Distnct.

Finding 6. The design of fhe subdivision or fte type of improvements is not Ekely to cause serious public healfli problems.

Statement in Support ofFmdiag: Criterion Satisfied. The design offhe subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems as it proposes to subdivide an exiting lot istotwo residential lots.

Fmdmg 7. The design of the subdivision or fhe type of improvements wiU not conflict -with easements, acquired by fhe public at large, for access fhrough or use of, property -witlun the proposed subdivision.

Statement m Support of Pinding: Criterion Satisfied. Tentative Subdivision Map MS 756-08 does not conflict wifh any fccio-wrL existing public easements as shown in. Exhibit A.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richmond, does hereby grant approval of Parcel Map 756-08 subject to the following conditions of approval:

1. Conformaace to Parcel Map: The Parcel Map shall be in substantial conformance with flie Parcel Map in Exhibit A, prepared by Bay Area Land Surveying Inc., submitted to and date-stamped received by &e Richmond Plamiiag and Buildmg Services Department on April 24, 2009. Prior to finalizing the Parcel Map, it shall be submitted to fhe Engineeriag Depailment for review and approvalPage 320 of 789 accompanied by the requisite review fee. The Parcel Map must be prepared, wet sigaed and sealed by a civil engineer or land surveyor, registered and licensed in the State of California.

2. Implementation of the Mitigation Monitorme and Reporting Proei-ami The applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures I-A, VI-A, and VHI-A, as indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ra fhe Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit C).

3. lademrdfication; To the fullest extent permitted by law, the subdivide!- shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City ofRicbnond, its Council, Boards, Commissions, agents, officers, employees, consultants, successors and assigns from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, proceedings, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without Itmitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and all other professional or expert fees and costs) (individually a "Claim," collectively "Claims") which may arise to attack, set aside, void, or aimul the - project approvals, or any project condition imposed by the City or any of its agencies. Departments, Commissions, Boards, agents, officers, employees, or Council concerning said project, which Claim, is brought iu accordance with all applicable laws related thereto aad within the time period provided by law, moluding but not limited to, aay claitn for private attorney general fees olaimed by or awarded to any party fi-om City. The City of Richmond shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in fhe defense.

4. Utilities: Any new utilities are required to comply with the Zomng Ordinance, fhe requirements of the Public Works Department, and respective utility company.

5. Easements: All existing easements related to this property shall be carried fonvard onto the Final Parcel Map mcludiag fhose required by ofher agencies.

6. Off-Steeet Parking: The applicant shall provide proper off-street parking for Lot I by constructing a two-car, tandem, parking strip wifh a one-car carport 'with a mmimum mtenor dimension of 10 feet wide and 20 foot length. This carport shall be constructed prior to the recording of the Parcel Map and conform, to fhe City's Development Standards and Building Code. Future residential development of Lot 2 will be required to include at least two covered off-street parking spaces.

7. Fencmg: In. the event a new fence is constructed on fhe property line of the newly created lot, the applicant shall construct a "good neighbor" fence.

8. Sag Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission CBCDQ Permit:

The applicant shall apply and receive a development permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) for the proposed Parcel Map and potential easements or view corridors. A copy of the valid permit shall be forwarded to fhe Plamiing Division and the City Engineer.

9. Windows: There shall be no 2nd story windows, oiher than skylights or clerestones, built wittiin 29 feet of the street side property boundary line along the south side of any home erected on the property.

10. Deck: There shall be no roof deck built wifhin 29 feet of the street side property bouadary line on any home erected on the property.
11 .Height: Wifhin 29 feet of the street side property line, the maximum height for any home erected on the property shall be 28 feet from existing grade.

Mitigation Measures from the Mitigation Moniformg and Reporting Program:
128-09

Page 321 of 789 ends

12. The proj ect applicant for futaie development of Lot 2 shall reduce the severity of ttie project's effect on aesthetics by implementing fhe following fhe following mitigatioTi measures:
a. The future project shall be landscaped to soften the view of the development from off-site locations.
b. Landscaping shall be desigaed to be compatible with existing vegetation on site aad ia surroundmg areas.
c. The new building shall be designed to be visually compatible with fhe existing buildings.
d. The applicant shall contact the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and apply for aU required permits prior to construction.

13. The project applicant for future development shall reduce tile severity of project effect on Geology and Soils by following the followiag mitigation measures:
a. The future project shall be designed in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), -whiclihas been adopted by the City of Richmond. b. The rear setback for fature development of a. building shall be approximately seventeen feet (17°) &om fhe top of slope.
c. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for seditnent and erosion control shall be followed duriag construction.
d. An erosion control plan sbaU be prepared prior to issuance of a Building Permit and implemented dunng construction activities.
e. A building project shall molude measures such as selective removal of expansive soils and weathered rock in foTmdation aad concrete slab areas and replacement -with non-expaasive select fiU to mimimze 1iie potenfial daraage to site improvements.
£ AH preliminary design recommendations indicated ia fhe Preliminary Soils Investigation and Initial Geology and Soils Analysis (Appendix B) shaU be followed.

14. The proj.ect applicant for future development shall reduce the severity of project effect on Hydrology and Water Quality by followmg mitigation measures:
a. The future project will be required to provide positive runoflf. b. The future project wiU be required to incorporate pervious coverage in hardscape and landscape plans for absorption;
c. The rear setback for future development of a building shall be approximately seventeen (17) feet from fhe top of slope.
d. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control shall be followed during constmction.
****AftA****ft****A*A****ft
128-09

Page 322 of 789 ends

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof, held on November 3, 2009, by the follov?ing vote:

AYES:

Approved:

GAYLE MCLAUGHLIN
Mayor
Approved as to form:

Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Rogers, Ritterman, Viramontes, Vice Mayor Lopez, and Mayor McLaughlin.

NOES: None.

ABSTENTIONS: None.

ABSENT: None.

DIANEHOLMES
Clerk of the City of Richmond
[SEAL]

RANDY RIDDLE
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa
City of Richmond }
:ss.

I certify that the foregoing is a tme copy of Resolution No. 128-09, finally passed and adopted by fhe City Council offhe City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on November 3, 2009.
128-09

Page 323 of 789 ends

Attachment 4
KSehjmittwU
THIS SECTION TO BE CQnPl.ETED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ST^P^F^Ey-T^ y
cn'Ycu^som^^O^mOHD'
ZQ210CT18 PH l:^

FEE PAID
DATE:
,<-tTD°^CUe%
TO THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL:

The undersigned hereby appeals decision: By the Historic Preservation Commission By the Planning Commission
of: Approval "' of: Denial
Variance (V)
*^ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
• Design Review Permit (DRP)
Other
Tent Subd. Or Parcel Map (TM)
Rezoning (RZ)
EIR Decision (Em)
DESCRIBE ITEM AS PRINTED ON THE PLAWONG COMMISSION or
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENDA:

PLN20-043 Garbelman Residence: PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review toconstruct a two-story, single-family dwelling on a vacant parcel located within the - S,Shoreline Overlay District at 357 Western Dr. (APN: 558-185-006).

STATE REASONS FOR APPEAL:

There has been inadequate process in the consideration of the applicant's plans, and violation and deprivation of the neighbor's due process in the course of the applicant's proposals to the city.

There has been consistent lack of information and unreliability of information presented to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The P.C. lacked correct and reliable information to support necessary findings and to make an informed decision about the applicant's plans.

Please see the attached form for further reasons and explanations.

DELIVER OR MAIL TO:

City Clerk
450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
NAME Claire Arbour, Simon Winer and Ron Elson
,360 Western Drive, Ridunond, CA 94801
360 Western Drive, Richmond, CA 94801
TELEPHONE (HOME) (617) 699-2766
(WORK) (510)610-1166

Page 324 of 789 ends

We are appealing the decision of the PC at its October meeting of a proposal to construct a new dwelling at 357 Western Drive, item PLN20-043 Garbelman Residence.

1. We believe that substantive design issues raised both by Design Review Board and the City Staff have not been adequately addressed and that required findings have not been met. The three conditions that the Planning Commission laid out for their conditional approval were not thoroughly or clearly met.

The DRB unanimously recommended denial when the proposal was first submitted. Since then they have not reviewed any plans or revisions submitted by the applicant. Even with the minor modifications proposed since by the applicant, the project does not meet major criteria for approval. The Commissioners relied heavily on a verbal presentation by the applicant's architect at their October meeting - without their nor city staff having the chance to review the latest written revisions submitted by the applicant.

2. We question the appropriateness or legal authority for the Planning Commission to refer back to a subcommittee of the DRB rather than to the full DRB for review.

No transparency was shown in the selection of which members would be chosen; nor how they would proceed with their review. Their meetings with the applicant/ architect were not public and the public had no chance for input into the subcommittee's review. We aren't aware that their ideas or recommendations were then reviewed by the full DRB. 3, The applicant and his architect have not held discussions with community members and neighbors, despite their claim that they have.

While such discussions aren't required, they are a vital way of showing respect for the community. Balancing Individual wishes with community well-being is a major issue these days in our country and our community. It would be reasonable to propose such meetings in an effort to arrive at compromise.

4. A requirement for approval (as per Item E of Resolution 21-17, A resolution of the planning commission of the city of Richmond approving the conditional use permit and design review with modification (PLN20-043) to construct a two-story, single family dwelling on a vacant parcel at 357 Western Drive, subject to conditions) is the demonstration that the proposed development is "adequately serred by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services" (emphasis ours).

The present sewer system is known to be inadequate and to pose significant public health and welfare issues to the citizens of Point Richmond should it fail more than it has. A moratorium on any new connections, other than in the case of remodels of buildings that already are connected to the sewer system, appears to be de facto in place. Comments by the city council and consultants to the city have supported this moratorium. No new construction should be approved until the complex health and welfare issues are resolved.

Page 325 of 789 ends

Attachment 5
January 10,2022
In regards to our appeal, I do understand that we cannot introduce new topics at this point, and I appreciate the reminder about how the process works. I will include (below) the grounds for our appeal so that it is part of your records.

The basis of our appeal included four main points:
(1) Substantive design issues were not addressed due to the late submission of the applicant's plans and inadequate interpretation of the Shoreline Overlay District. We named the design issues as: mass of the proposed development, non-reflective surfaces and acceptable vegetation. We also specifically outlined the Shoreline Overlay District language that includes that the "development shall be sited, designed and undertaken so that it is harmonious with the character of the site and the surroundinR environmental setting to the maximum extent feasible....Buildings and landscaping in shoreline areas shall be oriented and located such that they preserve public views of the Bay from public rights-of-wav....Visual access to the Bay and scenic_vistas^fwateLand district shorelines shall be protected, and the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that this object is met." The Planning Commission is responsible for enforcing the Shoreline Overlay District, but it appears that there isn't a thorough understanding of the Ordinance by the City Commissioners. Due to the confusion about how to enforce the Ordinance, the Commissioners discussed it as though it is a subjective requirement and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. As residents of the neighborhood, the idea of building a house that is "harmonious with the character of the site and the surrounding environmental setting to the maximum extent feasible" does not feel confusing. It requires development that follows the contour and the slope of the land, and visual public access to the Bay for the hundreds of walkers who use our neighborhood to escape the density of the city.

The proposed development affects views from the street directly in front of the house, but also from the street above (Casey Drive) that leads to Western Drive. Public views will be impacted from several vantage points in the area.

The requirements of the City's Shoreline Overlay District Ordinance were not met because the development is not harmonious with the site, does not follow the contour of the land, and does not protect public visual access to the Bay and shoreline. The late submission of the applicant's plans did not allow the Commissioners and City Staff to effectively evaluate the proposal at the October 7th Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the Commissioners relied heavily on a verbal presentation and a drawing shared by the applicant via zoom/ without the Commissioners or City Staff having the chance to review the written revisions submitted by the applicant. Approval without reviewable plans is unacceptable.

Page 326 of 789 ends

(2) The Planning Commission approval is invalid due to violations of both the Brown Act and due process. A subcommittee of the DRB was formed, without any transparency with the public, without noticing or reporting of those meetings, and without a return to the full DRB for a vote on the applicant's plans.

According to our attorney, the Planning Commission and Design Review Board are separate deliberative bodies under the City of Richmond Municipal Code. The Planning Commission cannot set up a sub-committee of the DRB; they do not have this authority. All deliberations of the DRB must be properly noticed and conducted in public per the Brown Act. In seeking to approve the project, the Planning Commission overstepped their authority and called upon a subset of the DRB to work with the applicant, at the applicant's request (!). Any business conducted in such a meeting is invalid and cannot be used to approve of a project. The subset of the DRB provided an "active and significant" role in advising the Planning Commission and on September 16th, the applicant reported that the DRB supported his plans and approved of the changes. This is not true and is a procedural due process violation as the DRB had already acted on November 18th, 2020 with seven architects recommending denial of the applicant's project. Case law in Nightlife Partners v. the City of Beverly Hills (2003) finds that due process requires a fair and unbiased decision be made and this cannot be achieved via a subset of the DRB. The hierarchy of the Planning Commission relative to the DRB was muddled in this application, in violation of procedural due process precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission decision is invalid, and we ask that the approval be overturned. The remedy is for the applicant to be directed to return to the full Design Review Board. (3) There is a de facto moratorium on sewer hookups on Western Drive that includes this property.

The present sewer system is known to be inadequate and to pose significant public health and welfare issues to the citizens of Richmond. The City Council met on this issue on September 28, 2021 and it was stated in that meeting that despite there being several undeveloped properties along the shoreline in Point Richmond that could offer tax revenue to the city, no further sewer hookups should be permitted in the area of 357 Western Drive. Both Mayor Butt and PUblic Works Director Joe Leach said that there is a de facto moratorium on new sewer hook-ups along Western Drive.

THe approval by the Planning Commission includes the following statement: A requirement for approval is the demonstration that the proposed development is "adequately served by....sewer....and other public facilities and services".

The PC is required to make a finding that the property is served by all necessary utilities. It cannot currently make that finding about 357 Western Drive because the property is not served by a sanitary sewer system with adequate capacity for additional discharge from new construction.

Page 327 of 789 ends

I am an avid swimmer and I often swim parallel to that very sewer line. I also know that, on warm days, Keller beach and the local parks are packed with Richmond residents who seek relief from the heat of the city at our shared shoreline beaches. The sewer line is risking the health of our local community, making the shoreline unsafe for public recreation. Allowing further sewer hook-ups under the current conditions is short-sighted and, from a health perspective, unconscionable. Until this situation is remedied, no new sewer connections can be sanctioned.
(4) The applicant and his architect have not held discussions with community members and neighbors, despite their claim that they have.

While such discussions aren't required, they are a vital way of showing respect for the community. Balancing individual wishes with community well-being is a major issue these days in our country and our community. It would be reasonable to propose such meetings in an effort to arrive at compromise.

The applicant also states that the Neighborhood Council approved his plans and is in favor of his proposed development. While he did gain the approval of the Neighborhood Council, the truth is that the "plans" that were presented to the Neighborhood Council could be characterized more as pictures than as architectural plans. There were no metrics or dimensions associated with his presentation to the Neighborhood Council, and it was there that the idea of a "green wall" was introduced as a way to mitigate the enormous mass of the proposed design - a blank wall that towers over the down-hill neighbor. Instead of recommending a structure with less mass and more elegant and harmonious design, the Neighborhood Council introduced impractical ideas that were not based on reliable dimensions or metrics. The Neighborhood Council was unaware of, and so did not evaluate, the Shoreline Overlay District Ordinance.

We have offered before and will continue to suggest that City Councilmembers (and anyone else!) come to the building site. Don't take our word for it... Please come see the property and our neighborhood.

Thank you again for your time and consideration. I really appreciate all of the work that you are doing to maintain the city's integrity throughout this process.

Sincerely,
Claire

Page 328 of 789 ends

Page 1 of 6 ends

February 1, 2022

Finance Department

DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

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: 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:

This item was agendized for January 25,2022, but not
completed. The consultant team for the Community
Facilities District formation was approved 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

Page 329 of 789 ends

Page 2 of 6 ends

February 1, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

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).

This item was continued from the January 25, 2022,
meeting.

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 developer, 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 details 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 its 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, ge ologic 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”) for 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.

Page 330 of 789 ends

Page 3 of 6 ends

February 1, 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 Molate 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 potential 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 pric es for both 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 appraisal 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 his tory 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 refinery 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

Page 331 of 789 ends

Page 4 of 6 ends

February 1, 2022
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 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

Page 332 of 789 ends

Page 5 of 6 ends

February 1, 2022
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 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 t otal annual CFD taxes needed were about $8.1 million per year.

Taxing developed 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? Her e are the possibilities being negotiated with SunCal:
- Cover interim operating 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 n ew facilities that benefit the entire community
- Fund additional infrastructure 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. Following policy direction from Council on the items above, staff will return at the February 15, 2022, meeting to present Goals and Policies for adoption. The City’s CFD formation team intends to bring the

Page 333 of 789 ends

Page 6 of 6 ends

February 1, 2022
Resolution of Intent, which establishes initial a pproval for the basic CFD formation documents, including the Rate and Method of Apportionment, to the City Council for consideration and approval at their meeting of February 22, 2022. The City’s CFD formation team also intends to present the Acquisition A greement for consideration and approval at the same meeting.

The Council would 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 th e 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

Page 334 of 789 ends

PRESENTATIONTO
FORMATIONOFACFD FORPT. MOLATE: KEYPOLICYQUESTIONSANDUPDATEONTHEFORMATIONPROCESS January 25, 2022

Page 335 of 789 ends

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

Page 336 of 789 ends

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?

Page 337 of 789 ends

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

Page 338 of 789 ends

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

Page 339 of 789 ends

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

Page 340 of 789 ends

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

Page 341 of 789 ends

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

Page 342 of 789 ends

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

Page 343 of 789 ends

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

Page 344 of 789 ends

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

Page 345 of 789 ends

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

Page 346 of 789 ends

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

Page 347 of 789 ends

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

Page 348 of 789 ends

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:

Page 349 of 789 ends

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.

Page 350 of 789 ends

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

Page 351 of 789 ends

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).

Page 352 of 789 ends

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

Page 353 of 789 ends

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.

Page 354 of 789 ends

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

Page 355 of 789 ends

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).

Page 356 of 789 ends

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.

Page 357 of 789 ends

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.

Page 358 of 789 ends

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

Page 359 of 789 ends

MLS Resale Data

Page 360 of 789 ends

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

Page 361 of 789 ends

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

Page 362 of 789 ends

# 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

Page 363 of 789 ends

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

Page 364 of 789 ends

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

Page 365 of 789 ends

# 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.:

Page 366 of 789 ends

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

Page 367 of 789 ends

#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

Page 368 of 789 ends

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

Page 369 of 789 ends

# 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.:

Page 370 of 789 ends

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

Page 371 of 789 ends

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

Page 372 of 789 ends

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

Page 373 of 789 ends

# 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.:

Page 374 of 789 ends

Appraiser Qualifications

Page 375 of 789 ends

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

Page 376 of 789 ends

Page 377 of 789 ends

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

Page 378 of 789 ends

Page 379 of 789 ends

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

Page 380 of 789 ends

Page 1 of 5 ends

February 1, 2022

Library and Community Services

DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Interim Director of Library and
Community Services
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director Community Services
Department-Recreation
Joe Leach, Director of Public Works
Stephanie Ny, Associate Administrative Analyst

Subject:

Approval of the Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project and
Resolution of Intent to Rename
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council, serving as the fiscal sponsor of Pullman Neighborhood Council,
was awarded a Love Your Block Mini-Grant in the
amount of $9,775 from the Community Services
Department and City Manager’s Office, Economic
Development. 90 percent of the funds ($8,797.50) were
distributed in June 2021, and the remaining 10 percent
($977.50) will be distributed upon submission of a
complete final report package in June 2022 (01250051-
400815 2GI01).

Public Works staff has indicated that the financial impact to the general fund is $1,960 (01234431 – 400031).

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:
(List all dates items were heard or
council action took place)
Click or tap here to enter text.

AGENDA
REPORT

Page 381 of 789 ends

Page 2 of 5 ends

February 1, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Approve the Juneteenth Freedom Mural project at the
South 37th Street Underpass and rename South 37th St
Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass in
alignment with the Juneteenth Freedom Mural project.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

APPROVE the Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project at the
South 37th Street Underpass; ADOPT a Resolution of
Intention to rename the South 37th Street Underpass to
Juneteenth Freedom Underpass; and SCHEDULE a
Public Hearing for February 15, 2022 – Library and
Community Services Department (LaShonda
White/Ranjana Maharaj/Stephanie Ny 510-620-6523).

DISCUSSION:

At the November 3, 2021, regular meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission, the commission recommended the approval of the Juneteenth Freedom Mural concept design at the South 37th Street Underpass. At the December 1, 2021, regular meeting of the Recreation and Parks Commission, the commission recommended the renaming of the South 37th Street Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass per the request of the Pullman Neighborhood Council. The renaming request would solely impact the underpass and not the street; therefore, the impact to safety, delivery services, and navigational routes is estimated to be minimal to post office and police and fire departments.

A public hearing has been scheduled for February 15, 2022, to consider renaming the South 37th Street Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass. Notification will be mailed to the properties and property owners within a 300-ft radius of the underpass.

Notification will be published in the West County Times which meets the requirement of posting 10 days prior to the hearing. The notice will also be sent to public safety departments and post offices in Richmond to allow for input on the impact to postal, police, and fire services.

Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council, serving as the fiscal sponsor of Pullman Neighborhood Council, received a Love Your Block Mini-Grant in the amount of $9,775 from the Community Services Department and City Manager’s Office, Economic Development to implement the Juneteenth Freedom Mural project. The Love Your Block Mini-Grant project implementation period is July 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022.

Love Your Block Mini-Grant
A resolution was approved by City Council on December 17, 2019, approving a solid waste Franchise Fee adjustment of a 7.5 percent increase to develop I Heart Richmond,

Page 382 of 789 ends

Page 3 of 5 ends

February 1, 2022
a campaign to support clean-up efforts related to the built environment and environmental quality. The funding can be used for: 1) Compliance and enforcement of local and state solid waste reduction and recycling laws; 2) Prevention of litter and blight; and 3) Improving overall environmental quality and health.

Through this funding, a total of $80,000 was allocated for the Love Your Block Mini- Grant Awards FY 2020-2022 grant cycle. The program was open to non-profit organizations with 501(c)(3) tax status and individuals and organizations utilizing a 501(c)(3) fiscal sponsor. Mini-grants would fund clean-up and beautification projects in the City of Richmond that would engage resident and community volunteers.

On February 2, 2021, City Council approved the Fiscal Years (FY) 2020-2022 Love Your Block Mini-Grant (LYB Mini-Grant) program guidelines, application, final report, and grant award agreement and authorized the City Manager or designee to administer grant award agreements and disburse grant funds upon selection of recipients.

The application cycle received 23 mini-grant applications, and a review panel selected 10 applications to receive Love Your Block Mini-Grant awards. Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council, serving as the fiscal sponsor of Pullman Neighborhood Council, was selected to receive $9,775 for the Juneteenth Freedom Mural project.

Juneteenth Freedom Mural
Per the Pullman Neighborhood Council, the Juneteenth Freedom Mural project “will help to beautify the Pullman Neighborhood by creating a colorful mural under the current 37th Street bridge/underpass which currently consists of bare concrete. The [South 37th St Underpass] is a main artery in the Pullman and Park Plaza Neighborhoods and thousands of cars, bicycles, and pedestrians utilize this route daily. In addition, the annual Richmond Juneteenth Parade utilizes this underpass as part of the route to the festival in Nicholl Park each June. Currently, there is nothing commemorating the Juneteenth Family Day Parade and Festival in Richmond and this mural can help celebrate, elevate and promote the visibility of one of Richmond’s unique events as well as beautify the neighborhoods.”
Pullman Neighborhood Council worked with Bay Area muralist Desi Mundo of the Community Rejuvenation Project to aid residents in the design and painting of the mural. Residents brainstormed concept ideas, reviewed designs, and finalized the concept design.

The mural concept design was presented to the Public Art Advisory Committee on September 13, 2021, and approved by the Richmond Arts and Culture Commission on September 23, 2021. The mural concept design was additionally presented to and approved by the Recreation and Parks Commission on November 3, 2021.

Page 383 of 789 ends

Page 4 of 5 ends

February 1, 2022

Juneteenth Freedom Mural Location Details
The Juneteenth Freedom Mural will be located at the South 37th Street Underpass on South 37th Street between Chanslor Avenue and Ohio Avenue. The underpass has two structures: a northern structure with BART tracks on top and a southern structure that is part of the Richmond Greenway.

The mural will be located solely on the south face of the southern structure. It will be visible to northbound travelers on South 37th Street.

Juneteenth Freedom Mural Timeline
The project will be completed by May 31, 2022. Pullman Neighborhood Council is working closely with Community Services and Public Works staff to coordinate the project, including traffic control coordination and encroachment permits.

Honoring Jerrold Hatchett in the Juneteenth Freedom Mural The Juneteenth Freedom Mural honors the great contributions of long-time Richmond resident, activist, and organizer, Jerrold Hatchett, in spearheading and preserving the annual Juneteenth festivities. Jerrold worked for almost 50 years at Richmond’s own Sims Metal as a manager where he retired and continues to actively contribute to the citizens of Richmond and play a vital role in its future.

His advocacy recognized the Juneteenth celebration as a gem that showcases community, music, art, and culture by descendants of the Great Black migration from the rural south that happened in the 20th century. The parade honors the historic achievements of its ancestors and descendants by passing through the southside neighborhood, an area that was largely settled by Black Americans from the south coming to work during World War II. While many states have actively recognized Juneteenth as a major holiday, its presence in California went largely unnoticed. Jerrold helped keep the flame alive, and it is evident now what an important holiday it has become as it is now a federal holiday.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution of Intent
Attachment 2 – Google Map of South 37th Street Underpass Attachment 3 – Juneteenth Freedom Mural concept design and general project information prepared by Pullman Neighborhood Council
Attachment 4 – Richmond Arts and Culture Commission Minutes from September 23, 2021
Attachment 5 – Recreation and Parks Commission Minutes from November 3, 2021 Attachment 6 – Recreation and Parks Commission Minutes from December 1, 2021

Page 384 of 789 ends

Page 5 of 5 ends

February 1, 2022
Attachment 7 – Application to rename South 37th Street Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass

Page 385 of 789 ends

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND TO CHANGE THE NAME OF THE SOUTH 37TH STREET UNDERPASS TO JUNETEENTH FREEDOM UNDERPASS

BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Richmond, California as follows:

Section 1. It is the intention of the City Council of the City of Richmond to change the name of the South 37th Street Underpass on South 37th Street between the streets of Chanslor Avenue and Ohio Avenue to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass as shown on Attachment 2.

Section 2. That Tuesday, February 15, 2022 at 6:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter, as the matter can be heard and will be held via Zoom video conference and by toll-free teleconference call. All persons interested in or objecting to the proposed renaming of said underpass may attend the public hearing online or by toll-free teleconference call, or, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments.

Section 3. That the City Council staff is hereby instructed to: (1) mail the notice of a hearing to property owners and properties on South 37th Street between Chanslor Avenue and Ohio Avenue.

Section 4. That the City Clerk is hereby instructed to: (1) cause to be posted conspicuously along South 37th Street between Chanslor Avenue and Ohio Avenue at least three (3) copies of this Resolution; and (2) cause to be printed and published in the West County Times, the notice of the Public Hearing at least ten (10) days before said hearing.

I certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on February 1, 2022, by the following vote:
--------------

AYES:

NOES:

Page 386 of 789 ends

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

Approved:

Mayor

Approved as to form:

City Attorney

Page 387 of 789 ends

South 37th Street Underpass Location
The Google map showing this location can also be accessed at the following link: https://goo.gl/maps/RM4SsTPjeKnaKdaQ6

Page 388 of 789 ends

JUNETEENTH UNDERPASSPullman Neighborhood Council
Richmond, CA

Page 389 of 789 ends

WHO ARE WE?
Pullman Neighborhood Council
Pullman Neighborhood Block
Party Committee
Pullman Neighborhood
Beautiﬁcation Committee
Naomi Williams - President

Page 390 of 789 ends

The Juneteenth Underpass Project will help to beautify the Pullman Neighborhood by creating a colorful mural under the current 37th street bridge/underpass which currently consists of bare concrete. The 37th street underpass is a main artery where thousands of cars, bicycles, and pedestrians utilize this route daily. In addition, the annual Richmond Juneteenth Parade utilizes this underpass as part of the route to the festival in Nicholl Park each June. Currently, there is nothing commemorating the Juneteenth Family Day Parade and Festival in Richmond and this mural can help celebrate, elevate and promote the visibility of one of Richmond’s unique events as well as beautify the neighborhoods.

Page 391 of 789 ends

Page 392 of 789 ends

In honor of
Jerrold Hatchett
Richmond, CA
6 From this…
T o this…

Page 393 of 789 ends

DESIGN PROCESS
Preliminary Pullman
Neighborhood
Council (PNC) to
brainstorm concept
ideas and discuss
muralist candidates.

After deciding on
muralist, PNC
provided our ideas to
muralist.

Concept design
meeting via Zoom
with Muralist and
PNC to review
designs, provide input,
and ﬁnalize draft.

Page 394 of 789 ends

The Juneteenth mural will consist of 4 different phases: 1) Plan & Design 2) Clean-Up and Preparation 3) Painting 4) Reveal Celebration. Our phases will depend on the status of the current pandemic and the COVID protocols for group gatherings, however, planning and design meetings thus far have taken place via Zoom. Our goal is to officially reveal the mural at the annual Pullman Block Party (or Motorcade) on October 9th, 2021 at the cul-de-sac on Ohio and 37th overlooking the underpass.

Page 395 of 789 ends

RICHMOND’S

JUNETEENTH PARADE

Page 396 of 789 ends

Honoring Jerrold Hatchett’s Advocacy

Page 397 of 789 ends

In honor of
Jerrold Hatchett
Richmond, CA
6 In honor of
Jerrold Hatchett
Richmond, CA

Page 398 of 789 ends

In honor of Jerrold Hatchett Richmond, CA
6

Page 399 of 789 ends

ARTIST DESI MUNDO
Local Bay Area muralist Desi Mundo of the Community Rejuvenation Project consulted with the Pullman Neighborhood Council to aid in the design and painting of the mural.

Page 400 of 789 ends

MURAL PREP & UPKEEP
The site surface will be Powerwashed and primed for preparation.

Mural will be coated with UV and weather resistant MuralShield for durability and facilitate cleaning. (www.muralshield.com).

The PNC Beautiﬁcation Committee will monitory monthly
assessing for damage, grafﬁti, or defacement and report to code enforcement.

The mural color will hold fast for at least 5yrs, but likely 7 - 10yrs.

Page 401 of 789 ends

Page 402 of 789 ends

In honor of
Jerrold Hatchett
Richmond, CA
6 Thank you!
Funded by a Love Y our Block Mini-Grant from the City of Richmond City Manager’s Ofﬁce, Economic Development and Community Service Department

Page 403 of 789 ends

1 RICHMOND ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION (RACC)
Regular Meeting Minutes
Thursday September 23, 2021
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m. Zoom Invitation

Present: Commission Chair Floren e Wiley; Commission Co -Chair Michael Cohen ; Commissioners Lynson Bea ulieu, Deb Dyer, Siobhan Hayes, Tom Herriman, Melissa Kirk, Tom Lyons and Phillip Mehas

Absent: Commissioner Emily Leighton and Council Liaison Melvin Willis

Staff Present: Arts & Culture Manager Winifred Day

I. Welcome/Call to Order/Roll Call

The RACC meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m.

II. Approve September 23, 2021 Agenda

Motion by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Beaulieu to approve the September 23, 2021 meeting agenda, as shown, carried by a Roll Call vote.

III. Approve July 22, 2021 Meeting Minutes

Chair Wiley commented that as a former Board Secretary she was thrilled to have legitimate meeting minutes for the RACC as a public document to represent the RACC.

Motion by Commissioner Beaulieu, seconded by RACC Co-Chair Cohen to approve the July 22, 2021 meeting minutes, as shown, carried unanimously by a Roll Call vote.

IV. Public Comments

There were no public comments.

V. Discussion / Action /Items

1. Love Your Block Mural Proposals
Mural Concept Designs for Pullman Underpass and Unity Park

Commissioner Dyer reported the Public Art Advisory Committee (PAAC) had recommended the RACC accept both Love Your Block mural concept designs.

Chair Wiley advised the materials for the mural concept designs for Pullman Underpass and Unity Park had been included in the RACC agenda packet.

Stephanie Ny, Community Services Division, supported the grantees and their p roposals and expressed her appreciation to Arts & Culture Manag er Day, the PAAC, and the RACC for its consideration of the mural designs.

Page 404 of 789 ends

2 Motion by Commissioner Dyer, seconded by Commissioner Hayes to accept both of the Love Your Block Mural Concept Designs for Pullman Underpass and Unity Park , as approved by the PAAC at its September 13, 2021 meeting, carried unanimously by a Roll Call vote.

2. West Contra Costa County Family Justice Center (WCCCFJC)

a. Panel Composition and Recommendation of Resident Panelist

Commissioner Dyer reported t he PAAC had approved a recommendation from Arts & Culture Manager Day for Richmond resident Natalia Lawrence, with further discussion to add anothe r artist from the Richmond area. Six names had been provided to Ms. Day and the WCCCFJC was to complete the panel of three by selecting either a staff person, citizen or client. Only three voting members had been recommended for the panel that involved a $10,000 award , with potentially a member of Planning staff or of the PAAC, to be added as a non-voting member.

Arts & Culture Manager Day noted that Commissioner Herriman had volunteered to serve as the non-voting member since he had a history with the project. S he was conducting research prior to contacting the six names that had been provided to confirm their residency given the focus on Richmond residents first. A panel application would be prepared due to the number of people who wanted to be in the position. She reported that Natalia Lawrence had accepted the resident Richmond position, was familiar with Richmond, and would be a great candidate.

Commissioner Dyer suggested it would be nice to have a group of people who could be called upon when needed.

Commissioner Herriman consented to serve as the non-voting member on the panel.

Motion by Commissioner Dyer , second ed by Co-Chair Cohen to accept the PAAC recommendation to form a panel of three for the West Contra Costa County Family Justice Center (WCCCFJC) to select the work, to be comprised of Richmond resident Natalia Lawrence, an artist who resided in Richmond, someone designated by the WCCCFJC, and with Commissioner Herriman to serve as a non -voting member of the panel , and potentially to include a representative from Planning staff, carried by a Roll Call vote . (Commissioner Kirk, who was having technical difficulties, abstained by not responding.)

3. Art Inventory Update

a. After some review, StoryMaps ( https://storymaps.arcgis.com is the software recommended by the IT team. A presentation will be made a t a RACC meeting, at a time TBD.

b. Artist Registry online now
City of Richmond Artist Database Form
The City of Richmond Artist Database Form is an opportunity for local artists from all media and genres available for art projects in Richmond to provide their information to the City. If you are a local artist, please fill out this form: City of Richmond Artist Database Form.

Ms. Day reported that staff had been working on the art inventory and there were quite a few Departments involved including members of the RACC and the PAAC. She described the

Page 405 of 789 ends

3 StoryMaps software which provided a virtual tour with different c ategories that needed to be classified to organize the information.

Commissioner Dyer clarified the action being asked of the RACC to vote on the categories with a limit on the number of items that could be placed on StoryMaps. She recommended breaking the number of items down to media types such as murals, sculptures, and other types of art, with the Civic Center to have its own category.

The RACC discussed whether or not to take action on the item with a recommendation to allow staff to have the authority to proceed rather than taking action on the specific categories; and Ms.

Day suggested such direction would be acceptable, allowed a starting point, and more information would be provided to the RACC at a future meeting.

Chair Wiley stated for the record that no vote was necessary. Staff was given approval to proceed on a common sense basis to separate the categories as described by Commissioner Dyer.

VI. Discussion Items

1. Establish Meeting NORMS, Conflict of Interest, Recusal Policies, Exit Zoom and Return

Ms. Day explained that the item was intended to provide a reminder when a Commissioner must recuse himself/herself from the discussion of an item during a Zoom meeting where he/she must step off the platform for that period of time and then return. Specific NORMS could be discussed at a future meeting.

Commissioner Mehas understood the NORMS had been spelled out in the Commission’s manual and that the entire City was ruled by Conflict of Interest regulations.

Chair Wiley confirmed the information in the Commission’s manual but noted that mistakes had been made in the past. As an example, two years ago, the RACC had approved a grant which had a clear conflict of interest but which had proceeded anyway. She suggested the item required no further discussion.

2. Project Budget Development for 2022 Fiscal Year – October Make a Wish List

Chair Wiley reported she had placed the item on the meeting agenda. For the October 28, 2021 meeting, she asked Commissioners to come prepared with any item desired in the budget as an expense item, such as the Make a Wish List that must be prepared as part of the City’s budget.

On the question of where to start, Chair Wiley suggested the Committee Reports could provide some clarification.

3. Committee Reports

Chair Wiley reported the Strategic Planning Committee had held a Strategic Planning Retreat with a discussion to institute, and in some cases re-institute, committees that were part of the RACC, recognizing the PAAC was its own entity as a committee given its structure and source of revenue.

The other committees were identified as the Ookwe Park Committee, with Commi ssioners Kirk, Dyer, Leighton, Beaulieu and Mehas; the Neighborhood Public Art Mini-Grant Ad Hoc Committee included Commissioner Kirk, Co -Chair Cohen and Chair Wiley; t he Poet Laureate Committee

Page 406 of 789 ends

4 included Co -Chair Cohen and Chair Wiley; and while the Fundra ising and Development Committee had no other volunteers, Chair Wiley had volunteered to sit and serve. If there was anything that those committees needed in terms of funds, they would be budget line items.

Chair Wiley asked those Commissioners not named to select a committee , meet between now and October 28, and prepare a written report on what they planned to do moving forward. The report did not have to include the budget items since that would be discussed separately at the October 28 meeting, but she wanted to know what the committee planned to do during the months of November and December 2021.

Commissioner Mehas recommended that the Chair check with legal about the Fundra ising and Development Committee.

Chair Wiley advised that while she had not spoken with the Legal Department, she had spoken with Deputy City Manager, Economic Development Shasa Curl , who had provided some guidance. As long as working within the established parameters there was no reason for legal to become involved. She had also received information about an arts fund grant program with funds from property taxes that the Contra Costa County Measure X Advisory Committee had recently approved, which might be an opportunity for the City of Richmond to pursue. In addition, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) had an American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Grant that could be considered along with the hope that the City of Richmond’s currently allocated $65,000 for the Neighborhood Public Art (NPA) Mini Grant program could be increased.

Commissioner Herriman expressed the willingness to serve on the Ookwe Park Committee.

Commissioner Dyer asked to switch from the Ookwe Park Committee to the Fundraising and Development Committee.

Commissioner Hayes reported she could not serve on another committee beyond the PAAC since she would be stepping down from the RACC and would be relocating to another city.

VII. Information / Report Items

1. NPA Mini Grant

Chair Wiley reminded everyone not to wait until the last minute to input scores even though they were electronic.

Commissioner Beaulieu found it was premature to do the scores when the RACC had not yet discussed the proposals.

Ms. Dyer clarified that the scores could be changed and nothing was final until the October 7 , 2021 RACC meeting.

Chair Wiley emphasized th at the votes were needed now. She urged Commissioners to input their scores to identify where they were with the NPA Mini Grants.

Ms. Day concurred with the Chair’s recommendation and asked that the scores not be left blank.

2. Poet Laureate Update

Page 407 of 789 ends

5 Co-Chair Cohen reported on a productive meeting with the Chair, Ms. Day and David Flores who was working diligently to schedule event s at CoBiz Richmond with Poet Laureates from San Francisco, Vallejo, Oakland, and El Cerrito. He explained that Mr. Flores had created a sample program outline and flyers and wanted to host smaller poetry event s on Zoom during the month of October.

Chair Wiley was excited for the City of Richmond to host the event and commented that no city had hosted the Bay Area Regi onal Poet Laureates and Richmond had pioneered this kind of programming.

3. Art for Peace Rotary Project Update

Commissioner Herriman did not have an update since not much ha d happened, although a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was being prepared to be reviewed by the project participants with a meeting scheduled for Friday, October 1 , 2021. After that meeting he would have something more concrete to report.

Chair Wiley stated all Commissioners had been provided a copy of the MOU and were invited to provide any comments to Ms. Day so that they could be forwarded as appropriate.

4. Art Project Update Report

Ms. Day explained that an Inventory Committee would be required given the number of participants a ttending inventory meetings , and as-built con struction drawings for the Senior Center Mural had been received, as requested, in order to provide a cost estimate.

5. Public Art Financial Report

Chair Wiley reported she had requested information on the City of Richmond’s procedure s to have requests from the PAAC approved, with information to be provided in the RACC packet on the City’s procurement processes. She asked Commissioners to keep the information on file as to the steps and timelines that could be adjusted.

Chair Wiley referenced how the R ACC in the past had worked under the Library Services Department, with a number of challenges involved and with little access to information or cooperation as compared to what the RACC currently enjoyed under the City Manager’s Office.

She found that more was being accomplished more smoothly under the current configuration and she thanked everyone for their patience during that transition.

Commissioner Dyer clarified the Public Art Financial Report involved funds that were primarily being collected through the one percent for art, and some of the projects were man aged by the RACC and some by others. S ome of the funds involved in-lieu funds but they still had to make plans to spend the funds As a member of the PAAC, she commented that it had to look almost a full year if not up to 18 months out on where it might want to be pulling out the money for public art in the City of Richmond for planned projects.

Chair Wiley cautioned that the City of Richmond had been impacted like every other community in the country in the last 18 months due to COVID -19. She did not want the RACC funds to be poached for lack of planning.

Page 408 of 789 ends

6 Commissioner Mehas suggested if projecting the needs for the next 12 to 18 months, the RACC also needed cooperation from the Planning Department to identify what projects were approximately 12 to 18 months out.

Chair Wiley suggested it was up to the PAAC to establis h a relationship with the Planning Department and if staff was not providing something requested by the PAAC she asked to be informed.

Ms. Day acknowledged the number of changes that had occurred over the last year with the City’s policies and procedures, the fact the Finance Division had to implement policies and procedures with the RACC that were actually in writing which they currently did not have. Staff would work with legal and the Finance Division over the course of the next couple of months to pre pare a chart similar to the procurement policies the Finance Division normally followed that could be created into a policy that was art specific.

Co-Chair Cohen asked whether or not there would be any time constraints for this fiscal y ear given that it may take up to 18 months for a project to occur. Familiar with how funds were utilized by the school district, it not used by the end of the fiscal year, funds could be restored to the General Fund. He asked if that was something the RACC should be concerned about.

Commissioner Dyer clarified the funds being discussed were not part of the General Fund and that the use of the funds were specified for certain expenditures. She suggested it would be very difficult to poach the funds unless there were maintenance issues.

Ms. Day clarified that General Fund items were items like the NPA Mini Grants , which was why there was a push to ensure that all invoices were in before the deadline , since there had been issues in the past with invoices coming in after the deadline when the funds had been shifted.

Chair Wiley understood that would not affect the one percent and noted the RACC meeting of October 7 would include not only the selection of the NPA Mini Grant awards but backups to ensure the use of the funds. She clarified her previous comments that she had included the one percent in the monies that could be poached but stated that was not the case.

VIII. Adjourn until October 7, 2021 (Special Meeting)

The meeting adjourned at 6:46 p.m. to a Special Meeting of the RACC immediately after the Regular Meeting to conduct NPA Mini Grant Interviews from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. via Zoom.

Page 409 of 789 ends

1 Richmond Recreation & Parks Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, November 3, 2021 6:00 PM

To view a video of this meeting click on this link:
https://richmond.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=37

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Meeting called to order by Chair Joey Smith at 6:11 P.M.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Joey Smith, Soheila Bana, Allison Blakeley, Brendan Havenar-Daughton, Maryn Hurlbut, Catalin Kaser, Pardip Saini, Eleanor Thompson

ABSENT: None

Vice Chair Brendan Havenar-Daughton requested that the Commission embrace a sincere acknowledgement that the City of Richmond was situated on land occupied for thousands of years by Huichin: Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Chochenyo Ohlone Territory, made up of the seven Tribes of Lisjan (Ohlone), Karkin (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Wappo, Delta Yokut and Napian (Patwin) whose territory included Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa and San Joaquin counties. He invited everyone to contribute and explore a practice of acknowledgement to help lift up the needs, issues, and asks of indigenous community members and evolve in a way to stay relevant to the current struggle and goals of indigenous community members with a specific focus on exploring pathways to return indigenous lands to indigenous hands.

Chair Smith provided a brief overview of the meeting procedures and the Mission of the Recreation and Parks Commission.

AGENDA REVIEW

Motion by Commissioner Hurlbut to approve the agenda, as shown, seconded by Commissioner Kaser, and carried unanimously by a voice vote.

OPEN FORUM

Bruce Bayaert, Chair of Trails for Richmond Action Committee (TRAC), representing the Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, presented graphics for new signs and their proposed placement along the Bay Trail urging those using the trail to be kind and promote harmony on the trail.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, reported that the City Council had continued the presentation of the reorganization chart to its November 16, 2021 meeting.

Page 410 of 789 ends

2 ANNOUNCEMENTS THROUGH THE CHAIR

➢ Chair Smith advised that the Next Commission meeting would be held on Wednesday, December 1, 2021 via Zoom.

➢ The balance in the Commission Trust account was reported to be $413.08, with an additional $1,000 in the Trust for the RTA Snow Ball account.

➢ Commission membership remained the same with no changes at this point.

➢ Anyone wishing to speak during this meeting was encouraged to send an email to [email protected] by 12:00 P.M. the day of the meeting with the subject line “rec&parks commission speaker.” State your comments as “Open Forum” or “Staff Reports” as an example of the topic to be discussed.

AD HOC COMMITTEE STATEMENTS

Urban Green Canopy Committee (Brendan/Catalin/Maryn)
Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton reported that the Arbor Day event had been held last month.

Commissioner Kaser stated that 23 trees had been planted; City staff and representatives from Richmond non-profits had participated; the event had been well-attended; and the Forestry Advisory Committee had taught everyone how to plant trees.

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton advised of the Committee’s interest in looking at an update to the Parks Master Plan with a specific focus on the Richmond Greenway.

Willie Mays Day (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey)
Willie Mays Field Committee (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey)
Commissioner Thompson reported that the process was ongoing for the naming of Nicholl Field Diamond #2 for Willie Mays, with a meeting, details yet to be determined, to be set up with Councilmember Bates, Mayor Butt, and Willie Brown. The naming was expected to take place next year on Willie May’s birthday.

Commissioner Hurlbut advised that she had the original documents related to the original request for the field naming that she would provide to staff for the record.

Dominique Roache-Green stated that the Mayor was happy to sponsor Willie Mays Day and it would be placed on the City Council agenda closer to the date. She confirmed that a baseball diamond could be named or renamed for someone still living.

Associate Commissioner Committee (Maryn/Allison/Joey)
Chair Smith advised that a whole curriculum had been developed and submitted for the Associate Commissioner Committee.

LaShonda White, Interim Library and Community Services Director, explained that she had been provided a number of documents related to the Associate Commissioner proposal, had reviewed those

Page 411 of 789 ends

3 documents, thanked the Commission for all its work. She said she understood the objective of the program was to allow youth an opportunity to participate in city governance and community service operations. She explained there was nothing to prohibit young people from serving on the Commission and from being a voting member, and understood through Ms. Roache-Green that the current age limit was 16 years of age. She emphasized that other bodies already existed that may meet the Commission’s objectives.

Chair Smith stated the process had been proposed prior to some of the youth organizations referenced by Ms. White. She clarified there had been no intent to restrict voting; there had been challenges with administrative support and there was a desire to identify the process of getting the work done.

For next steps, Ms. White explained that staff time was limited; she recommended ways to meet the objectives through existing programs with staff assistance for outreach and potential mentorship to interested youth.

On the discussion, it was clarified that since the proposal had yet to be submitted to the City Council, it could be modified. The City Attorney’s office would also have to approve the legality of the proposal prior to making recommendation to the City Council.

Chair Smith stated that the Associate Commissioner Committee would re-discuss the proposal.

CONSENT CALENDAR

APPROVE minutes of the October 6, 2021 meeting.

Motion by Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton to approve the minutes of the October 6, 2021 meeting, as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Saini, and carried by a voice vote with abstentions from Commissioners Blakeley and Hurlbut.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS FROM STAFF

Library & Community Services Department – an oral and visual report was provided by Ranjana Maharaj, Community Services Administrative Manager, who responded to comments from the Commission.

Public Works Department – an oral and visual report was provided by Greg Hardesty, Superintendent, Parks and Landscaping, who responded to comments from the Commission.

Bruce Bayaert referred to a comment about signs to warn of potential coyotes in parks and stated the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) had a sign at the Dotson Family Marsh Trailhead to warn owners to keep their dogs on a leash because of coyotes, which sign could be used as a model.

PRESENTATIONS

There were no presentations.

DISCUSSIONS & ACTION ITEMS

Page 412 of 789 ends

4 Approve the Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project at the South 37th Underpass and Approve a request to rename the South 37th Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass – Stephanie Ny

Stephanie Ny, Community Services Department, presented the item on behalf of the Pullman Neighborhood Council to request approval of a proposed Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project and to rename the South 37th Street underpass to the Juneteenth Freedom Underpass. The mural project had already been approved by the Public Arts Advisory Commission (PAAC) and the Richmond Arts & Culture Commission (RACC). She presented photographs of the site, described the design process, noted the project had been expected to be completed by October but the timeline had been extended, and the mural would also honor Jerrold Hatchett, instrumental in the City of Richmond’s Juneteenth celebrations.

Michelle Milam, a member of the Juneteenth Committee; Jan Mignone, President of the Richmond Coordinating Neighborhood Council and the fiscal sponsor for the proposal; Madalyn Law, President of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council; Jonas Juhlin, a member of the Pullman neighborhood committee; Naomi Williams, President of the Pullman Neighborhood Council; Clarita Griffin from the Pullman Neighborhood Council and a member of the Beautification Block Party and the Mural Committees spoke in favor of this item describing efforts put forward by Jerold Hatchett to keep Juneteenth alive, and to acknowledge Richmond’s rich history to Juneteenth. The speakers also suggested the shaded area and the opposite side of the underpass should also be addressed in the future.

Winifred Day, Arts and Culture Manager, stated the project had been approved by the PAAC in September for the concept design and no other parts of the project had been discussed.

Jerrold Hatchett was available to speak but could not connect with the Zoom meeting.

Motion by Commissioner Bana to approve the Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project at the South 37th Underpass and to approve a request to rename the south 37th Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass, seconded by Commissioner Kaser. Motion failed since the Commission had not received and reviewed a copy of the initial renaming documentation. Chair Smith expressed concern moving forward with that action and recommended moving forward with the mural. She said as soon as the documentation on the renaming was available for review, then the Commission could pursue the renaming portion of the proposal.

Motion by Commissioner Bana to approve the Juneteenth Freedom Mural Project at the South 37th Underpass, seconded by Commissioner Kaser, and carried unanimously by a voice vote.

The renaming portion of the request was moved to the December meeting.

Receive an update regarding the City’s Parks Master Plan – Staff

Ms. Maharaj noted that Mr. Hardesty was no longer at the meeting to report on the item, although she was aware that funding would be needed to hire Marcia Vallier as the landscape architect to conduct the Master Plan upgrade, which involved a lot of community input.

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton referred to the goals associated with the Master Plan and asked for an

Page 413 of 789 ends

5 update on the progress that had been made with those goals in the last ten years.

Commissioner Kaser recommended that items associated with City staff be clustered together early on each agenda to be more respectful of staff time.

The agenda was taken out of order at this time.

Create a Kiosk concept paper for a “Walk of Honor” to be installed as part of the Yellow Brick Road Commissioner Hurlbut provided a detailed background to the request to honor people with a walk of honor. She explained that because the Yellow Brick Road project had received approval and funding in the millions, Toody Maher had been contacted because she had been thinking of the same kind of honor. A concept paper had been proposed and the Recreation & Parks Commission had supported pursuit of an honors project.

Winifred Day, Arts & Culture Manager, sought more information prior to submittal to the PAAC and the RACC. She suggested that a member of the Recreation & Parks Commission attend those meetings to make a presentation when ready to do so.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, liked the idea of a Kiosk and invited Commissioners to the Neighborhood Coordinating Council where a walk of honor had previously been discussed.

Commissioner Hurlbut clarified that no concept paper had been developed at this point and she recommended the designation of a Kiosk Committee to finalize the concept and explain the history of a potential walk of honor.

Chair Smith verified the formation of a Kiosk Committee, to be comprised of Commissioners Hurlbut, Thompson and Chair Smith.

Receive an update on the Statement of Policy and Guidelines for Naming or Re-naming of Parks, Facilities and Streets – Ranjana Maharaj

Ms. Maharaj presented the Statement of Policy and Guidelines for Naming or Re-naming of Parks, Facilities and Streets document.

Commissioner Hurlbut commented that the document being presented was not the latest that had been developed.

Ms. Maharaj described the changes that had been proposed and stated that once the document had been approved by the Recreation & Parks Commission it would go to the City Council. She said the changes will be incorporated with the most up to date version of the document and resubmitted for Commission review.

Update on Park Signage to include the following information – Greg Hardesty

Ordinance regarding dog leash and waste pick up by park users Posting multilingual signage (English/Spanish)
Signage regarding illegal dumping

Page 414 of 789 ends

6 Signage with QR Codes

Mr. Hardesty was not available but he had earlier advised that he had ordered park signage.

Coordinate open conversation on how the city can support the native stewardship of Ookwe Park

Recreation and Parks Commission
Sogorea Te’ Land Trust
Arts and Culture Commission
Planning Commission

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton explained that Ookwe Park was under the stewardship of the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust and community. He recommended a conversation with the entities listed as to how to support the native stewardship of the park lands with the intent of exploring ceding the land to the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust or other indigenous entity.

Ms. Day described what the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust was currently doing as part of Adopt a Park to maintain Ookwe Park along with the City’s maintenance efforts, and the RACC’s plans to finish the directional and didactic signage along with a plan to pursue some educational activities - a partnership that had been working well. She also noted that public schools were using the park as a field trip location.

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton clarified that the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust had not made the request but he recognized a strong movement to return land to indigenous communities and described this proposal as a first step.

Update on Commissioners Term Appointments – Ranjana Maharaj

Ms. Maharaj advised that term appointments had been corrected for Chair Smith and Commissioners Hurlbut and Thompson at the October 19, 2021, City Council meeting.

Cordell Hindler, noted that there were two vacancies and he had two folks in mind to fill those vacancies. Chair Smith verified that the names offered by Mr. Hindler had yet to submit applications to the City Clerk.

COMMISSIONER LIAISON REPORTS

The Commission discussed the process for submitting Commissioner Liaison Reports and Comment and some Commissioners read their reports.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

There were no other Commission comments.

AGENDA SETTING FOR NEXT MEETING

1. Request to rename the South 37th Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass; Commissioner

Page 415 of 789 ends

7 Hurlbut would provide color coding for the naming document to Ms. Maharaj.

2. A Kiosk Committee meeting would be scheduled to develop a concept presentation to be taken to the RACC

3. The status of potential traffic bumps outside Cheese Park would be clarified

4. Open discussion on the item related to supporting indigenous stewardship at Ookwe Park.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 9:44 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,
Anita L. Tucci-Smith
Minutes Clerk

Page 416 of 789 ends

1 Richmond Recreation & Parks Commission

MINUTES

Wednesday, December 1, 2021 6:00 PM

To view a video of this meeting click on this link:
https://richmond.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=37

CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

Meeting called to order by Chair Joey Smith at 6:02 P.M.

ROLL CALL

PRESENT: Joey Smith, Soheila Bana ,* Brendan Havenar-Daughton, Maryn Hurlbut, Catalin Kaser, Aaron Rowden, Pardip Saini, and Eleanor Thompson
*Arrived after Roll Call

ABSENT: Allison Blakeley

Vice Chair Brendan Havenar -Daughton requested that the Commission embrace a sincere acknowledgement that the City of Richmond was situated on land occupied by the Huichin: Confederated Villages of Lisjan, Chochenyo Ohlone Territory, made up of the seven Tribes of Lisjan (Ohlone), Karkin (Ohlone), Bay Miwok, Plains Miwok, Wappo, Delta Yokut and Napian (Patwin) whose territory included Alameda, Contra Costa, Solano, Napa and San Joaquin counties. He advised that he personally had contributed to the Shu’umi Land Tax as a relatively low cost way to support the native community members in their work.

Chair Smith provided a brief overview of the meeting procedures and the Mission of the Recreation and Parks Commission.

AGENDA REVIEW

Motion by Commissioner Hurlbut to approve the agenda, as shown, seconded by Vice Chair Havenar- Daughton, and carried by a voice vote, with an abstention by Commissioner Rowden.

OPEN FORUM

Gary Hurlbut, President of the Richmond Tennis Association (RTA), reported that youth and adults had been able to get back on the tennis courts with folks from the Recreation Division and volunteers from RTA for the full month of July at MLK Park , and two women ’s team s that had won the East Bay Championship had participated in sectionals in Sacramento.

Cordell Hindler, Richmond, reported that Home for the Holidays would be performed at the Contra Costa Civic Theater on December 3 and 5 at 7:30 P.M. He also reported that there would be some new deputy directors in Richmond as a result of the passage of the City’s Reorganization Chart.

Jan Mignone advised that the baseball portion of Wendell Park was being used for undesirable activities.

As a result, she requested that the opening at 26th Street be gated. She added that she had been working

Page 417 of 789 ends

2 to get more lights in the park to help address the issue.

ANNOUNCEMENTS THROUGH THE CHAIR

1. Chair Smith advised that the Next Commission meeting would be held on the second Wednesday of January, January 12, 2022 via Zoom.

2. The balance in the Commission Trust account was reported to be $413.08, with an additional $1,000 in the Trust for the RTA Snow Ball account.

3. Chair Smith welcomed new Commissioner Aaron Rowden to the Recreation & Parks Commission.

4. Anyone wishing to speak during this meeting was encouraged to send an email to [email protected] by 12 :00 P.M. the day of the meeting with the subject line “rec&parks commission speaker.” State your comments as “Open Forum” or “Staff Reports” as an example of the topic to be discussed.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Approve Minutes of the November 3, 2021 Meeting

Motion by Commissioner Kaser to approve the minutes of the November 3, 2021 meeting, as submitted, seconded by Commissioner Hurlbut, and carried by a voice vote with an abstention from Commissioner Rowden.

DEPARTMENT REPORTS FOR INFORMATION

Public Works Department Reports:

Jose Urquilla, Superintendent, Facilities and Greg Hardesty, Superintendent, Parks & Landscaping provided oral and visual reports and responded to comments from the Commission, including the status of the signage previously approved by the Commission.

Community Services Department:

Ranjana Maharaj, CSD Administrative Manager , provided oral and visual reports and responded to comments from the Commission.

PRESENTATIONS

Update on Pickleball Program – Darlene Drapkin

Darlene Rios Drapkin, USA Pickleball Association Ambassador, East Bay Pickleball Association noted that the Commission had voted in June 2021 to allow the conception of a Pickleball Program. She pointed out the multi-purposing that had been made to the two existing tennis co urts at Booker T. Anderson, Jr.

Park for six temporary pickleball courts. She referred to court fees paid to the City and requested that the City consider waiving those fees. She noted that a theft of temporary equipment in November had crippled the program.

Ms. Drapkin explained that there were few pickleball courts in Richmond. She proposed a solution to meet the existing demand for pickleball in Richmond was to place two pickleball courts using the existing lines to allow two dedicated courts. She requested that the Commission repurpose one tennis court in the park so that two permanent pickleball courts could be installed at no cost to the City.

Page 418 of 789 ends

3 Gary Hurlbut, Richmond, stated that while he was a pickleball supporter , the loss of one tennis court would leave only one court for tennis at the park. He explained that the tennis courts at the park had been utilized by Richmond youth programs, with 230 youth on the courts in 2019.

Shoshana Grammer, Richmond, a pickleball player, noted that 1,300 people had come out in the last few months to play pickleball and there were options to consider, which could include building new pickleball courts.

Michelle Temple, Richmond, stated that pickleball had come to Richmond with a smash in August and since then hundreds of players had come in and the sport had united people of all ages in a healthy activity.

Ahmad Anderson, a Richmond Economic Development Commissioner and son of Booker T. Anderson, stated the issue was about inclusiveness and a way to join both tennis and pickleball together. He advised that pickleball had increased participation, inclusion and engagement. He appealed to the Commission to help move the program forward.

Cheryl Maier, with Richmond Friends of Recreation, a non-profit agency helping the City by stewarding special funds for parks and recre ation at the request of the City, emphasized the need for some compromise.

Debra Bernhardt, echoed the comments of others and noted that all the tennis courts at Indian Wells would be temporarily converted to pickleball courts for the Nationals , where 2,800 pickleball players would participate from children to 90 -year olds, disabled and others . She emphasized that pickleball would be a good addition to the community.

Eduardo Martinez, a member of the Richmond City Council , noted that while he had initially been skeptical about pickleball, he had seen what a great community building vehicle it was. He stated a lock box would not be a solution and there was a need to create a situation to help pickleball grow and be established in the City of Richmond.

Phillip Moss, Richmond, stated the permanent pickleball courts would give everyone the opportunity to play pickleball in a walk -on, play and leave situation. He requested the support for the two pickleball courts given the informal, inexpensive effort involved.

Commissioner Hurlbut pointed out that the Nystrom area was a very large unused area that would be a perfect permanent location for pickleball courts where there could be six courts instead of two. She objected to having to remove lines that had already been paid for to convert the courts from tennis to pickleball.

Ms. Drapkin clarified that the two courts would be placed on the existing lines and while she supported use of the Nystrom area, she explained that would be a long-term and not a short-term solution and would involve a lot of investment.

Commissioner Saini asked if the proposal would interrupt those who wanted to play tennis.

Tetteh Kisseh, Recreation Program Coordinator, clarified that for the proposal to be approved it would first require approval from the neighborhood council and the Recreation & Parks Commission. He noted that both programs had equal power and if approved there would be pickleball on one side and tennis on the other evenly distributed. In response to Commissioner Bana as to whether pickleball could be considered in the El Sobrante Valley area or at De Anza High School, he stated that the City had been

Page 419 of 789 ends

4 exploring other possibilities of expansion in Richmond.

Ms. Temple spoke to the popularity of pic kleball throughout the Bay Area. She urged the Commission to offer some permanent solutions to the situation where over $2,000 had been lost in the theft.

Mr. Anderson commented that while the pickleball organizers had contacted the West Contra Costa Unified School District (WCCUSD) w ith respect to the use of the tennis courts on school properties, there were issues with respect to WCCUSD control and insurance that had made the use of those courts difficult if not impossible.

Mr. Martinez confirmed that it would be unwieldly to do anything with the WCCUSD unless it was with respect to tournaments or something special.

Ms. Drapkin reported that Don Low , former Executive Director of the YMCA in Richmond, had submitted a comment on Chat to request a permanent pickleball course in Richmond.

Ms. Bernhardt pointed out that the money being collected for pickleball was being submitted to the City of Richmond.

Ms. Drapkin requested that the comments submitted to the City be shared with the pickleball organization.

Master Fee Schedule – Hope Lattell

Hope Lattell, Senior Accountant, presented updates to the Recreation & Parks Department portion of the Master Fee Schedule and stated this year the updates were fairly minimal. She identified the changes requested, the fee updates that were all fairly minimal, an d pointed out the fees involved to make the department more self-sufficient.

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton commented that some of the fees appeared to be low, such as alcohol sales at the convention center. He asked about the criteria used to determine the relative increase and requested a report on the amount of revenue generated for each of the line items.

Ms. Lattell stated that information could be provided. She added that the idea was to slowly present an incremental increase to get close to being self-sufficient.

Commissioner Kaser requested that the slides be presented to the Commission ahead of time given that the Zoom presentation was too small to read. She noted the difference between raising revenue and covering costs, and with respect to the policing of even ts, she wanted to make sure that Richmond residents could still get together for a protest, ceremonies, or block parties, among others.

Ms. Lattell noted the delicate balance of making a little bit of money to help offset the free programming to allow the City to continue to provide the programs. She had done cost recovery calculations on every program offered and was very mindful of the impact to residents.

Commissioner Saini wanted to be able to utilize the Richmond Auditorium more efficiently and a sked about the occupancy of the auditorium.

A discussion developed on the protocols involved in the renting of the auditorium to ensure the safety,

Page 420 of 789 ends

5 security and maintenance of the facility.

In response to Commissioner Bana, Ms. Lattell detailed the fees that depended on the size of demonstrations, and the fees related to administrative work related to coordinating the events.

AD HOC COMMITTEE STATEMENTS

Urban Green Canopy Committee (Brendan/Catalin/Maryn)
Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton reported that the committee had met last week and had recommended a renaming to the Sustainability and Climate Responsiveness Committee to engage with and support the work to develop the Richmond Greenway in connection with the interest in offering an update to the Parks Master Plan. The Committee had been discussing ways to engage and support local community - based organizations doing work on the Greenway and interfacing with City staff with respect to the development of the Greenway. The Committee was also focused on tree planting, supporting the green canopy, and the best way to go about tree planting.

Willie Mays’ Day (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey)
Willie Mays Field Committee (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey)
Kiosk Concept Paper for a “Walk of Honor” Committee (Maryn/Eleanor/Joey) Commissioner Hurlbut referred first to the draft Kiosk Concept Paper for a “Walk of Honor” and stated the committee would meet to review the paper before making a presentation to the Commission. With respect to Willie Mays Day, she described the meeting with Willie Brown and Nat Bates in San Francisco to discuss a kick-off to get input from Willie Mays on what he would like the day to be. A concept paper had been written about Willie Mays Day for a life tribute for his many contributions on or around his birthday on May 6, 2022. She presented a list of those expected to participate in the event being called “Hands Across the Bay” to make it more of a national event , to include a wide range of participants including Charles Cavenes who had initially recommended the event.

Commissioner Hurlbut asked that a copy of all the screens just presented be submitted to the rest of the Commission for review. She reported that meetings would be set up in the next two weeks for both the Kiosk Concept and Willie Mays Day and how the kiosk might be incorporated as t he first kiosk prototype.

Associate Commissioner Committee (Maryn/Allison/Joey)

Commissioner Hurlbut stated that she had tried to reach out to the Mayor’s and City Manager’s office s to invite both to the next naming committee meeting to ask about the status of an approved concept that was supposed to have been submitted to the City Council.

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton reported that LaShonda White had reached out to him about Y-PLAN, and she had expressed a w illingness to meet with anyone interested in that program . H e would meet with her to explore how the goals associated with the Associate Commissioner could blend with Y- PLAN.

Statement of Policy and Guidelines for Naming or Re-naming of Parks, Facilities and Streets

There was no discussion.

Page 421 of 789 ends

6 DISCUSSIONS & ACTION ITEMS

a. Approve a request to rename the South 37 th Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass – Stephanie Ny

Chair Smith verified that Commissioners had reviewed the documentation involved and there were no questions with respect to those documents.

Motion by Commissioner Kaser to rename the South 37 th Street Underpass to Juneteenth Freedom Underpass, seconded by Commissioner Bana, and carried unanimously by a voice vote.

b. Coordinate an open conversation on how the city can support the native stewardship of Ookwe Park

i. Recreation and Parks Commission
ii. Sogorea Te’ Land Trust
iii. Arts and Culture Commission
iv. Planning Commission

Vice Chair Havenar-Daughton reported that he had touched base with the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, which was interested in having a conversation . Given all those involved , he stated it made sense to defer the conversation to the third or fourth week in Januar y 2022 t o coordinate all those interested . Another update would be provided in January.

COMMISSIONER LIAISON REPORTS

There were no reports.

COMMISSIONER COMMENTS

Ms. Maharaj shared with the Commission that the Recreation Division has a token of appreciation which needed to be individually picked up by Commissioners. She said during non-COVID times, the Division would generally host a reception for the Commission. Commissioners were asked to coordinate the pick up of the token with Christine George, the Executive Secretary.

Commissioner Saini verified with the Chair that the final meeting of his Commission term after nine years would be the January 12, 2022 meeting.

Chair Smith advised that an event in Commissioner Saini’s honor would be scheduled in the near future.

AGENDA SETTING FOR NEXT MEETING AND FUTURE TOPICS

There was no discussion.

ADJOURNMENT

The meeting adjourned at 8:51 P.M.

Respectfully Submitted,
Anita L. Tucci-Smith
Minutes Clerk

Page 422 of 789 ends

Page 423 of 789 ends

Page 424 of 789 ends

Page 1 of 4 ends

February 1, 2022

Finance Department

DATE: February 1, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Shasa Curl, Interim City Manager
Anil Comelo, Interim Deputy City Manager
Belinda Brown, Director of Finance
Antonio Banuelos, Accounting Manager
Subject:

Final Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2020-2021 Budget
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The full reduction of disallowed costs of the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) receivables totaled $10.4
million, which was $4.3 million more than what was
originally approved by City Council. Based on U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Public
Housing Authority Recovery and Sustainability (PHARS)
agreement with the City and CVR Associate’s report
regarding the RHA repayment plan, as well as the
recommendations from the City’s auditors, a decision
was made to fully reduce RHA’s receivables. The
financial impact of the change results in a reduction of $4.3 million set aside for City’s reserves balance. On
June 29, 2021, staff projected an ending reserve balance of 14.3 percent; however, the $4.3 million reduction will decrease the reserve balance to 12.5 percent.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

June 29, 2021 and October 26, 2021
AGENDA
REPORT

Page 425 of 789 ends

Page 2 of 4 ends

February 1, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Present City Council with the final updates to fiscal year 2020-2021 regarding the disposition of excess revenue.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE an update on the Fiscal Year 2020-2021
budget – City Manager’s Office/Finance Department
(Shasa Curl/Anil Comelo/Belinda Brown/Antonio
Banuelos 510-620-6740).

DISCUSSION:

FY 2020-2021 Budget Update

On June 29, 2021, as part of the budget process, staff initially estimated Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-2021 would end with a surplus of $15.5 million. As the final numbers started to settle, the estimate increased to nearly $20.9 million as stated in the October 26, 2021 budget presentation. The $5.4 million increase in revenues over expenses is a combination of various items. On the revenue side, the main item is additional Transfer Tax received. The sale of three properties alone in the last quarter of FY 2020-2021 brought in nearly $5 million. On the expenditure side, the main reduction is the Professional Services expense category which was about $1 million less than the previous projection. The original forecast assumed the full amount of encumbrances would be expended, but when that did not happen, expenditures in this category reduced the forecasted amount.

FY2020-21 FY2020-21 FY2020-21 FY2020-21
ACCOUNTS FOR: MID-YEAR PROJECTION PROJECTION FINAL
GENERAL FUND BUDGET 6/29/2021 10/26/2021 BEFORE
USES
TOTAL REVENUES 175,814,340 183,467,774 188,099,774 188,406,360 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 171,653,539 167,919,885 167,222,535 167,495,696 NET SURPLUS/ (DEFICIT) 4,160,801 15,547,889 20,877,239 20,910,664

Proposed Uses of FY 2020-2021 Surplus

On June 29, 2021, as part of the adopted budget, City Council approved the various expenditures listed below to be funded by the original projected surplus:

Page 426 of 789 ends

Page 3 of 4 ends

February 1, 2022
Proposed Uses:

Reimagining Public Safety -1,300,000 Used in FY2021-22/Employment & Training Fund (E&T)
Community Facility
Improvements -1,700,000 Used in FY2021 -22/Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Fund
Staff Compensation – One
Time Payment -2,300,000 Used in FY2021-22
Maintain 14.3% Reserve
Level -4,219,567 To be used in FY2020-21
Reduce RHA liability -3,000,000 Set Aside to reduce R ichmond Housing Authority (RHA) liability in FY2020-21
Set aside for Reserves -3,000,000 To be used in FY2021-22 Total Approved Uses: -$15,519,567

On October 26, 2021, Finance staff provided an update to City Council regarding the FY 2020-2021 budget and shared that the ending surplus would increase by $5.35 million, from $15.5 million, to an estimated $20.87 million. City Council approved the following additional expenditures to be funded by the projected surplus:

Proposed Uses:

Set aside for possible
Measure U shortfall -2,000,000 Set aside in FY2020-21 to be used in FY2021-22 if needed
Additional GF Expenditures -229,000 Used in FY2021-22
Reduce RHA liability -3,128,968 Used in FY2020-21
Total Approved Uses: -$5,357,968

Actual Uses of FY 2020-2021 Surplus

Towards the end of the City’s annual fiscal audit, it was determined that $10.4 million of the RHA receivable was uncollectable. Once that determination was made, the additional receivable of $4.3 million had to be written off. It is important to note that the RHA write-off issue came from the City’s investments over numerous years to help support the maintenance and renovation of 783 public housing units, assist RHA in meeting obligations to program participants and HUD, and uplifting and supporting the health and safety of RHA’s residents.

The funding for the additional $4.3 million write-off will come from the City’s reserves. Of the $7.2 million originally projected for reserves, as shared during the June 29, 2021 City Council meeting, only $2.1 million will now be available to increase the City’s reserves.

Other appropriations of the surplus such as Reimagining Public Safety, Community Facilities Improvements, staff one time compensation, Measure U set aside, and additional expenses remained unchanged.

Page 427 of 789 ends

Page 4 of 4 ends

February 1, 2022

FY 2020-2021 GF Revenues Over Expenditures $20,910,664 Budgeted
Reduced RHA Liability -10,442,853
Appropriation Authority for Reimaging Public Safety -1,300,000 Appropriation Authority for Community Facilities Improvements -1,700,000 Appropriation Authority for Staff Compensation – One Time Payment -2,300,000
FY 2021-22 Set Aside for reserves -2,938,811
Measure U Set-Aside -2,000,000
FY 2021-22 Additional Expenses -229,000
Total Budget Adjustments -$20,910,664

Impact on the City’s Reserve Balance

Based upon communication with the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and consistent with advice from the City’s auditors, staff allocated a total of $10.4 million toward the write off of Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) liability to the City. Despite the write off, as of June 30, 2021, the City’s reserves increased by $2.1 million to $22,477,829, or 12.5 percent of the FY 2021-2022 General Fund Expenditures (excluding Operating Transfers Out). Per current policy, the City’s goal is to maintain a year-end contingency reserve balance of a minimum of 15 percent of the next year’s budgeted General Fund expenditures. To meet the policy reserve level, the City would need to set aside an additional $4.5 million.

NEXT STEPS:

Staff will return in February to the City Council with budget updates for FY 2021-2022.

Please visit the City’s website at https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/1427/Presentations for the most up-to-date budget information and presentations.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None

Page 428 of 789 ends

Page 1 of 3 ends

January 25, 2022

Finance Department

DATE: January 25, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Belinda Brown, Director of Finance
Delmy Cuellar, Accounting Manager

Subject:

City of Richmond Annual Comprehensive Financial
Report for the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to receiving this report.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

N/A

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City retains an independent auditor to annually
review and express an opinion regarding the accurate
representation of the City’s financial statements.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a report on the City’s Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report (ACFR) for Fiscal Year 2020-2021 –
Finance Department (Belinda Brown/Delmy Cuellar 510-
620-6740).

DISCUSSION:

The Finance Department issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select firms of certified public accountants to audit City’s financial statements, and financial statements AGENDA
REPORT

Page 429 of 789 ends

Page 2 of 3 ends

January 25, 2022
of component entities, including the Richmond Housing Authority, for the fiscal years ending June 30, 2020, through June 30, 2022, with an option to extend the contract in one-year periods, not to exceed a total of two additional fiscal years. Based on th e audit RFP and interview rating matrixes, Badawi and Associates scored the highest points and was selected as our external auditors.

Badawi and Associates, the City of Richmond’s external auditors, have audited financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Richmond as of and for the year ended June 30, 2021, and the related notes to the financial statements.

Badawi and Associates have completed the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) for the year ended June 30, 2021. The Independent Auditor’s Report states:

Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion

“The financial statements of the Richmond Housing Authority and RHA Properties, RHA Housing Corporation, and RHA RAD LLC have not been audited for the year ended June 30, 2021. The Richmond Housing Authority’s financial activities are included in the City’s basic financial statements as a major enterprise fund and represent 10.85 percent, 22.20 percent, and 6.19 percent of the assets, net position, and revenues, respectively, of the City’s business-type activities. The financial activities of the RHA Properties, RHA Housing Corporation, and RHA RAD LLC are included in the City’s financial activities as discretely presented component units and represent the City’s only discretely presented component units.”

Disclaimer of Opinion

“Because of the significance of the matter described in the Basis for Disclaimer of Opinion paragraph, we have not been able to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to provide a basis for an audit opinion on the financial statements of the business-type activities, Richmond Housing Authority Enterprise Fund, and the aggregate discretely presented component units of the City. Accordingly, we do not express an opinion on these financial statements.”

Note: Maze and Associates, external auditors for the Richmond Housing Authority (RHA) audits for the fiscal years ended, June 30, 2018, and 2019, are working to complete these respective audits by the end of this current fiscal year. Once these prior audits have been completed, Badawi and Associates will work to complete the RHA audit for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2020, and 2021. As a result, we do not expect to receive a “Disclaimer of Opinion” for our audits ending June 30, 2022.

Unmodified Opinions

“In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, the General Fund, the Community Development and Loan Programs Special Revenue Fund, the

Page 430 of 789 ends

Page 3 of 3 ends

January 25, 2022
Port of Richmond Enterprise Fund, the Municipal Sewer Enterprise Fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City as of June 30, 2021, and the respective changes in financial position and, where applicable, cash flows thereof for the year then ended in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.”

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – City of Richmond Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the year ended June 30, 2021
Attachment 2 – Badawi and Associates fiscal year 2021 Presentation to City Council

Page 431 of 789 ends

Annual Comprehensive
Financial Report
For The Year Ended
eune 30, 2021
Richiond California
The City of

Page 432 of 789 ends

Page 433 of 789 ends

City of Richmond
California
Financial Report
Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Prepared by the Finance Department
Belinda Brown
Finance Director/Treasurer

Page 434 of 789 ends

This Page Left Intentionally Blank

Page 435 of 789 ends

City of Richmond
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the year ended June 30, 2021
Table of Contents
Page
i

INTRODUCTORY SECTION
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................................................ i Letter of Transmittal ...................................................................................................................................................... v Organizational Chart .................................................................................................................................................... xi List of Elected and Appointed Officials .................................................................................................................... xii

FINANCIAL SECTION
Independent Auditor’s Report ................................................................................................................................... 1 Management’s Discussion and Analysis .................................................................................................................. 5 Basic Financial Statements:

Government-wide Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................... .................................. 24 Statement of Activities ..................................................................................................... ..................................... 26 Fund Financial Statements:

Governmental Fund Financial Statements:

Balance Sheet – Governmental Funds ......................................................................................... .................... 31 Reconciliation of the Governmental Fu nds Balance Sheet to the Government-Wide Statement of Net Position ................................................................................................. ............................. 32 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Governmental Funds ............................................................................................. ..................... 33 Reconciliation of the Govern mental Funds Statement of Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities ...................................... 34 Proprietary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Net Position – Proprietary Funds .............................................................................. ............... 36 Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund
Net Position – Proprietary Funds .......................................................................................... ....................... 38 Statement of Cash Flows – Proprietary Funds ................................................................................ ............... 40 Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements:

Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Fiduciary Funds ............................................................................... 43 Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Fidu ciary Funds .......................................................... 44 Notes to Basic Financial Statements ......................................................................................... .......................... 47Page 436 of 789 City of Richmond
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the year ended June 30, 2021
Table of Contents
Page
ii
Required Supplemental Information:

Budget and Budgetary Accounting ...................................................................................................................... 177 Schedule of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual:

General Fund ................................................................................................................ ....................................... 179 Community Development and Loan Programs Special Revenue Fund ..................................................... 180 Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios – Miscellaneous Plan ........................... 182 Schedule of Contributions – Miscellaneous Plan ........................................................................................................ 184 Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios – Safety Plan ....................................... 186 Schedule of Contributions – Safety Plan ............................................................................................................... 188 Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios:

General Pension Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 190 Police and Firemen’s Pension Plan ........................................................................................... .......................... 192 Garfield Pension Plan ....................................................................................................... ................................... 194 Schedule of Contributions:

General Pension Plan ........................................................................................................ ................................... 196 Police and Firemen’s Pension Plan ............................................................................................................................. 196 Garfield Pension Plan ....................................................................................................... ................................... 196 Schedule of Investment Returns:

Police and Firemen’s Pension Plan ........................................................................................... .......................... 197 General Pension Plan ..................................................................................................................................................... 197 Garfield Pension Plan ....................................................................................................... ................................... 197 Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan Schedules - OPEB Plan:

Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Relate d Ratios ........................................................... 198 Schedule of Plan Contributions .............................................................................................. ........................... 199 Schedule of Investment Returns .............................................................................................. .......................... 199 Other Post-Employment Benefits Plan Schedules -RPOA Plan:

Schedule of Changes in the Net OPEB Liability and Relate d Ratios ........................................................... 200 Schedule of Plan Contributions .............................................................................................. ........................... 201 Supplementary Information:

Combining and Individual Fund Statements and Schedules:

Combining Balance Sheet – Nonmajor Governmental Fund s ....................................................................... 208 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances – Nonmajor Governmental Funds ................................................................................ ....... 212

Page 437 of 789 ends

City of Richmond
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the year ended June 30, 2021
Table of Contents
Page
iii
Supplementary Information (Continued):

Schedules of Revenue, Expenditures, and Changes in Fund Balance – Budget and Actual:

Nonmajor Governmental Funds:

State Gas Tax Fund ......................................................................................................... ................................. 216 General Purpose Fund ....................................................................................................... .............................. 217 Paratransit Operations Fund ................................................................................................ .......................... 218 Employment and Training Fund ............................................................................................... .................... 219 Public Safety Fund ......................................................................................................... .................................. 220 Lighting and Landscaping Districts Fund .................................................................................... ................ 221 Developer Impact Fees Fund ................................................................................................. ......................... 222 Secured Pension Override Fund .............................................................................................. ...................... 223 Richmond Neighborhood Stabilization Corporation Fund ....................................................................... 224 Rent Control Fund .......................................................................................................... ................................. 225 Cost Recovery Fund ......................................................................................................... ................................ 226 Environmental and Community Investment Agreement Fund ................................................................ 227 2005 Pension Obligation Bonds Fund ......................................................................................... .................. 228 General Debt Service Fund .................................................................................................. ........................... 229 Civic Center Debt Service Fund ............................................................................................. ........................ 230 General Capital Improvement Fund ........................................................................................... .................. 231 Measure C/J Fund ........................................................................................................... ................................ 232 Harbor Navigation Fund ..................................................................................................... ........................... 233 Combining Statements of Net Position – Nonmajor Enterprise Funds ........................................................... 2 35 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Fund Net Position – Nonmajor Enterprise Funds .............................................................................. ......... 236 Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Nonmajor Enterprise Funds ........................................................... 237 Combining Statement of Net Position – Internal Service Funds ................................................................... 239 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses and Changes in Net Position – Internal Service Funds ...................................................................................... ..................... 240 Combining Statement of Cash Flows – Internal Service Funds .................................................................. .. 241 Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Pension Trust Funds.................................................... 244 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Positi on – Pension Trust Funds ............................... 245 Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Privat e Purpose Trust Funds ...................................... 246 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Private Purpose Trust Funds ................. 247 Sub-Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position –
Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency ............................................. 248 Sub-Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency ............................................. 250 Combining Statement of Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds ........................................................... 2 54 Combining Statement of Changes in Fiduciary Net Position – Custodial Funds ...................................... 256

Page 438 of 789 ends

City of Richmond
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
For the year ended June 30, 2021
Table of Contents
Page
iv

STATISTICAL SECTION
Net Position by Component Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................................................................. .............. 264 Changes in Net Position Last Ten Fi scal Years ................................................................................................... 266 Fund Balances of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................... ..... 268 Changes in Fund Balance of Governmental Funds Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................... 270 Assessed and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property La st Ten Fiscal Years ....................................... 272 Property Tax Rates – All Overlapping Governments Last Te n Fiscal Years .................................................. 274 Principal Property Tax Payers Current Year and Nine Ye ars Ago .................................................................. 276 Property Tax Levies and Collections Last Ten Fiscal Years .................................................................... .......... 277 Utility Users Tax Collections Last Ten Fiscal Years ... ........................................................................................ 278 Utility Users Tax Direct Rates On Charges For Services Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................. 279 Top Ten Utility Users Taxpayers .............................................................................................. ............................ 280 Ratio of Outstanding Debt by Type Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................................... .......... 281 Revenue Bond Coverage 1999, 2006, 2008, 2010A, 2010B, 2017A and 2019B Wastewater Revenue Bonds Last Ten Fiscal Years ......................................................................................... ...................... 282 Revenue Bond Coverage 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007 and 2009 Port Terminal Lease Revenue Bonds, Note and Point Potrero Lease Revenue Bonds Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................. 283 General Bonded Debt – Pension Obligation Bonds Last Ten Fiscal Years ...................................................... 28 4 Bonded Debt Pledged Revenue Coverage Tax Allocation Bonds and Refunding Bonds Last Ten Fiscal Years ....................................................................................................... .................................... 285 Computation of Direct and Overlapping Debt ................................................................................... ................ 286 Computation of Legal Bonded Debt Margin ...................................................................................... ................ 287 Demographic and Economic Statistics Last Ten Calendar Years .................................................................. ... 288 Principal Employers Current Year and Nine Years Ago .... ............................................................................... 289 Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Func tion Last Ten Fiscal Years .............................. 290 Operating Indicators by Function/Program Last Ten Fiscal Years ............................................................... .. 291 Capital Asset Statistics by Function/Program Last Ten Fiscal Years ........................................................... ... 292

Page 439 of 789 ends

FINANCE DEPARTMENT
450 CIVIC CENTER PLAZA
RICHMOND, CA 94804
(510) 620-6740
December 31, 2021
Citizens of the City of Richmond
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
We are pleased to present the Annual Comprehe nsive Financial Report (ACFR) of the City of Richmond, California (City). The Finance Depart ment has prepared this report to present the financial position and the results of the City’s operations for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, and the cash flows of its proprietary fund types for the year then ende d. The basic financial statements and supporting schedules have been pr epared in compliance with Article IV, Section 1(b)3 of the City Charter, with California Government Code Sections 25250 and 25253, and in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for local governments as established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB).

This report consists of management’s represen tations concerning the fi nances of the City.

Consequently, management assumes full responsibility for the completeness and reliability of all of the information presented in this report. To provide a reasonable basis for making these representations, management of the City has established a comprehensive internal control framework that is designed both to protect the government’s assets from loss, theft or misuse, and to compile sufficient reliable information for the preparation of the City’s financial statements in conformity with GAAP. Because the cost of internal controls should not outweigh their benefits, the City’s comprehensive framework of internal controls has been designed to provide reasonable rather than absolute assurance that the financial statements will be free from material misstatement.

As management, we assert that, to the best of our knowledge and belief, this financial report is complete and reliable in all material aspects.

The City Council is required to adopt an initial budget for the fiscal year to be effective July 1, for the ensuing fiscal year. Budgeted expenditures are adopted through the passage of a resolution.

This resolution constitutes the maximum authori zed expenditures for the fiscal year and cannot legally be exceeded except by subsequent amendments of the budget by City Council.

Expenditures are controlled at the fund level for all budgeted departments within the City. This is the level at which expenditures may not legally exceed appropriations.

The City’s financial statements have been audite d by an independent auditing firm of licensed certified public accountants. Th e objective of the in dependent audit was to provide reasonable

Page 440 of 789 ends

vi
assurance that the financial statements of the City for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, are free of material misstatement. The independent audi t involved examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the fi nancial statements; assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates ma de by management, and evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. The independent auditor conclude d, based upon the audit, that there was reasonable basis for rendering an unmodified opinion on the City’s financial statements for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021, but with a disclaimer of opinion for business-type activities as it relates to the Richmond Housing Authority Enterprise Fund and the aggregate discretely presented component units, as the financial st atements of the Richmond Housing Authority and RHA Properties, RHA Housing Corporation and RHA RAD LLC have not been audited for the year ended June 30, 2021. The Independent Auditors ’ Report is presented as the first component of the Financial Section of this report.

Accounting standards require that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement the MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. The City’s MD&A can be found immediately following the report of the independent auditors.

The Reporting Entity and Its Services
The City has defined its reporting entity in acc ordance with GAAP that provide guidance for determining which governmental activities, organizations and functions should be included in the reporting entity. This ACFR pres ents information on the activities of the city and its component units.

As required by GAAP, these basic financial statements present the City and its component units, entities for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. Blended component units, although legally separate entities are, in substance, pa rt of the City’s operations and data from these units are combined with data of the City. Discretely presented component units, on the other hand, are reported in a separate column in the ba sic financial statements to emphasize their legal separateness from the City. Each blended com ponent unit has a June 30 year-end. The City’s three discretely presented component units ar e RHA Properties, RHA Housing Corporation and RHA RAD LLC. Please see note 1 for a detailed discussion of the financial reporting entity.

The City’s component units and assessment dist ricts are as follows: the Richmond Housing Authority, the Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authorit y, the Richmond Neighborhood Stabilization Corporation, the Richmond Surplu s Property Authority a nd Harbor Navigation, Country Club Vista and Atlas Interchange Special Assessment Districts. The City also has one inactive component unit, Richmond Parking Authority.

Page 441 of 789 ends

vii
Profile of the Government
The City of Richmond was chartered as a city in 1909, and is located 16 miles northeast of San Francisco, directly across San Francisco Bay. Richmond is on a peninsula separating San Francisco Bay (on the south) and San Pablo Bay (to the nort h), spanning 32 total miles of shoreline. The City's total area is 56.1 square miles, 33.8 of which is land area and 22.3 water area. Richmond is situated near major metropolitan cities and majo r new growth areas. San Francisco is within 35 minutes from Richmond by freeway; Oakland is 20 minutes; San Jose is approximately one hour's drive to the south and Sacramento , the state capitol, is approximately 90 minutes to the east.

Central Marin County is 15 minu tes from Richmond directly acro ss the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge. Freeways provide direct access from Richmond to major new growth areas along Interstate 80 north and east to Vallejo, Fairfield and Sacramento; along Interstate 680 in central Contra Costa County; and south along Interstate 880 to the San Jose area.

Richmond’s population is 111,785. The population within a 30-mile radius of Richmond is over

3.7 million, and within a 70-mile radius is approximately 7.8 million. Richmond is located on the western shore of Contra Costa County, and is the largest city in the "West County" region consisting of five cities: Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Hercules and Pinole.

The City of Richmond provides a full range of municipal services, in cluding police and fire protection, construction and maintenance of highways, streets and infrastructure, library services, storm water and municipal sewer systems, wastewater treatment facility and the administration of recreational activities and cultural events. The City also operates the Richmond Memorial Convention Center and the Port of Richmond.

The City Council is the govern ing body of the City and has si x members elected at-large to alternating 4-year terms. The Ma yor is elected at large and is a seventh member of the City Council. The City of Richmond is a Council-Manager form of government. The City Manager, appointed by the Mayor and Council, has administrative authority to manage administrative and fiscal operations of the City. In addition to the City Manager, the City Attorney, City Clerk and Investigative Appeals Officer are appointed by the Mayor and Council.

The mission of the City of Richmond is:

The City of Richmond provides services that enhance economic vitality, the environment and the quality of life of our community.

Factors Affecting Financial Condition
The information presented in the financial stat ements is perhaps best understood when it is considered from the broader pers pective of the specific envir onment within which the City operates.

Page 442 of 789 ends

viii
Local economy
The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) was signed into law on March 11, 2021. The City’s allocated amount was $27.7 million. The City received the first installment in the amount of $13.8 million in August 2021 and the second installment is to be received in July 2023.

COVID-19 pandemic is still having significant impacts on the City of Richmond’s tax revenues. Revenue reduction reflected in Transi ent Occupancy Tax (TOT), and fees and rentals collected by both the Police Depa rtment and Community Services. The TOT decreased 43% in FY2020-21 compared to FY2019-20. When compared to FY2018-19, a full year pf pre-pandemic activity, the decrease is 56%. Due to facility closures and changes to other activities, some departments saw significant decreases to revenue co llected for either services provided or rental of facilities. For example, Community services saw a decrease of 60% for recreation program fees collected in FY2020-21, compared to FY2019-20. When compared to FY2018-19, the decrease is 70%. Revenue collection and projections for fiscal year 2022 have been budgeted conservatively and will require close monitoring and review.

Significant Events and Accomplishments
The City of Richmond is commi tted to providing excellent muni cipal services to its diverse residents and visitors. Highlights of the City’s activities and accomplishments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2021 include the following:

Library and Community Services:

Community Services Department (CSD)
x The Recreation Department’s Ca mp Achieve was featured on the cover of Western Cities Magazine in the August 2020 issue.
x The Recreation Department star ted an in-person after scho ol program at the Richmond Recreation Complex from March 2021 - June 2021. The program offered: social interaction, games, sports (including tennis), art projects, homework assistance, snacks, and meeting new friends.

Employment and Training Department
x EDD awarded Richmond $274,300 of the total $1.8 million award to improve career pathways for English Language Learners. The Richmond Workforce Development Board was selected through a competitive selection process to implement programs that develop critical job skills that English Language Learners (ELL) need to enter careers in growing local industries.

Library – Literacy for Every Adult Program (LEAP)
x LEAP makes a positive difference in the lives of individual people and in the community at large. During this fiscal ye ar, LEAP has aided 14 individuals in earning their GED or High School Diploma. This success is despite the ch allenges of COVID, the difficultly of remote learning, and the economic hardships placed on our students.

Page 443 of 789 ends

Richmond City CouncilFebruary 1, 2022

Richmond City Council
February 1, 2022