Written Public Comments Received 3-22-2022 — Richmond City Council, March 22, 2022

From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public Comments- open session prior to closed session Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:55:27 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 Members and Staff
I have some comments related to Closed Session

1. I Believe that Pamela Christian has done a fantastic job as City Clerk

2. she Makes sure that the AGENDA packets are put together in a timely manner Sincerely
Cordell
3/22/22, 1:26 PM https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment https://richmond.escribemeetings.com/Pages/ReportingPrintFriendly.aspx?reporting-reporttype=PublicComment 1/1 Portal  Search... 
Meeting Date
Agenda Item
Name
Email
Comment
Position
Statu
3/22/2022 5:00 PM Richmond
Intermodal Transit
Center
Neighborhood
Transformation
Project
Savitri Khalsa I am excited to see
focused attention
to this area of the
city. It is very much
needed. I live close
by but do not feel
safe walking to this
location (yet).

Please support the
Richmond
Intermodal Transit
Center
Neighborhood
Transformation
Project.

For Appro
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments- Open Forum
Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 2:58:46 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 members and Staff,
I have some comments to go into the Record

1. For the April 26th Agenda, the Council should invite Sabrina Landreth to provide an Update on how CO-VID has impacted Park Services

2. Also to have DR Hurst to provide an update on the school district in the wake of the shooting that occurred at De Anza High
Sincerely
Cordell
From: KarenKidwell
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Open Forum
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:17:41 AM
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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Good evening members of the council, my name is Karen. I live at Heritage Park Senior apartments in Richmond and I'm a member of ACCE. I am here today to bring up deep concerns about the housing conditions where I live. Over the years, I and many of my neighbors have experienced extensive bad conditions where we live. There is a lack of maintenance, and management has often been unresponsive to maintenance requests. I urge the city to implement routine inspections at least once every 3 yrs and to hold landlords accountable when proper maintenance requests are not completed after a specified period of time. As a tenant, I deserve to live in a place that is safe, free of mold, infestations, and up to code. We all deserve dignified housing. Thank you.

From: TARNEL ABBOTT
To: City Clerk Dept User; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Lina Velasco; Shasa Curl; [email protected] Subject: :Agenda Item: public comments – Open Forum CORRECTION We Cannot Afford Homes on Toxic Site Date: Sunday, March 20, 2022 7:59:06 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.

Correction : Development Agreement (DA) signed by previous City Council was with HRP Campus Bay, LLC .

Thank you
Tarnel Abbott
On 03/20/2022 10:08 AM TARNEL ABBOTT <[email protected]> wrote:

DATE: March 20, 2022
TO: Richmond City Council Members Tom Butt, Nat Bates, Demnlus Johnson, Eduardo Martinez, Melvin Willis, Gayle McLaughlin, Claudia Jimenez
CC: Acting City Manager Shasha Curl
Acting City Attorney Dave Aleshire
Community Development (Planning) Director Lina Valesco, RE: Agenda Item Public Comment Open Forum
Dear Richmond City Council Members and City Staff:

We cannot afford to build homes on toxic sites. The AP article pasted below might encourage you to find a way to end the nightmare which is facing us at the Astra Zeneca former Stauffer Chemical Manufacturing aka Campus Bay Development. Building 4,000 units of residential housing on this highly contaminated former industrial site is wrong. You should tell the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) that they need to change the remedy to the full cleanup remedy number 6 for this site . Not only did DTSC determine it was the best long term solution, but it will actually be less expensive in the long run because future damages will be astronomical. The DTSC has the power to change the remedy, you have the power to invoke the health and safety clause of the development agreement (DA) with Campus Bay Partners, LLC and stand up for your "Health in All Policies" policy. The DA is against the best interests of the City, current and future residents cannot afford the price or the loss of health.

NEW ORLEANS
$75 million for New Orleans residents whose homes were built on landfill
Questions remain on how and when the settlement money will be distributed.

Author: Associated Press
Published: 6:33 AM CDT March 16, 2022
Updated: 6:55 AM CDT March 17, 2022
NEW ORLEANS — A group of New Orleans residents whose homes were built on a toxic landfill decades ago have won a $75.3 million court judgment against the city, its housing authority and the local school board.

State district Judge Nicole Sheppard's ruling said 5,000 residents are entitled to that total amount for emotional distress and property damage involving the former Agriculture Street landfill, according to The Times- Picayune/The New Orleans Advocate.

Sheppard's Monday ruling says the housing authority and the parish school board were liable for building two residential communities — Gordon Plaza and Press Park — and Moton Elementary School atop the landfill, which was later named a federal Superfund site.

Homes in the area were built in the 1970s and 1980s and marketed to Black, low- and middle-income residents who weren't told that the site was a one-time landfill. As awareness grew and environmentalists raised concerns, the area was named a federal Superfund cleanup site in 1994.

Amid reports that the soil was contaminated with lead and carcinogens, including arsenic, residents began a decades-long effort to be relocated at government expense."
Here is a link to another article
https://www.pressherald.com/2022/03/16/residents-whose-homes-were- built-on-toxic-landfill-awarded-75-million/
Thank you,
Tarnel Abbott
Richmond Resident
From: M RINTEELA
To: City Clerk Dept User; Melvin Willis; Eduardo Martinez; [email protected]; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external
Subject: Map 102C
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 11:06:26 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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello: The Fairmede Hilltop Neighborhood Council, the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council. The Hilltop Village Neighborhood Council and community members from the Hilltop Green area, as well as the Parchestor Neighborhood Council have all asked for the City Council and Mayor to consider Map 102C, that’s 102C, 102C, for our new District Map. Please vote for the Neighborhood Council Map 102c made by the people for the people of Richmond. Its the right thing to do..

Thank you Sincerely Arto Rinteela Fairmede Hilltop Neighborhood Council From: Barbara Tanaka
To: City Clerk Dept User; Claudia Jimenez; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Eduardo Martinez; Demnlus Johnson; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis
Cc: Jim Hanson; Dennis Hicks
Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:45:45 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Some people who received this message 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.

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing again with my support of maps 201 & 202. I have owned my home for 38 years on Macdonald Avenue, and lived in this neighborhood for most of my life. Maps 201 & 202 keep our East Richmond neighborhood in the same council district with the North and East neighborhoods and results in a district that is geographically contiguous with "communities of interest" and easily identifiable boundaries. Retaining this district should allow the city to achieve districts overall with balanced populations under the 2020 census. These maps do not impact residents' voting rights timing for electing council members. Please keep our "community of interest" for disaster planning & recovery and police beat presence joined with North and East neighborhoods. We also share interests for the business development of the San Pablo Avenue and 23rd street corridors, unlike the residents in the current district 4.

Our East Richmond neighborhood is predominantly east from San Pablo Avenue to the city border. I live at the edge of the Richmond border with El Cerrito and consider my neighborhood to be on the western side of the El Sobrante hills. I often frequent locations and businesses currently represented by districts 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6. I haven't traveled into areas currently represented by district 4 in over a decade. Our neighborhood has similar interests with the North and East neighborhoods, with whom we are currently connected in district 6, as represented in maps 201 and 202.

We do not have common neighborhood interests with areas represented by the Fairmede/Hilltop, Hilltop Green, Quail Hill, Greenridge Heights, May Valley, El Sobrante Hills, Greenbriar, Carriage Hills (North & South) or Countryside neighborhoods, as they are geographically distant from where we live, in very different communities.

Thank you for your consideration,
Barbara Tanaka
5224 Macdonald Ave
Richmond, CA 94805

From: Buzz Vanderschoot
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: "Jim Hanson"
Subject: Public Comments Item 0-1 (Keep East Richmond connected) Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 11:53:34 AM
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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor & Councilmembers:

Please keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond. The other option seems like gerrymandering to me.

Buzz Vanderschoot
323 Humboldt St.

Resident 44 years
From: CAMILLE PARKER
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Keep East Richmond Connected to Central Richmond Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:00:53 AM
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.

Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond. Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

Additionally, keeping East Richmond with central Richmond complies with California's districting criteria
: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected! From: Diane Lowe
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Keep us connected to central Richmond
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 6:51:52 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.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls “communities of interest” - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. It also complies with California’s district criteria.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

Keep us connected to central Richmond!
Respectfully,
Clement and Diane Lowe
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: Dennis Hicks
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Jim Hanson
Subject: Public Comments Item 0-1 (Keep East Richmond connected) or (Keep East Richmond intact) Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 8:47:28 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways.

Keep us connected to central Richmond.

Thank you,
Dennis Hicks
5212 Macdonald Ave.

Richmond, CA 94805
From: Diane Adams
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:22:01 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
We believe that it makes sense to keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond (maps 201 and 202). This is where we live and do business and we have common interests.

Thanks you,
Diane Adams and Valentino Aduna
618 Amador St
From: H. Dow Tunis
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Jim Hanson
Subject: 3/22/22 Keep East Richmond intact
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 8:57:29 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.

Dear Mayor Butt and Councilmembers,

Please vote to keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond. Thank you in advance for your considerations.

Dow Tunis
Richmond Heights resident

From: elizabeth kudo
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda item #0.1, Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:19:11 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.

Please adopt Map 102 C. Hear the voice of the people.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Elizabeth Kudo
5104 Barrett
Richmond
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: Eunice Trumble
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: "Public comments agenda item #O.1, Redistricting Public Hearing" Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:11:24 AM
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.

I am emailing to support Map 102c which was drawn by Neighborhood Councils from across the City of Richmond to reunite neighborhoods. While Maps 201 and 202 create one majority hispanic voter district and a near-majority black voter district, Map 102c is the only one that creates one majority hispanic voter district and one majority black voter district. It is clearly the more equitable and socially just map. There is no reason not to chose it other than for purely political reasons.

Thank you.

From: Heather Bristow
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:54:07 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

While there is no perfect map, our existing and already established geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond!
Thank you!
--
Heather Bristow
The Acorn Throne, Inc.
510-868-0065
theacornthrone.com
From: Jane Courant
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment Agenda Item O-1
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:00:14 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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Dear Mayor and City Council members,
I write in strong support of redistricting map #201 because I believe it maintains representation best, allows these residents to vote in the next election and because it anticipates future population growth while maintaining power among all groups.

Please support this map rather than #102, a map that would disenfranchise some Black and Brown voters, while giving predominately white Richmond Heights residents the chance to vote in two consecutive elections.

Thank you,
Jane Courant
Richmond annex resident
From: Karen Henry
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Public Comments Item P-1 Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:44:26 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Council members,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

My family does most of its shopping, patronizing of health and social establishments, and connecting with other family and friends through the San Pablo Avenue corridor and central Richmond. This is OUR social, economic, and political community.

Additionally, keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202)complies with California's districting criteria
: geographically contiguous, maintain
undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact. Besides, it is sensibly economical for the City to manage and maintain geographically connected neighborhoods rather than disconnected blocks.

Keep us connected to central Richmond. East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways.

Kind regards,
Karen Henry
Resident of East Richmond Heights
From: Laura Austin
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Support Map 102c
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 8:09:44 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.

To whom it concerns,
I support map 102C redistricting.

Laura Austin
1540 solitude Lane
Richmond, CA 94803
From: Laurent Liscia
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment - Re: O.1. Redistricting
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:55:12 AM
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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello,
This is a request to all the council members to please vote for map 102c.

Map 102c best defines our district 4 in terms of common interests and concerns especially with regards to the very important issue of wildfire safety. Hence, map 102c allows us to work together effectively as a community and have a representative that represents us all at the city council.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you,
Laurent Liscia
From: Leisa Johnson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Leisa Johnson
Subject: Public Comments for Public Hearing Item P.1 on Redistricting Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:38:03 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.

Dear City Clerk,
Can you please include my below written comments as part of the formal written record & supplementary materials/minutes?
Thank you.

Best,
Leisa
***************************************************************** Good Evening Mayor and Councilmembers:

My name is Leisa Johnson and I’ve been a Richmond resident for nearly 22 years. I’m proud to say that I have actively participated in this district mapping process since it began in 2019.

Tonight, I am speaking in full support of Maps 102C.

A broad-based coalition of Neighborhood Councils and advocates from across Richmond worked closely together to develop a socially just map that reunites our neighborhoods.

Map 102c:

Ensures two voting rights act-compliant districts that are Latino-majority (district 1) and Black-majority (District 3);
It reunites our Black and Brown communities;
It respects neighborhood council boundaries to the greatest degree possible with only 2 neighborhoods being split:

The North & East neighborhood must be split due to its population size; The Iron Triangle neighborhood must also be split to obtain a Latino-majority district.

This map keeps communities with common interest together, including the Southside, Hilltop, Shoreline, 23rd Street, Cutting Blvd and the San Pablo Ave business corridors; and
This map addresses concerns from Richmond Heights neighbors by including more of North & East.

Importantly, Maps 201 and 202 fail to meet all of these key objectives and have only one Voting Rights Act-compliant, Latino-majority district, leaving the Black community disenfranchises for at least 10 more years.

No map is perfect. The argument that Map 102c defers more voters to 2024 is flawed and exaggerated. This issue is a known feature of all redistricting processes and it is far better to defer the votes of a few (~2.5%) for one district council race (but not the mayor) than to disenfranchise an entire VRA-protected class which represents 20% of Richmond’s population for 10 additional years.

I am one such voter that would not be able to vote in 2020 or 2022 if map 102c were to be adopted. But I wholeheartedly believe it is far better to adopt the best map for the next 10 years Again, only Map 102c is socially just.

At the first public hearing on 7/6/2021, Councilmember Willis said, and I quote, “One of the more controversial decisions that I remember we made when it came to choosing our original map, but it was the merger of a district with Point Richmond, North Richmond and Hilltop. I didn’t get positive feedback about that at all, so I’m wondering when we’re talking about how communities relate with each other based on scenery, proximity, and demographic — how, I don’t know, how do we actually capture the residential culture of those 3 areas that are distinctly different and try to get them incorporated with a district that actually basically fits more of that culture & demographic rather than us being forced to just merge 3 very distinctly different neighborhoods."
Councilmember Willis you asked how that could be remedied with new census data.

The answer is Map 102c. Hilltop has been reunited. Shieds-Reid and Parchester Village remain together and, importantly, leaders from both of those neighborhoods support Map 102c, but not maps 201 or 202.

Importantly, on January 14, 2020, when the City Council approved switching from at-large to district elections and the current map 115b, the council — based on significant input from the community — requested the establishment of an independent voting districts committee to select future maps. Per the minutes, "On motion of Councilmember Willis, seconded by Councilmember Martinez, introduced and adopted Urgency Ordinance No. 03-20 N.S. and directed staff to place an item on a future City Council meeting agenda to establish an independent voting districts committee
by the unanimous vote of the City Council. On
motion of Vice Mayor Choi, seconded by Councilmember Myrick, said ordinance received the first reading and was laid over to January 21, 2020, for the second reading by the unanimous vote of the City Council."
On May 18, 2021, Item I-1 regarding the redistricting process, the City Clerk stating the following, and I quote, “So it would be a huge challenge to select and train a committee to redistrict the city in such an extremely short amount of time. So, therefore, staff recommends to not establish a redistricting committee at this time and to allow NDC to assist the city staff in leading the redistricting process. NDC has the expertise for dealing with the complexity and technical details needed and has been preparing for over a year statewide.” That evening, the new council voted to not establish a redistricting committee.

Why?
This council meeting was 11 months before a final map has to be adopted on 4/17/2022.

This was more than enough time to establish an independent voting district committee. The City has been conducting business in the context of a pandemic for two full years now and that meeting was more than one year into the pandemic, when processes were fully in place. The City even established the Reimagining Public Safety Task Force during this same pandemic time frame.

As a result, what assurances do we have that this council majority will not vote for a gerrymandered map to protect their own self interests, council seat, and political party versus listening to the majority of the community for whom they were elected to represent? They should recuse themselves in the absence of having an independent district committee as the community requested in 2019/2020.

Map 102c is a map made by the people, and for the people. Please adopt map 102c.

Thank you.

Respectfully,
Leisa Johnson
From: Linda Lawlor
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Public Comments -Item 0.1 (Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond) Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:50:00 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond.

From: Linda
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Please support maps 201 and 202 - item .01
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:03:05 AM
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.

Dear Mayor Butt and Council-members serving Richmond, California, Please ensure that all voters are able to cast a vote in the next elections, and keep my current district as close as possible to my community and near neighbors. The proposed maps before you, 201 and 202, most closely align as they are compact and contiguous. These boundaries are easily understood and make sense.

Thank you very much for your support of our district and my neighbors in keeping us undivided.

Sincerely,
Linda Moran
601 Humboldt Street
East Richmond neighbor
From: Chris and Lisa Adamson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments: Keep East Richmond Connected
Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:54:53 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond. Our geographical and social connection and interests, what the State of California calls "communities of interest," is along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

Keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (as in proposed maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria by keeping the district geographically contiguous; respecting the boundaries of the neighborhood and communities of interest and minimizing their division; maintaining undivided neighborhoods; having easily identifiable boundaries; and being geographically compact, with a fairly regular shape.

Please follow this criteria and keep our neighborhood in East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Thank you,
Lisa and Chris Adamson
5010 Solano Avenue
From: Lory Poulson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Richmond Heights Neigh. Cncl
Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:15:08 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Please vote to keep East Richmond connected to Central Richmond:

Having moved to East Richmond from the North and East in 1997, we are very aware of our connections to Central Richmond — City Hall and Civic Center, police station, main library, Richmond Art Center, etc. — as well as our constant connection with the entire San Pablo Avenue corridor. By comparison, we have little or no engagement with the parts of Richmond contiguous with El Sobrante or Hilltop. Also, I think we are part of the RPD's Beat 7 — which includes the area near us along San Pablo.

Keeping East Richmond connected to central Richmond answers several requirements:

Our geographical and social connection and interests — what the State of California calls "communities of interest “ — are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

Keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

In addition, redistricting which would prevent people from voting in 1 (or 2) upcoming elections should be avoided.

Using the 2020 census, adopting maps 201 or 202 for District 6 results in a diverse district population:

Total District 6 population 10,841
Richmond Current District 6 pop. (maps 201/202) Current Voting Age pop.

Hispanic 26% 47% 27% NH White 25% 21% 33% NH Black 29% 11% 20% Asian/Pac.Isl. 19% 19% 19% Native American 1% 1% 1% Maps 201 and 202 create a majority Hispanic voter district in District #1 and a near-majority Black voter district (43%) in District 3.

East Richmond is inherently connected to central Richmond — please maintain that connection.

Many thanks for your work!
Lory
—
Lory Poulson
5610 Hazel Avenue
Richmond CA 94805
510-236-4143 land
510-701-1681 cell
From: Marilyn Langlois
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Redistricting: support maps 201 or 202
Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 4:42:57 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.

Esteemed councilmembers,
Please select either map 201 or map 202 for Richmond's redistricting. They follow the guidelines, keep East Richmond in the same district as North and East (contiguous and shared communities of interest), and result in minimal disruption from the current districts. Radically changing districts each time around only confuses voters and undermines democracy.

Thank you.

Marilyn Langlois
North and East resident
Dr. King's American Dream: "A land where men will not take necessities from the many to give luxuries to the few."
From: Marya Kurwa
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Hello, This is a request to all the council members to please vote for map 102c. Map 102c best defines our district 4 in terms of common interests and concerns especially with regards to the very important issue of wildfire safety. Hence, map 102c allo...

Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 8:21:11 AM
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.

Hello,
This is a request to all the council members to please vote for map 102c.

Please confirm receipt of this email.Thank you , Msrya Kurwa --
Marya Kurwa
MLIS
Public Service Support Librarian
Richmond Public Library
From: Maurice Sainte-Yves
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item #O.1, Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 11:47:48 AM
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.

I support Map 102c.

Please vote accordingly.

Maurice Sainte-Yves
1200 Brickyard Way #404
Richmond, CA. 94801
From: Miriam Joscelyn
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Hanson Jim
Subject: Public Comments Item 0-1 (Keep East Richmond connected) or (Keep East Richmond intact)Dear Mayor and Councilmembers
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2022 8:04:13 AM
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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I have been a resident since 1984 and since then have spent much more time and money in Central Richmond than in the El Sobrante Hills area. I hope the City Council will adopt map 201 or 202 which will keep our neighborhood in District 6 contiguous with that part of Richmond we have been most connected with.

Thank you,
Miriam Joscelyn
380 Key Blvd.

Richmond, CA
From: Nathan Fariss
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item # O.1
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:08:01 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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

To Whom it May Concern,
I am a Richmond resident, currently in District 6. I am strongly in favor of Map 201, which maintains my own representation, while also maintaining voting power across all community groups I am most opposed to Map 102, which divides my neighborhood in half and appears to be an attempt to racially gerrymander, as well as seeming to be out of compliance with most of California Criteria for Cities.

Thank you.

Nathan Fariss
From: Nel Benningshof
To: City Clerk Dept User; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Demnlus Johnson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez
Subject: 3/22/22 Richmond City Council Meeting Public Comments Item 0-1 Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 3:21:04 PM
Attachments: Screen Shot 2022-01-25 at 1.49.34 PM.png
Some people who received this message 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.

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

Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I’m sending you again an e-mail I sent you last January in the hope that you will reread it and agree with me that keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) is the best option. They comply with California's districting criteria: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

Maps 201 and 202 have the least impact on other districts as well and will allow voters in current districts that are up for election in the next election cycle to cast a vote.

Let’s keep it simple and not create a lot of upheaval. Please vote for map 201 or 202.

Thank you for your consideration.

Nel Benningshof
633 Kern St
Richmond CA 94805
Begin forwarded message:

From: Nel Benningshof <[email protected]
>
Subject: Why is our Richmond Heights neighborhood considered contiguous with outlying areas?
Date: January 25, 2022 at 2:53:05 PM PST
To: [email protected]
, Tom Butt <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected]
Dear Richmond City Mayor and Council Members,
I was happy to hear the support for Map 201and Map 202 by some of you during the last Richmond City County meeting. At the February 1st council meeting I hope all of you will feel comfortable selecting one of these two maps.

I hope you will take the following into consideration. According to the guidelines on the City of Richmond website the first major criteria used in drawing district lines is geographically contiguous areas:

Geographically contiguous (areas that meet only at the points of adjoining corners are not contiguous...

In my opinion our Richmond Heights Neighborhood is not contiguous with the outlying areas of our city such as the San Pablo Dam Rd and Carriage Hills areas.

If you look at the map,
https://ndcresearch.maps.arcgis.com/apps/View/index.html? appid=85edf4e13a3b4c4b9f75d7c9d5dde6c1, you see that our Richmond Heights neighborhood borders on one side with the Richmond North and East neighborhood, the City of El Cerrito and the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County.

On the map a narrow link was created through the unincorporated area on McBryde Ave. Is this not the same as meeting at adjoining corners and therefore not contiguous?
Keeping East Richmond with the immediately adjoining North and East neighborhood results in a district that is geographically contiguous and compact with "communities of interest " and easily identifiable boundaries. Therefore I sincerely hope you will select either Map 201 or Map 202.

Thank you for your consideration,
Nel Benningshof
633 Kern St
Richmond CA 94805
From: Nina Smith
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item #O.1, Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:28:42 AM
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.

Dear City Council Members,
I am a 35 year resident of East Richmond and have served in the past as the secretary of the Richmond Heights Neighborhood Council. I was part of an effort some years ago to institute district elections of our City Council by an initiative process. I pursued this goal because I believe that electing our Council by district will better serve all the diverse neighborhoods and communities in our City. I still think this is the case but it is clear that the effectiveness of such representation depends on the details of how the district maps are drawn.

I previously wrote a letter regarding the current redrawing of the City Council districts asking you not to split District 6. I have looked at both maps 201 and 102c and given the matter much thought. As a result, I am changing my position and write to you today to ask you to adopt the proposed map 102c. Although there are pro’s and con’s to each position, it is my opinion that map 102c will best serve the City as a whole. It promises to produce a City Council more representative of the various neighborhoods and communities of interest than the current map.

My husband, Charles T. Smith, has asked me to add that he also supports the views stated in this letter.

Nina Smith
561 Dimm Street
Richmond, CA 94805
510-734-3795
From: Oscar Garcia
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item #O.1, Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 7:44:34 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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Hello, I would like to request the city council vote for map 102c for the redistricting. Our black and latino community members deserve a string voice in our city politics.

Thanks
Oscar Garcia
Sent from my iPhone
From: Paul Wright
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item O.1. redistricting public hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:37:23 AM
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.

To the Clerk:

My wife and I are writing in favor of a "yes" vote on the redistricting proposal.

From: Rhiannon Casey
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:55:56 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.

Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am writing to you today to request that you keep our neighborhood, East Richmond connected to Central Richmond, and do not include our neighborhood with parts of the city that we consider to be far outside of our neighborhood (Hilltop and El Sobrante).

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Many of us can walk to the businesses on San Pablo Ave between the El Cerrito Border and San Pablo Dam Road, we shop along this corridor, and have a vested interest in both East Richmond and Central Richmond.

Keeping East Richmond with Central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria
: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

Additionally, as I am sure you are all aware, as it is required by the State, districts must be contiguous so that all parts of the district are connected to each other. Only maps 201 and 202 fulfill this requirement.

We also ask that Council districts be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

Please consider the neighborhood's requests, and follow the state requirements. Keep East Richmond connected to Central Richmond.

Thank you,
Rhiannon Casey
626 Amador St
From: Rita Barouch
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Item O-1 Keep East Richmond District 6 intact Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 12:38:13 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Richmond Councilmembers,

I write to encourage you to select Maps 201 or 202 which keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

As a 21 year Richmond resident living one block from San Pablo Ave, my, and my many neighbors’, geographical, social, economic, transportation, connection and interests
- what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. (not in distant El Sobrante)

Additionally, keeping East Richmond connected with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

Also, the voting age population statistics for District 6, by adopting maps 201 and 202, comply with redistricting rules;
Hispanic/Latino 26%, Asian/Pacific Islanders 19% Non Hispanic white 25% Native American 1% Non Hispanic Black 29%

Adopting maps 201 and 202 would create a majority Hispanic/Latino voter district in District 1, and a near majority Black voter district (43%) in District 3.

Importantly, these maps would allow all voters to cast a vote in the next 2 election cycles. No voter should be disenfranchised, every vote/voice counts!

Thank you for recognizing the importance of keeping East Richmond connected to central Richmond to promote our common concerns and interests.

Sincerely,

Rita Barouch MSW

From: Samantha Andonian
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Item 0.1 (Support Maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:21:04 AM
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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Additionally, keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria
: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond.

Samantha Andonian
m: (310) 467-0028
e: [email protected]
From: Sandra Gracia
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Jim Hanson
Subject: Public Comments item 0.1 (Support maps 201 and 202) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 1:34:43 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 at http://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderIdentification.]
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

I am the owner of 486 Key Blvd in Richmond and I request that you adopt either of the proposed maps 201 or 202.

I believe these maps are representative of our community and complies with California’s districting criteria. “Council districts should be adopted to allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election. East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to Central Richmond.” Sandra Gracia
486 Key Blvd
Richmond, ca 9480
Sent from my iPad
From: Soheila Bana
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comment - Re: O.1. Redistricting
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 7:35:56 AM
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.

Hello,
This is a request to all the council members to please vote for map 102c.

Please confirm receipt of this email.

Thank you,

Soheila Bana
SoheilaBana4Richmond.org
510-779-7280
From: Steve Bischoff
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item #O.1, Redistricting Public Hearing Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:41:01 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.

Dear City Council members - I ask you to adopt Map 102 c as the official City of Richmond district map - this map has broad community support - thank you, Stephen Bischoff, Richmond resident since 1999
From: Sue Britson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Keep East Richmond intact
Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:47:46 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

Keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our geographical and social connection and interests - what the State of California calls "communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor. Additionally, keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond. Please vote for map 201 or 202.

Sincerely,

Sue Britson
664 Amador Street
Richmond 94805
From: Susan Wehrle
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Subject: Public Comments Item 0-1 (Keep East Richmond connected) or (Keep East Richmond intact) Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 4:41:10 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.

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

We are writing to ask that you please keep East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

Our neighbors contribute and volunteer in our geographic area, we support schools, public gardens and wild spaces, local merchants and much more. We shop on San Pablo Avenue, and at the merchants on Macdonald. We are connected to our neighbors across San Pablo Ave in so many ways. We visit art studios of friends in East Richmond and have been connected to the Richmond Art Center for over 35 years, as volunteers, taking classes, attending art shows, and more. Our neighborhood is in East Richmond and central Richmond. We never have occasion to go out to the Carriage Hills Area. We have a difficult time seeing how we connect as a neighborhood, as they are miles away. There are mountains between us. (Perhaps hills and open space, as well as another town of two.)
Keeping East Richmond with central Richmond (maps 201 and 202) complies with California's districting criteria
: geographically contiguous, maintain undivided neighborhoods, have easily identifiable boundaries, and are compact.

It is very important that all voters be able to vote in the next election. Creating a new district that would take away that right for a cycle does not make sense.

Please keep the East Richmond neighborhood, our Neighborhood Council and voting district as it is. We feel it would be in total compliance with the new state regulations. Our ethnic diversity seems most apparent. Come see for yourselves.

Be well. Stay safe. Thank you for your consideration.

Susan and John Wehrle
775 Lassen Street
Richmond

From: Tangie Young
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Item 0-1 (Keep East Richmond connected) or (Keep East Richmond intact) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 12:17:01 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.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am writing in favor of Keeping East Richmond connected to central Richmond.

My decision is based on how the geographical and social connection and “communities of interest " - are along the San Pablo Avenue corridor.

In addition, Council districts should be adopted that allow all voters to cast a vote in the next election.

East Richmond contributes to our city in many ways. Keep us connected to central Richmond.

Tangie Young-Hooks, B.S.,LVN
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments - P.1 Budget Session
Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:08:56 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 must commend the City manager's office and finance for their work on the Mid Year Budget I am asking that the council to adopt the Resolution as presented Sincerely
Cordell
From: dlc danacurtismediation.com
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #___ Date: Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:16:46 PM
Dear Council Members,
I am an owner and resident at Brickyard Landing in Pt. Richmond and am writing to register my support for Laconia Development LLC’s 160 home Single-Family Project on the Terminal One site in Pt. Richmond. I understand the City is also considering a much denser condominium project in the same area, which I oppose for the reason that the roadways and freeway entrances simply cannot support such an increase in population along Brickyard Cove. As it stands now, the traffic backup onto Highway 580 going toward the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge in the morning is dismaying. It can take 5 or 10 minutes just to enter the freeway and it can take 15 minutes to make it to the the bridge.

The same is true of 580 East, from Canal Blvd., which is made more complicated by the frequent backups in both directions due to train crossings. The Laconia project will create traffic issues, as well, which the City must address, but doubling the number of housing units to 316, would be impossible to remedy.

Thank you,
Dana Curtis
1400 Pinnacle Court, No. 110
Richmond, CA 94801
Dana Curtis Mediation
415-331-5158
415-515-8903 (mobile)
Mailing address
PO Box 672
Sausalito, CA 94966
https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?
a=https%3a%2f%2fdanacurtismediation.com&c=E,1,FcKFzRvLialPMeOTwiVfA0n6HAG_DpBOlVrK3jKTnzE7pUUAb6kZJM8JPhp51VRzcmXBPQEVeVaCYoHehO2bOa6DRomS9bW8e0VHUV- w8rJr&typo=1
From: Gay Timmons
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #??? (Tues. March 22, 2022) Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 9:57:01 AM
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.

Dear City Council -
I read through the Draft EIR. These are my questions:

Between this project and the PG & E project, it appears that when built and inhabited there is a likely addition of 450 to 600 cars (not mentioned in the study but - common sense for 2 person households).

Why is the traffic change not mentioned in the EIR?
Given that this is one of 2 proposed building sites, both of which require extensive truck traffic during the building phase, how does the Council propose to manage the 13,000 trucks of soil coming in for the PG&E site and the other multiple trucks taking soil out from Terminal One?
Why is the building
traffic change not mentioned in the EIR?
Given that there are existing people in this area, some of whom have health issues connected to sound and/or air pollution, who will be FINANCIALLY responsible for moving these people out temporarily or permanently during the building phase? Also - the dust from these 2 projects will likely be epic. What is planned (beside spraying with water twice a day at Terminal One) to mitigate dust and even compensate for additional filters and cleaning of homes?
Comment: We all know that the initial Terminal One proposal has unrealistic cost associated due to the age and condition of the site. It really can’t realistically happen, while I’m not thrilled with more homes and traffic, go ahead - authorize something that is financially impossible. Then we can all relax.

And finally - what is the Council doing to keep jobs in Richmond? Th new tax is egregious and will drive most of us out. I’m taking my business and leaving when my lease is up.

Sincerely,
Gay Timmons •
505 Sea View Dr.

Richmond Ca 94801
From: Janet Johnson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: "Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #______" Date: Tuesday, March 22, 2022 10:57:51 AM
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.

Dear Mayor Butt and Richmond City Council,
I support the 160 home Single-Family Project on the Terminal One site at the corner of Brickyard Cove Road and Dornan Drive. I'm a resident at Seacliff Point Richmond. We have patiently waited on this blighted site to be developed for more than 20 years. It's time to move forward! I agree with the developers that the original plan to build the larger 316 unit condo project impose too many economic, seismic, environmental and structural issues at this time. If the City Council does not approve this alternative development, the cost for future housing development on this site will only be higher and therefore smaller in scale. As a resident, tax payer and voter of Richmond in general and Point Richmond specifically, I'm requesting you to do the right thing and approve this alternative option for the Terminal One Project.

Thank you.

Sincerely,
Janet L. Johnson
Richmond Resident, Voter and Tax Payer
From: Jeff Goshay
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item#____ Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:58:55 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.

To the City Council Members,

I write this email to express my opinion regarding the Terminal One development.

I am a longtime resident of Point Richmond. I own a home in the Brickyard Cove on Pelican Way.

Others in my family are also longtime residents of Point Richmond.

I feel the approval of the development of the Terminal One area as proposed by Laconia would be a short-sighted mistake by the City Council.

The City of Richmond should not let this beautiful area slip into private hands. Cities and their inhabitants, around the world, rue the historical loss of shoreline property to the private sector.

They now struggle to bring park-like development to their shores. They know that the long-term value of living in a community depends on how well these special areas are developed. Richmond would be much better off if the Terminal One area were to be developed as a park. Such a park would give the city of Richmond something to be proud of. Property values, local businesses, employment, all would benefit greatly.

If a park development cannot happen for short-sighted economic reasons, then a lesser development proposed by Laconia, which at least offers some public areas, and does not wall off the view of the San Francisco Bay with tall buildings, is certainly a better choice. But city planners in the future will regret the permanent loss of this shore-front property. They’ll wish that residential development, even tall buildings were behind the shore on the hill.

In summary, the council is missing a grand opportunity to bring long-term beauty to the City of Richmond by deeding away this land. It should be a wonderful park.

Sincerely,

Jeff Goshay
From: jeff shukis
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 3:59:54 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.

Hello,
As a Point Richmond resident, I am happy to hear that the vacant Terminal One plot of land is slated to become new housing. I believe that the latest plan, which is for ~160 homes as opposed to the prior plan for 316 units, is the more appropriate use for the land.

The previously envisioned 316 unit build would, in my view, be too dense for the area, and the buildings too tall compared to the surrounding homes. The new plan for fewer but larger homes would - assuming the design is well done - fit in far better. {
"contact info": {
"name": "Jeff Shukis",
"email": "[email protected]",
"phone": "+1 650 766 6519"
}
}
From: Kathryn Dienst
To: City Clerk Dept User; Lina Velasco; Eduardo Martinez; Tom Butt - external; Nat Bates; Demnlus Johnson Subject: Public Comments, Study Session Terminal One, CC 3/22, Agenda Item Q2 Date: Saturday, March 19, 2022 1:10:45 PM
Attachments: T1 March 22 City Council .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.

Attached are my comment regarding Terminal One. My key points are:
1) March design is better in many ways, but mixed use no longer makes sense 2) A 316-unit high-density design is unrealistic in the pandemic era, and was overly complicated and unattractive
3) Can Richmond consider reissue/reopen of RFP - Laconia seems unlikely to ever get it done Kathryn Dienst
TO: Richmond City Council
Lina Velasco – Planning Director
Shasa Curl -Interim City Manager
FM: Kathryn Dienst Date: March 19, 2022
RE: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #Q2, 3/22 meeting

Laconia’s March concept is an improvement

March 2022 plan is FAR IMPROVED over the approved PA. This is true on so many levels: traffic flow, public and private parking mix, views, housing diversity (ownership and ADU rental), utility demand, impact on RYC, required site engineering and length of construction phasing.

However, retaining a Mixed-Use building is awkward; perhaps it should just be the clubhouse building for residents. If it is a public retail store, it would impede traffic and lacks parking. It seems excessive if only serving the residents in a walk-in fashion.

Approved PA 316-unit development has no future in the pandemic era

Wanting more separation and control, buyers are seeking lower density. They no longer want stacked flats.

Having a garage commands a premium. This is well documented in Wall Street Journal and other credible sources. And, with Shea Waterline sales patterns, townhouses sold more quickly than stacked flats.

In the era of Covid (and future pandemics demand for tall/dense housing has declined, even while huge developments are completing (ex: Brooklyn Basin). Shared elevators, parking and trash facilities add resident stress. Medical journals like The Lancet, show that Covid, SARS and Mers are transmitted through the plumbing systems of tall/dense buildings. Even the sales process is also cumbersome and lengthy.

The approved PA design was ugly and unnecessarily complicated. City Council and Planning had meddled with General Plan Amendments to increase heights to “unlimited” -- resulting in an unattractive design.

Can Richmond reopen/reissue RFP for Terminal One?

We have wasted years; Laconia has not delivered. Again, Laconia provide general concepts vs real plans.

Again, illustrations of “possible designs”, not the designs themselves. There are no Duets or ADU illustrations, despite that being key to the concept. Previously, I believed this to be a vague dance through Richmond’s bizarre review process. Now, I have lost faith in this flimsy developer entirely; “there is no there there.”

Could it be more expedient to begin RFP again? Original RFP issued for Terminal One resulted in many credible designs by credible developers, who have completed multiple developments since.

Their RFP responses looked remarkably like the concept now being floated by Laconia, both in unit numbers and density. Development issues (ex: geology survey which had been attached to RFP, and Terminal One building dismantling) were not ignored by these other developers. Soil instability, contamination and high- water tables were documented in RFP and during CEQA review; why was Laconia so slow to understand and address these issues? And why can they not speak now to how the revised concept improves it?

A new RFP may result in higher payment, land and housing values. However, more units is highly unlikely.

From: Paul Wright
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #195 Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 2:56:15 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.

To The City Council-
We are writing in support of the revised Laconia proposal for Terminal One. We are residents of the Brickyard Cove area and strongly feel that the lower density of this project and the improvements it will make to the neighborhood are a better fit for the area than the previously approved 300+ units.

Kim and Paul Wright
From: Patricia Tostenson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: re:Public comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #___ Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 6:19:26 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.

I would like to make a statement regarding Terminal One.

I believe the latest proposal from Laconia for 160 homes is much more compatible with the current neighborhood. The previous plan had way too many homes and lacked adequate parking. As you may know, there is no public transportation in our neighborhood. In order to keep our community compatible, I think we need to think about the whole area out here. We hope to welcome the new neighbors when they arrive. Patricia Tostenson, 1305 Sanderling Island, Richmond, CA 94801.

From: Scott McElhinney
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Scott McElhinney
Subject: Re: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #__, March 22, 2022 Date: Sunday, March 20, 2022 3:01:48 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.

Dear Richmond City Council members,
I write to support the general concept of the new proposal for the Terminal One development project put forth by Laconia.

I have lived across the street from this site in the Brickyard Landing community since 2003.

In my view, it is far superior to the earlier proposal, and is much closer to what I and many others felt was appropriate for the parcel of land to be developed. Variations on single family homes fit in much better on this site than high rise buildings, and are in keeping with the other developments in the neighborhood that are directly on the water, such as Brickyard Cove and Waterline.

Given the stunning location on the Bay, I hope that Laconia will choose the most beautiful architecture and exterior construction materials when designing the homes so that they enhance the scenery rather than detract from it.

After so many years of discussions about this parcel of land, it would be a relief to have this new proposal approved. Then finally the public can enjoy the waterfront public park that Laconia will build on the site of the dilapidated warehouse which has been an eyesore for far too long.

Thank you for keeping my opinion in mind when considering this new proposal.

Sincerely,
Scott McElhinney
1301 Quarry Court #207
Richmond, CA 94801
From: Stephen Ledbetter
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments, Study Session on Terminal One Project, Agenda Item #3 Date: Monday, March 21, 2022 9:25:34 AM
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.

As I live in the neighborhood adjacent to this project, I am very much interested in how it develops.

I support the current proposal to build 160 Single-Family homes instead of the 316 unit condominium that was originally approved.

I agree with the economic concerns of the developers that a larger project will be very difficult to sell in this economic climate.

But, more importantly, I am very concerned about the impact that this original project, the one at Seacliff Drive and Canal Blvd, and the one on Point Molate would have on our local roads.

What is being proposed is too much for the current arteries to handle, particularly Interstate 580 and the Richmond/St Rafael Bridge which are already extremely congested during rush hours.

Filling these spaces with a maximum occupancy of homeowners would add so many cars to the roads that Point Richmond would not only become hard to access, but the congestion would impact our neighbors to the south who must use Interstate 580 as the major access artery to their homes.

Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Stephen Ledbetter
502 Seacliff Pl, Richmond, CA 94801
510-812-8395
[email protected]
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comment - Q.4 Study and Action Session
Date: Friday, March 18, 2022 3:25:16 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 members and Staff,
I must commend Council Member Willis and Jimenez for their Hard work on this Presentation I do appreciate the hard work of city staff,
they are an Excellent resource
Sincerely
Cordell

Richmond City CouncilMarch 22, 2022

Richmond City Council
March 22, 2022