Written Public Comments Received 3-15-2022 — Richmond City Council, March 15, 2022

From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Open Session prior to closed session Date: Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:38:21 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council and Staff, I have some comments in Related to Closed Session

1. I think that Pamela Christian has done an Outstanding job as City Clerk

2. She makes sure that the Council Agenda is out in a timely manner Sincerely
Cordell
From: Leisa Johnson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Public Comments for Item M-1 and Item W.1.a
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 6:54:00 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dera City Clerk,
Can you please include the below written comments in the supplementary minutes? Thank you!
Leisa
****************************************************************** Good Evening Mayor, Councilmembers and Staff -
The community is beyond frustrated and feels completely disrespected by the fact that several City Councilmembers and other appointed commission & board members routinely keep their zoom camera off for most or all of a meeting. Many in the community believe this is a violation of the public’s trust and Brown Act.

There is simply no way for staff to legally determine continuity of quorum when there is not a quorum of elected or appointed members whose cameras are live and they are sitting in front of them. When a camera is off, staff has no way to appropriately determine where that person actually is or what they are doing and if they actually engaged, or if they’re illegally conferring with people in the room or on the phone, thereby making a mockery of our public meetings.

We now see live, in-person events scheduled in City Council chambers and being advertised on social media; one example is scheduled for April 7th.

Why is this allowed yet our City Council still refuses to meet in-person? This underscores the public’s sense of frustration and disrespect.

I am respectfully requesting that the public please get an update tonight with a proposed timeline for public meetings to return. The public doesn’t understand why a hybrid format, at a minimum, couldn’t be adopted whereby elected and appointed members plus critical staff are present in person and the public/consultants participating via Zoom. Moreover, CCC health policies allow for this hybrid option as well as in-person meetings (https://cchealth.org/covid19/pdf/recommendations-for-safe-public-meetings.pdf ).

If there is apprehension to adopt a hybrid Zoom format, then can you at least please start requiring that cameras remain on, as has routinely been asked by members of the public for nearly two years now, with no explanation provided as to why this has not been policy since inception?
If someone needs to use the restroom, they can keep their camera on, the same exact way that KCRT remains on the council, planning commission, etc. in a live meeting and someone needs to step away to use the bathroom. The standards of decorum and actively participating in a public meeting should have never changed or allowed to have been abused.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Leisa
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Open Forum
Date: Thursday, March 10, 2022 5:50:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council and Staff, I have some comments to go into the Record

1. I am not in Support of W.1.a on the Consent Calendar because other Jurisdictions are doing Hybrid Meetings

2. But I am in Support of W.7.a - W.7.f on the consent calendar Sincerely
Cordell
From: Klein, Linda C.

To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Demnlus Johnson; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Marc Magstadt ([email protected]); David Soyka; Sabey, Andrew Subject: City Council Agenda Item X-2
Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 2:32:21 PM
Attachments: Letter to City re Agenda Item X-2 - 2022 03 15(14648152.1).pdf This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Pamela,

Attached please find a letter concerning Agenda Item X-2 related to the Point Molate CFD. Please let me know if you have technical issues with the attachment.

Best,
Linda

www.coxcastle.com Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Linda C. Klein
415.262.5130
[email protected]

File No. 083086
March 15, 2022

VIA E-MAIL
City Council
c/o Pamela Christian, City Clerk
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Re: City Council Agenda Item X-2: Adoption Of A Resolution of Intent to Establish A Communities Facilities District For Point Molate Dear Mayor, Vice-Mayor, and Councilmembers:

We write on behalf of our client, Winehaven Legacy LLC (“Winehaven Legacy”), concerning City Council Agenda Item X-2 regarding the proposed Point Molate Project (“Project”) communities facilities district (“CFD”). We write to remind the City of its obligation in the Development Agreement (“DA”) and the Disposition and Development Agreement (“DDA”) to work cooperatively with Winehaven Legacy to establish one or more CFDs for the Project. We feel that is necessary to remind the City of this commitment given the City’s past actions, including its delay in forming a CFD and desire to renegotiate the CFD terms the City previously agreed to in the DA and DDA. To refresh the City’s memory regarding its actions to delay and interfere with CFD formation, which is a requirement of the transaction, we attach our prior letter to the City on this topic as Exhibit A.

We understand that the City is concerned that the Project’s fire and police station will have a negative fiscal impact on the City’s general fund. To allay this concern, Winehaven Legacy has gone beyond its prior commitments and provided a proposal that promises to cover any gap between the cost of the fire and police station and the Project’s tax proceeds collected by the City. Accordingly, the City should feel confident that the Project will not adversely affect the City’s general fund and approve the formation of the CFD.

Winehaven Legacy remains committed to the Project and thanks City staff for its hard work shepherding it along. In light of Winehaven Legacy’s commitment to cover any funding

Page 2 ends

shortfall that may occur as a result of the Project, we look forward to the City Council approving CFD formation, as required by the DDA and DA, at tonight’s meeting.

Sincerely,

Linda C. Klein

cc: Marc Magstadt, Winehaven Legacy LLP
David Soyka, Winehaven Legacy LLP

083086\14646602v2

File No. 087029
November 9, 2021

VIA E-MAIL
Ms. Teresa Stricker
City Attorney
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Re: City Breach Of The Point Molate Development and Disposition Agreement and Development Agreement Related To City Commitment To Cooperate In Forming Community Facilities Districts
Dear Ms. Stricker:

We write on behalf of Winehaven Legacy LLC (“WL”) concerning the inaction by the City of Richmond (“City”) City Council on the Point Molate Communities Facility District (“CFD”). After months of delay, we were happy to see a proposed resolution to kick off the CFD process on the November 2, 2021, agenda, but were greatly disappointed in the City Council’s failure to adopt that resolution. The City’s repeated failure to take concrete steps to move forward with the CFD constitutes a breach of its obligations under the Point Molate Development and Disposition Agreement (“DDA”) and Development Agreement (“DA”).

Pursuant to DDA section 10.3.2 and DA section 7.1 section, WL demands that the City cure this breach.

There is no reason for further discussion of the pros and cons of CFDs. The City has a binding duty to work cooperatively with WL not just to talk about but to establish one or more CFDs under both the DDA and DA as further described below.

The DDA. When the City Council approved and executed the DDA, the City bound itself to working “cooperatively and in good faith to establish the CFD and to reach mutual agreement as to additional detail regarding scope, terms and conditions affecting the CFD.” (DDA § 4.6.2.8.) Action 35 on the Schedule of Performance (DDA, Exhibit 2.3.1-A) states that the City Council will act on the CFD “[w]ithin six (6) months after the ‘Effective Date’ of the Development Agreement.” The DA effective date is October 15, 2020, now more than a year ago. In violation of the DDA, the City Council has taken none of the necessary actions to form the CFD. Instead, the City Council has continued to delay the CFD formation by asking for more studies about what would occur in unlikely scenarios, such as the developer’s bankruptcy prior to selling the homes but after the CFD is funded. Such studies serve no purpose given that the City has committed to work cooperatively and in good faith to establish the CFD.

November 9, 2021

Page 2 ends

The DA. Like the DDA, the DA also requires the City to “cooperate with the Developer to establish one or more CFDs pursuant to the Mello Roos Act and as permitted by State law to finance construction, development, and operation of the Master Infrastructure, Offsite Improvements and Master Developer Amenities in connection with the Project and the development of the Property.” (DA § 2.1.2.) In addition, the DA requires the City “to cooperate with [WL] in the formation of any assessment districts (including without limitation Mello Roos Districts and Landscaping and Lighting Districts), community facilities districts (‘CFD’), Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts, tax exempt financing mechanisms (a ‘Financing Mechanism’) that Developer in its sole discretion may elect to initiate related to the Project as and when so requested by Developer, provided that no such Financing Mechanisms shall obligate the City’s general fund or negatively impact the City’s General Fund . . . .” (DA § 4.2 [emphasis added].) Additionally, the DA requires that the City “shall cooperate with the Developer to establish one or more CFDs pursuant to the Mello-Roos Act and as permitted by State law to finance construction, development, and operation of the Master Infrastructure, Offsite Improvements, and Master Developer Amenities required in connection with the development and operation of the Project.” (DA § 4.5 [emphasis added].) The DA contains the same six-month deadline as the DDA: “Promptly following the Effective Date, City shall conduct proceedings to form the CFD consistent with State law. The Parties shall cooperate so that, to the extent possible, the associated public process and the resolution of intention to form the infrastructure component and services component shall be adopted by the City Council within six (6) months of the Effective Date.” (DA § 4.5 [emphasis added].) The City Council lacks a reason to delay its vote to move forward with the CFD. No additional analysis or study is required. The lengthy negotiations the parties conducted to execute the DDA and DA in 2020 already formed the basis for the scope of the CFD. The agreed scope is as follows:
 The CFD will be structured in two improvement areas corresponding to the phasing of the Project.
 The total effective tax rate for assessor’s parcels within the CFD will not exceed two percent (2.0%) of the reasonably expected value of the parcel with planned vertical improvements determined at the time of approval of the CFD.  The CFD will include a component to fund certain maintenance requirements (the “Services Tax”) and a component to fund certain infrastructure (the “Improvements Tax”). The Services Tax will have priority and be collected in perpetuity.
 The Project infrastructure costs and impact fees for which Developer may be reimbursed from CFD proceeds include those set forth on Exhibit F attached [to the DA].

November 9, 2021

Page 3 ends

 Bond issuances will include a 10.0% reserve fund to cover potential shortfalls, as well as 110% debt service assessment to provide additional security for repayment of the bonds. At Developer’s election, the bonds may be issued under a “private placement” with a firm specializing in tax exempt bonds.  The Parties shall have the ability to create a construction or acquisition district for funding improvements. The construction district would allow the CFD to build the Police and Fire Station and other Project improvements directly out of bond proceeds.
 If requested by Developer, the Bond Term shall be 40 years.  Bond Term allowing for additional bond proceeds to fund additional infrastructure and/or agreed upon City needs shall not exceed 40 years.  Assessments will escalate at 2.0% annually.
 If requested by Developer, City agrees to use best faith efforts to assist in obtaining a Joint Community Financing Agreement with EBMUD to allow for water improvements to be included in the CFD.
 The CFD will include a provision allowing full and/or partial prepayment of the Improvement Tax at any time.
 The CFD may fund infrastructure with surplus special taxes, if available, on a pay-as-you-go basis.
(DA §§ 4.5.1–4.5.12.) Because the DA already contains so many terms for the CFD, establishing the CFD should take less (not more) time than is typical. In short, while the DA allows the City to “evaluate” proposed Financing Mechanisms (DA § 4.2.1.1), the City does not have discretion to further consider whether to authorize the CFDs or demand terms that deviate those listed above in the CFDs.

Due to the City’s repeated delays in honoring its commitment to adopt a CFD by March 29, 2021, the City is in breach of its obligations under the DDA and DA. WL is thus providing notice of breach under DDA section 10.3.2 and DA section 7.1 and demands that the City takes the steps necessary to establish the CFD as soon as possible and no later than within 30 days, as required by the DDA. If the City fails to timely cure the breach, WL could “seek specific performance of the City’s obligations under [the DDA],” as well as other legal rights and remedies. (DDA § 10.3.2.) WL also could seek a court order directing the City to establish the CFD and its attorneys’ fees for needing to get such an order. (DA § 7.4.2.)

November 9, 2021

Page 4 ends

We look forward to the City curing its breach and authorizing the hiring of consultants needed to complete the CFD as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Linda C. Klein

cc: Richmond City Council
Mayor Tom Butt, Vice Mayor Demnlus Johnson, III, Councilmembers Nathaniel Bates, Claudia Jimenez, Eduardo Martinez, Gayle McLaughlin, and Melvin Willis Mr. Marc Magstadt
Mr. David Soyka
Mr. Andrew Sabey

087029\14076259v5

From: Roberta Wyn CESP
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments-- Agenda Item X.2. Adoption of A Resolution to Estblish a Community Facilities District Date: Tuesday, March 15, 2022 12:58:24 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

March 15, 2022
Mayor Thomas Butt and Richmond City Councilmembers
Richmond City Council
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond CA, 94804

Re: Agenda Item X.2. March 15, 2022. Adoption of a Resolution of Intent to Establish a Community Facilities District (CFD) for Point Molate, Adoption of Goals & Policies Statement for Community Facilities Districts, specifically for the Point Molate CFD.

Letter from Citizens for East Shore Parks

Dear Mayor Butt and Councilmembers Nate Bates, Claudia Jimenez, Demnlus Johnson, Eduardo Martinez, Gayle McLaughlin, Melvin Willis:

On the agenda is the adoption of the resolution of intent regarding the formation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) for the development project at Point Molate. It is our understanding that the developer is now asking for an authorized bond amount of up to $292 million. This is three times the allocation amount for the District in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA).

Citizens for East Shore Parks (CESP), Sierra Club, Richmond residents, community experts, and other organizations had repeatedly warned the previous City Council that the numbers for this project show that it will end up burdening the City with costs not covered by the development and that the City and its residents would be burdened by the financial shortfall of this high risk project. Now the numbers have been revisited and the request for the developer is far greater and far riskier than ever discussed before. You are being asked to put the economic future of the City at risk. You will remember that the proponents of this development PROMISED THERE WOULD BE NO RISK to the City. Now the numbers show there will be millions of dollars of shortfall and the way the developer intends to paper over this is with unrealistic assumptions about sales prices, about the speed of the sales and about the size of the loan. The developer also will now tell you that the developer will stand behind the promises of no risk by pledging to cover the risk somehow or other. However this developer has no real assets or way to cover anything and if there is a debt the LLC will just go bankrupt as the SunCal LLCs have done in the past. That is the whole purpose of the LLC - to silo the exposure and bankrupt the LLC if there is a loss coming its way.

The goals of Richmond involve providing more equity to the community and providing housing that Richmond community can afford, along the transportation corridors. They do not involve exposing the community to supporting and subsidizing luxury housing enclaves for the wealthy with enormous infrastructure expenses, in a high severity fire zone, near a refinery, only accessible via a two-lane road.

It is time to act in the interests of Richmond, not the developer. There is no reason why the Council must agree to create a District or to authorize any amount, no less a $290 million bond amount (again three times higher than the allocation in the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). It is your legal right under the DA and DDA to reject this CFD; it is within the sole discretion of the city. You could do it for no reason or any reason but here you must do it because approving this CFD will put the entire economic future of Richmond at risk, exposing the City to millions of dollars of losses per year and ravaging the general fund.

We concur with the January 25, 2022 sent to the City Council by Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter. If the current developer backs out of the project, the City can pursue alternatives for resolving the issues related to Point Molate and reach a solution that ends years of litigation, provides a true benefit to the community, eliminates the high risk financial gamble, and places development energy and resources where it is needed and necessary.

We urge you not to move forward with the formation of the CFD and bond indebtedness. No City Council should approve such financial indebtedness and risk.

Sincerely,
Shirley Dean
Shirley Dean
Board President, Citizens for East Shore Parks

Citizens for East Shore Parks
P.O. Box 6087
Albany, CA 94706
(510) 524 - 5000 (office)
(510) 526 - 3672 (fax)
www.eastshorepark.org
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter

Opt-in to receive shoreline updates and announcements from CESP.

Richmond City CouncilMarch 15, 2022

Richmond City Council
March 15, 2022