Richmond City Council
May 24, 2022

Miti
gation Monitoring
and Reporting Program

Quarry Residential Project

A
-
9 ESA /
D
161035

EIR Addendum

March 2022

Project Mitigation Measures

Implement
ed
By

Monitored By

Monitoring and Reporting
Action

Monitoring
Schedule

Verification of
Compliance

4.13 Public Services and Recreation

None required
.

4.14 Transportation and Traffic

None required.

4.15 Utilities and Service Systems

None required
.

Blank

This page is intentionally blank.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

1. Substantial Conformance: The Revised Project shall be completed in substantial conformance with the Project Plans in Exhibit A, submitted to and received by the Planning Department on March 1, 2022, except as may be modified by the conditions of approval for the Revised Project.

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

3. Responsibility to Inform : The Applicant shall be responsibl e for ensuring that all subcontractors, consultants, engineers, or other business entities providing services related to the Revised Project of their responsibilities to comply with the Revised Project contractor and construction crew is aware of and adheres to all conditions of approval.

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

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

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

7. Refuse, Recycling and Greenwaste Storage Areas : All solid waste and recycling areas shall comply with locational and design criteria in Section 15.04.601.090 of the Richmond Municipal Code.

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

15.04.612.

9. Lighting Standards : Prior to issuance of any building permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designed and located so that all direct light is confined to the property and is satisfactory to the Community Development Director or their designee. Fixtures shall be appropriate to the style and scale of the architecture. No lights shall be greater than 3,000k LED.

10. Inclusionary Housing and Density Bonus Law Requirements : The Revised Project shall comply with Article 15.04.603 of the Zoning Ordinance and requirements of the state Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915). Ten percent (10%) of the units shall be sold at affordable sales price to Moderate- Income households as defined in Zoning Ordinance Section 15.04.104.020 and Health and Safety Code Section(s) 50052.5 and 50093. Prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of a final or tentative parcel map, whichever is earliest, the Applicant shall enter into and record a written agreement with the City as specified in Section 15.04.603.110.

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

12. Encroachment Permit Required: The Applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City’s Engineering Department for all work within the public right-of-way. All curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement shall conform to City standards. Should any infrastructure be damaged or destroyed as a result of the Revised Project’s construction, Applicant shall be responsible for returning the infrastructure to an acceptable condition as determined by the City’s Public Works Director.

13. All new electrical lines and connections to the site shall be undergr ounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

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

15. The Applicant shall repair all damaged sidewalk, pavement, existing curb and gutter along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director

and City Engineer prior to occupancy. The Applicant s hall replace any damaged landscaping, improvements, or street improvements caused by the installation of utility services and construction of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Community Development Director.

16. Failure to abide and fai thfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this approving action shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said action by the DRB or other design review authority.

17. Turning Radius. Provide turning radius on plans to ensure compliance with Fire Department standards.

18. Design Review Permit Expiration : Design Review approval shall expire when the Tentative Map expires, unless made permanent by issuance of building permits and the commencement of construction. If the use(s) or structure(s) approved by this action are not established within such period of time, this approval shall be terminated and shall, thereafter, be null and void, unless the Applicant applies for an extension of time prior to expiration of the Design Review approval.

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

20. The project shall meet the requirements of Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Chapter 12.62 by either including on- site publicly accessible art valued at one percent (1%) of the Building Development Cost or by paying an in- lieu contribution of one percent (1%) of the Building Development Cost to the City’s Public Art Project account as set forth in Section 12.62.050. Building Development Cost shall be as defined in the RMC Chapter 12.62.

21. The Applicant shall fund and construct the staging area shown in Miller/Knox Trailhead Improvement Plan sheet L4 of the Project Plans prior to issuance of the

last 5 occupancy permits, working in good faith with the East Bay Regional Park District and the City of Richmond.

22. Improvements plans and a subdivision improvement agreement shall be approved by the City prior to the construction of any subdivision improvements.

23. Applicant shall provide proof of an easement agreement or other legal agreement with the EBRPD for the proposed EVA, or the EVA shall be redesigned to be located completely on-site. Applicant shall provide a copy of the draft easement or legal agreement for review by the City Attorney prior to execution.

24. All light fixtures shall be shielded, indirect, dark sky friendly and have output color temperature of no greater than 3,000 Kelvins.

25. Applicant shall repave the existing Bay Trail between the Project site and Canal Boulevard and repair the collapsed Bay Trail section immediately south of the Project site. Bay Trail improvements shall merge seamlessly w ith the existing Bay Trail lying south and north of the Project site. In addition, Applicant shall construct, or pay the full cost of constructing, a new, paved twelve (12) -foot wide Bay Trail section linking the Condition 21 staging area with the Applicant’s improved Bay Trail along Seacliff Drive and the Bay Trail along Canal Blvd in the vicinity of the access road for 1001 Canal Blvd. A condition shall be included in the Subdivision Improvement Agreement requiring the Applicant to complete these improvem ents prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the residential project.

26. Applicant shall replace, or salvage and reuse, the Bay Trail orientation sign panel and frame located at the corner of Seacliff Drive and Canal Boulevard. A 2’ x 3’ interpretative panel shall be created and installed in a National Park Service low profile frame along the Bay Trail on Seacliff Drive, prior to issuance of first certificate of occupancy. This new panel location and design shall be done in collaboration with TRAC and be consistent with the design of Bay Trail interpretative panels installed along the Bay Trail in Richmond.

27. Ground water and/or stormwater runoff shall not be allowed to flow from the site across the Bay Trail’s shoulder or pavement.

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

29. The following additional traffic safety measures shall be added near the Project site’s entry driveway:
a. A stop sign and a stop pavement marking for vehicles exiting the driveway, and b. Trail crossing signs W11- 15 and W11-15P alerting motor vehicles to trail traffic at three (3) locations: (1) the drive exit, (2) before the right turn from southbound Seacliff Drive and (3) at the left turn from northbound Seacliff Drive with W16-7P directional arrow signs added under the trail signs on Seacliff Drive. These signs

shall be compliant with the latest edition of the California Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices at the time of permit.

30. Applicant shall pay for and/or install the following improvements to Seacliff Drive:
a. Speed feedback signs in both directions;
b. Striping on both sides of Seacliff Drive to provide three (3) -foot shoulders and 11-foot travel lanes in both directions; and
c. The following signage:
i. 25 miles per hour (mph) speed limit (Sign R2- 1) on both directions of Seacliff Drive;
ii. Curve arrows (W1-8) on both directions of Seacliff Drive; and iii. Stop Ahead (W3-1) on northbound Seacliff Drive on the approach to Canal Boulevard; and Intersection Ahead (W2- 2) on both directions of Seacliff Drive approaching the Project site driveway.

These improvements shall be installed prior to use of the new entry driveway for construction purposes.

31. The following additional improvements to Seaclif f Drive shall be paid for and/or installed by Applicant:
a. Centerline striping on Seacliff Drive: the City standard for providing double-yellow center striping is Caltrans Detail 23 (CA MUTCD 2010), which consists of two rows of reflective and non-reflective yellow markers in the center of the roadway; and,
b. Guardrails (also called traffic barriers) shall be installed at the east side of Seacliff Drive where the roadway curves and has a descending grade in the northbound direction.

32. Street Improvements. Applic ant shall have street improvement plans prepared for all work in the public right of way by a licensed civil engineer and obtain Engineering Division approval prior to the issuance of the encroachment permit.

33. Applicant is required to retrofit all existing and new drain inlets and catch basins on- site and adjacent offsite with full-trash capture device per RMC 12.22.090(a). Include detail of the chosen device on plan sheet and indicate the locations where they will be installed (see attached list of approved full trash capture devices). As part of the SWCP the Revised Project shall be listed in the text for the trash inserts within the “Source Control Measures” and Section VI “Stormwater Facility Maintenance” Section of the SWCP.

34. Submit Operations and Maintenance Plan and an O&M Agreement (“Agreement”) per the City’s templates for stormwater quality facilities. After approval of the O&M Plan and Agreement by the Water Resource Recovery (WRR) Department the following shall occur:
a. Property owner must sign and notarize the Agreement first; b. Submission of the Agreement to the City along with a legal description of the property;
c. City officials sign and notarize the Agreement;

d. City records the executed Agreement with the County; e. City will provide Property Owner a copy of the recorded Agreement.

35. Applicant shall video all storm and sewer pipes on the property –up to the connection points to the City systems. The videos shall be provided to the WRR Department for review prior to finalizing project utility plan. In addition, video of pipes constructed shall be completed prior to occupancy of the units.

36. Applicant will install a two (2) -way cleanout, overflow protection device, and a backflow device for each unit/connection; and will coordinate number of connections with MEP consultant.

37. Applicant shall comply with minimum storm drain standards set forth in City’s Standard Plans and in the RMC. Documentation provided in support of proposed Storm Drain improvements shall include, but is not limited, to:
a. Applicant shall provide as -built drawing to the City of Richmond ECIP Department for all improvements constructed onsite and off -site as part of the project. The as-built drawings must be stamped by the engineer of record for the project.
b. Applicant shall comply with the City’s Storm drain design standards in RMC Section 15.08.570. Storm Drain Design Criteria shall follow the City of Richmond’s RMC “§12.44.060(f) - Design standards and grading regulations (Regulations for Drainage).

38. The project shall conform to the latest C3 standards and Best Management Practices.

39. Revised Project shall implement the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.

40. On Sheet A8.0, crosswalks shall be added at the intersections of B Street and C Street, and B S treet and D Street, with a sidewalk added on the north side of B Street, between C and D streets. This is consistent with Sheet C3.1 of the Vesting Tentative Map.

41. Revised Project shall comply with RMC Chapter 9.64, which prohibits use of natural gas infrastructure in newly constructed buildings.

42. Construction Staging area: A construction staging area shall be developed along the existing access road into the former Quarry that is programed to become a trail extension developed as a Class I Bikeway. The Applicant shall secure any required encroachment permit s from the City of Richmond and East Bay Regional Park District. In the development of the staging area, the civil engineer and the construction team shall survey the area needed and this area shall be shown on a site plan map. This area shall then have a separate landscape plan that will amend sheet L4 in the Project Plans, dated March 2022. This separate landscape plan shall be adapted to the staging area so following major construction, a plan to rem ove invasive species and trim overgrowth to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development. This landscaping shall be completed prior to the issuance of the

certificate of occupancy of the 70th residence in the project. This landscape plan shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval prior to the application submittal of the 50th building permit. Temporary water and irrigation shall be provided to establish the new plantings.

43. To the extent possible, the project shall avoid construction access off of Seacliff Drive and instead, construction traffic shall be directed to enter and exit onto Canal Blvd from the existing access road that is to become a trail extension as described in Condition 43 above.

44. The staging area and trail as shown on Sheet L4 shall be completed prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy for the final home in the project. All agreements to construct these improvements shall be completed with the City and EBRPD prior to the issuance of the 30
th building permit.

45. Coast live oak specified on Sheet L4 of the Project Plans shall be 24” box in lieu of 15 gallon. All other shrubs shall have a minimum of 5 gallons in lieu of 1 gallon.

46. The project shall install a 1-inch Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) water supply line, valve, and box to the area shown on sheet L4 for future use.

47. The project shall provide a Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe ( minimum 2” pipe) to intercept existing storm water and direct it to the area adjacent to unit 43, and west of Unit 17. This area could be used for potential future water storage tanks that may be provided by the homeowner’s association. The future harvesting and re- use of storm water must be completed in accordance with applicable laws.

48. Wooden fences shall be in substantial compliance with the photograph on sheet L5 of the Project Plans and shall be either clear western red cedar, redwood or Ipe. The fences shall comply with the current building code. All fasteners shall be stainless steel or similar to limit corrosion. Fence post bases and fasteners shall be hot-dipped galvanized. All board form gaps shall be ¼”.

49. The Vesting Tentative Map dated March 1, 2022 shall be modified to conform with conditions of approval 43, 44, and 45 above.

50. All Garage doors shall include the optional enhanced glass above. Garage doors shall also be designed with varied panels doors to match architecture patterns.

51. The following elevations: Front 3C, Rear Enhanced 3C, Front 3A, Rear Enhanced 3A, Front 2C, Rear enhanced 2C, Front 2A, Front 1C, and Rear enhanced 1C shall be revised to show the 2 inches window reveals shown on sheet A5.1 # 5, and on note A5.0 # 4 shall be revised to be 2”.

52. All windows shall be bronze color if the building exteriors are darker.

53. Downspouts shall be bonderized 26-gauge galvanized sheet metal painted to match adjacent material.

54. Gutters shall be 5-inch fascia-type 26-gauge painted to match the exterior board trim color.

55. Roof vents shall be corrosion resistant.

56. Windows above planters shall open so planters can be used.

57. Enhanced side elevations shall be added to lots 8 side, 58 side, and 65, and rear lots 59, 60, 61, and 62.

58. Solar panels to be installed on all residences.

59. French doors (min. 60-in x 80-in), at the entry side of the garage, shall be offered as an option for buyers.

60. The play area shall be enlarged, by eliminating five (5) of the proposed adjacent parking stalls and incorporating the area into the park.

61. Entry enhancement planting shall be changes to non-invasive species.

62. Staff shall make best efforts to research and discuss with Fire an emergency route as illustrated by Ms. Johnson. Summary shall be noticed and introduced to City council.

63. A marker of the future possible restroom location within the staging area shall be noted on the project plans.

1 THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
Planned Area Plan
March 2022

INTRODUCTION
The proposed project is an in-fill and reuse housing development of a vacant site formerly used as a rock quarry. The project, commonly known as ‘The Quarry’, is located on approximately 6.3 acres of the

18.4-acre property in the Point Richmond neighborhood of the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, California (“Project Site”). Based on geotechnical analysis, areas of the proposed project site have been deemed “unbuildable.” Because of these constraints, only 6.3 acres are considered suitable for construction of buildings. The remaining 12.1 acres will remain as open space.

The Planned Area (“PA”) Plan envisions development of up to 76 small lot single family houses, 10% of which will be offered at an affordable sales price to low -income households per Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.603, Inclusionary Housing, a “tot lot”, shared open space, landscaped frontage areas, and pathways. The developer will pay a fee to meet the Percent for Art requirement in lieu of placing art on site.

The PA Plan is consistent with the Richmond General Plan (as amended) and other applicable policies, and is compatible with surrounding development. Implementation of the project would require an amendment of the previously approved PA plan or waivers of development standards pursuant to the state Density Bonus Law. The project is compatible with the adjacent uses and would enable application of development standards consistent with the City’s goals in its General Plan, including meeting future housing needs within the PA through infill development already served by community facilities, utilities and transportation systems. Moreover, with the requested waivers of development standards pursuant to the state Density Bonus Law, the project is consistent with applicable, objective provisions of the General Plan and zoning ordinance and is protected by the provisions of the Housing Accountability Act.

Minimum lot areas, setbacks, building heights, other development standards, and similar regulations of the base zoning district may be modified as part of an approved PA district. Most of the proposed development standards are similar to the RM-1, Medium Density Multi-Family Residential district but
would allow slight deviations, such as front, side and rear setbacks. See attached pages 6-7 for charts on comparative lot standards and land use regulations

PLAN ELEMENTS
PA Plan elements include residential development with related amenities and improvements to the Bay Trail along the project site frontage.

Residential Uses
The PA Plan includes the development of up to 76 small lot single family houses. The development consists of two-story buildings.

2 Amenities
The project includes open space at the middle of the site that contains a small landscaped “tot lot” with play equipment, safety surfacing, picnic tables, trash/recycle receptacles, turf areas and bench seating.

Landscaping and Bay Trail Improvements
The project will include landscaped common areas that will be maintained by the Homeowners Association (“HOA”).

In addition to project landscaping, the project provides enhancements to the section of the Bay Trail on Seacliff Drive along the project site. The trail will be rebuilt as a 12-foot-wide paved trail with 5-7 feet of landscaping (low ground cover planting) between the trail and Seacliff Drive, and 3 feet of decomposed granite between the trail and the landscape leading up to the project buildings.

PROJECT ACCESS AND PARKING
Access will be provided via a private entrance road from Seacliff Drive. An access for emergency vehicles only will also be provided from Seacliff Drive, at the northern corner of the site.

A total of 186 parking spaces will be provided, of which 152 spaces will be in private garages and 34 spaces will be spaces for guests. Two of the guest spaces will be accessible and two will have electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.

UTILITY SERVICES
The City of Richmond currently provides sewer services to properties in the area. Existing sewer systems in the area have sufficient capacity available to serve the project.

The project can be served by the City of Richmond’s existing water treatment plant. The provision of wastewater services would not require major extensions to the existing system to serve the project site.

All existing utilities are located adjacent to the project site and will have to be extended to serve the proposed development. Major extensions will not be required.

PA PLAN
All requirements set forth in the Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.810 apply to the project.

Allowable Land Uses
The following permitted and conditional uses are allowed in The Quarry PA District.

Permitted Uses. The following uses shall be permitted. Similar uses may be permitted by interpretation of the Planning Director or his designee.

Residential Uses: Single Family Detached Residential

3 Commercial Uses: Home occupations
Open Space and Recreational Uses: Parks, open space, and bike and pedestrian trails Accessory Uses: Accessory uses and buildings shall be limited to those uses that are clearly incidental to the primary use of the property, such as a garden shed or pergola.

Development Standards
The following development standards shall apply in The Quarry PA District.

Residential Unit Types. The following unit types are allowed in The Quarry PA District. • Single Family Detached Residential
Density. The following densities apply to The Quarry PA District.

HOUSING TYPE GROSS ACREAGE NET ACREAGE1 UNIT RANGE2

MINIMUM MAXIMUM
Medium Density
Residential

18.4 ± 6.3 ± 10 du/ac x net
acreage = 63
units
27 du/acre x
net acreage =
170 units
1 Because a large portion of the site is restricted from development due to steepness, project density is calculated based on the developable “net” acreage (6.3 acres). 2 The General Plan Medium Density Residential designation permits 10-27 units/net acre. (General Plan Land Use Element.)
Setbacks and Height. Specific development standards pertaining to maximum building height and minimum setbacks are as follows:

MAXIMUM

BUILDING HEIGHT
(IN FEET)1

FRONT YARD
SETBACK (IN FEET)2

SIDE YARDS (L/R)
SETBACK (IN FEET) 2

REAR YARD SETBACK
(IN FEET) 2
35 5 4/4 8
1 Maximum building height is measured to the average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof per Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.020, Definition 77. 2 Architectural projections of up to 3’-0” are allowed in setbacks, including but not limited to: bay windows, second floor cantilevers, porch and patio columns with roofs, fire places and chimneys, buttressed and finned walls.

Architecture. The residential development shall be constructed in substantial compliance with the final architectural plan set approved by the City Council, including any applicable conditions of approval for The Quarry project.

Open Space Requirements. Common open space shall be provided in substantial compliance with the final landscape plan approved by the City Council, including any applicable conditions of approval for The Quarry project. Specific development standards pertaining to open space are as follows:

4 TYPE REQUIREMENT
Common Open
Space
150 SF/DU
Private Open Space 75 SF/DU
Performance Standards. The uses in The Quarry PA District must comply with all applicable performance standards delineated in the Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.608.

Parking Standards. Except as otherwise provided in this section, all parking must comply with the provisions of Richmond Municipal Code Article 15.04.607. The project will provide 34 guest parking spaces. Two of the guest spaces will be accessible and two will have electric vehicle (EV) charging stations.

Number of parking spaces. No less than the minimum number of parking spaces, as required by this subsection, shall be provided for residential uses on the site. Off-street parking spaces may be provided in excess of the minimum number of spaces required per this subsection.

Parking Stall Length. For all parking angles more than 30-degrees, the required minimum stall length is 18 feet by 8’-6”.

Landscape. Landscape shall be installed in substantial compliance with the final landscape plan approved by the City Council, including any applicable conditions of approval for The Quarry project.

Signs. All signs must comply with the applicable provisions of the Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.609.

EXCEPTIONS - The project is asking for the following waivers of development standards pursuant to the state Density Bonus Law.

Minimum Lot Size - RM zones have a 5,000 sf lot area minimum standard. We are proposing a 2,100 sf minimum. This smaller lot size is necessary to achieve the minimum density of 12 du/acre
Minimum Lot Width - RM zones have a 50’ minimum lot width standard. We are proposing a 34’ minimum width. This narrower width is necessary to achieve the minimum density of 12 du/acre Minimum Front Setback - RM zones have a 10’ minimum front yard setback. We are proposing a 5’ minimum setback. We have smaller lot sizes (to achieve the needed density), and with this smaller lot size it is necessary to have a smaller front setback in order to have a buildable area on the lot that can accommodate the required parking and have adequate ground floor living space
Minimum Interior Side Setback - RM zones have a 5’ minimum interior side yard setback. We are proposing a 4’ minimum setback. We have narrower lot widths (to achieve the needed density),

5 and with this smaller width it is necessary to have a smaller side yard setback in order to have a buildable area on the lot that will have adequate ground floor living space Minimum Rear Setback - RM zones have a 20’ minimum rear yard setback. We are proposing a 8’ minimum setback. We have smaller lot sizes (to achieve the needed density), and with this smaller lot size it is necessary to have a smaller rear setback in order to have a buildable area on the lot that can accommodate the required parking and have adequate ground floor living space

IMPLEMENTATION
Approval of The Quarry PA Plan will constitute final discretionary land use approval for The Quarry project site.

PA Plan Amendments
The PA Plan provides a general description of the development of the project site. The project includes a tentative map and design review approvals. Final architectural and landscape design and site planning will occur at the time of design review and no formal amendment of this PA Plan will be required as long as the materials submitted for design review approval are in substantial compliance with this PA Plan.

Amendments to the PA Plan shall be subject to the procedures of Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.810.070.

Administrative and Enforcement Procedures:

All activities, development and uses allowed in this PA District are subject to the provisions contained in Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.803 (Common Procedures). Provisions of this PA Plan will be enforced in accordance with Municipal Code Section 15.04.815 (Enforcement Provisions).

6 COMPARATIVE LOT STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATIONS
District RM1 RM2 PROPOSED
Lot and Density Standards
Density (du/ac) Min. 10; Max 27 Min. 15; Max. 40 12.1
Minimum Lot Area
per Unit (sq. ft.) 1,650 1,100 2,100
Minimum Lot Size
(sq. ft.) 5,000 5,000 2,100
Minimum Lot
Width (ft.) 50 50 34
Building Form and Location
Maximum Height
(ft.)
Main Building 35 (A) 35 (A) 35
Accessory Building 12 (B) 12 (B) 12
Maximum Stories 3 3(C) 2
Minimum Setbacks (ft.)
Front 10 (D) 10 5
Interior Side 5 for the first two stories, 10 thereafter (A) 4 Street Side 10 (E) 10 (E)
Rear 20 20 (A) 8
Parking, from
street facing
property line
40 (F) 40 (F) NA
Minimum Distance
Between Buildings
(ft.)
6 6 8
Maximum Lot
Coverage (% of
Lot)
65 75 65

7 COMPARATIVE LOT STANDARDS AND LAND USE REGULATIONS
Maximum Upper Story Massing (% of Ground Floor Footprint) 2nd Story 100 100
3rd Story and
Above 80 NA
Open Space, Landscaping and Paving
Minimum Private
Open Space (sq. ft.
per unit)
75 60 75
Minimum Total
Open Space (sq. ft.
unit)
150 120 150
Required
additional Open
Space for 3 or
more Bedrooms
(sq. ft. per unit)
100 (common or
private) 100
Minimum Amount
of Landscaping (%
of site)
15 15 15
Maximum Paving
in Street-facing
Yards (% of
required yard)
50 50 50

Accessory Uses
and Structures See Sec. 15.04.601.010 Accessory Uses and Structures

THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTRICHMOND, CA
KTGY Group, Inc.1814 Franklin St. Suite 400, Oakland, CA 94612ARCHITECT :LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT :CIVIL ENGINEER :New West Communities5055 West Patrick Lane #101Las Vegas, NV 89118DEVELOPER:CSW/Struber-Stroeh Engineering Group5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd., Suite 203Pleasanton, CA 94588Contact:Terry [email protected]: : (702) 293-9030 Contact:David Burton, [email protected]:Wayne Leach, [email protected] Vallier Design Associates,Inc.210 Washington Ave., Suite G Point Richmond, CA 94801Contact:Marcia Vallier, ASLA, APA, LEED [email protected] INDEXC1.0 TITLE SHEETC2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONSC3.0 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC3.1 VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC4.0 GRADING PLANC5.0 SITE CROSS SECTIONSC6.0 UTILITY PLANC7.0 STORMWATER CONTROL PLANC8.0 PRELIMINARY PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSISL1 LANDSCAPE SITE PLANL2 TYPICAL LANDSCAPE TREATMENTL3 ENLARGEMENT PLAN - ENTRY AND COMMON AREASL4 ENLARGEMENT PLAN MILLER/KNOX TRAILHEAD PARKING AND IMPROVEMENTSL5 SITE IMAGESL6 LANDSCAPE PLANTS A0.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA1.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA1.1 FLOOR PLAN 1A1.2 PLAN 1A- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA1.3 PLAN 1B- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA1.4 PLAN 1C- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.1 FLOOR PLAN 2A2.2 PLAN 2A- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.3 PLAN 2B- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA2.4 PLAN 2C- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.0 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.1 FLOOR PLAN 3A3.2 PLAN 3A- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.3 PLAN 3B- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA3.4 PLAN 3C- EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSA4.0 PLAN 1 SECTION- TYPICAL A5.0 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSA5.1 ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSA6.0 COLOR SCHEMESA7.0 STREET SCENEA7.1 STREET SCENEA8.0 PRELIMINARY PLAN & STYLE PLOTTING MARCH 16, 2022
APRIL 2022

DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C1.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTTITLE SHEET
APN: 560-330-043RICHMOND, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIAAPRIL, 2022

CITY OF RICHMONDTHE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP

RICHMONDPROJECTSITE

OCEANPACIFICNEVADACALIFORNIASAN FRANCISCO

LOCATION MAPNOT TO SCALE

OREGONCALIFORNIA

DEVELOPER/OWNER

CIVIL ENGINEER

PROJECT INFORMATION

VICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALE
NEW WEST COMMUNITIES5055 WEST PATRICK LANE #101LAS VEGAS, NV 89118PHONE: 702-497-0873 CSW/STRUBER-STROEH ENGINEERING GROUP5870 STONERIDGE MALL RD., SUITE 203PLEASANTON, CA 94588PHONE: 925-787-4982ARCHITECTKTGY1814 FRANKLIN STREET, SUITE 400OAKLAND, CA 94612PHONE: 415-568-3833 SITE APN:560-330-043TOTAL UNITS:76 SINGLE FAMILY HOMESSITE AREA:18.44 ACGENERAL PLAN:OPEN SPACE AND MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALZONING:OS/PA-OPEN SPACE / PLANNED AREALAND USE:EXISTING: VACANTPROPOSED: OPEN SPACE / MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIALUTILITIES: SEWERCITY OF RICHMOND WATEREAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT STORM DRAINCITY OF RICHMOND GAS/ELECTRICPACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY TELEPHONETBDFLOOD ZONE:ZONE XSTREETS:ALL ON-SITE STREETS WILL BE PRIVATE AND WILL BE PRIVATELYMAINTAINED.COMMON AREAS:ALL PRIVATE COMMON AREAS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.RETAINING WALLS:ALL RETAINING WALLS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.PARKING:RESIDENTIAL GARAGES: 76GUEST SPACES: 29DIMENSIONS:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE PRELIMINARY AND SUBJECT TO THE FINAL MAP.

ABBREVIATIONSACACREADAREA DRAINBCBACK OF CURBBWBOTTOM OF WALLDMADRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAELEVELEVATIONEXEXISTINGFFFINISH FLOORFHFIRE HYDRANTFLFLOWLINEGRGRATEHPHIGH POINTINVINVERTLPLOW POINTMHMANHOLEPRPROPOSEDRETRETAININGR/WRIGHT OF WAYSDSTORM DRAINSSSANITARY SEWERSW SIDEWALKTCTOP OF CURBTRC TOP OF ROLLED CURBTSMTOP OF SOIL MIXTWTOP OF WALLTYPTYPICALWWATERWVWATER VALVECANALBLVD

SEACLIFF
I-580CUTTING BLVD

PROJECTLOCATIONDR

HARBOR CHANNEL
SHEET INDEXSHEET NO.SHEET TITLEC1.0TITLE SHEETC2.0EXISTING CONDITIONSC3.0VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC3.1VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC3.2VESTING TENTATIVE MAPC4.0GRADING PLANC5.0SITE CROSS SECTIONSC6.0UTILITY PLANC7.0STORMWATER CONTROL PLANC8.0PRELIMINARY PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS

LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791 LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 LANDS OF SEACLIFF AT POINTRICHMOND OWNERS ASSOCIATION2006-0343286CITY OF RICHMOND(1986-212374) LANDS OF RICHMONDCOVE 1, INC. (2009-0018031)PARCEL 21.49± ACRESCONSERVATION EASEMENT(2009-0010832)

LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT(2009-0010830)
60' WIDE ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENT
SLOPE EASEMENT(1986-21237213278 OR 444)

SEACLIFF DRIVE
PIPE

SEACLIFFDRIVE

STORM DRAINOUTLETDITCHCULVERT

DITCHCULVERT

PATHSTORM DRAINOUTLET

UTILITY POLEKINDER MORGANPETROLEUM PIPELINEUTILITY POLEUTILITY PANEL &ELECTRICAL BOXES

BAYTRAIL

BAYTRAIL
LANDS OFRICHMOND COVE 1, INC.PARCEL 1 2016-268916APN 560-330-043PARCEL 116.95± ACRES DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C2.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTEXISTING CONDITIONS
Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 80 ft.1608080
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINEEXISTING EASEMENTEXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUREXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPEEXISTING GAS PIPEEXISTING OVERHEAD LINEEXISTING SPOT GRADEEXISTING PAVEMENTEXISTING BRUSH LEGAL DESCRIPTIONTHE LAND TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF RICHMOND, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:PARCEL 1:PARCEL "B" AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MS 764-81, FILED APRIL 1, 1982, BOOK 100 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 23,CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS.EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO THE CITY OF RICHMOND, RECORDED NOVEMBER 25,1986, BOOK 13278, PAGE 453, SERIES NO. 86-212374, OFFICIAL RECORDS.ALSO EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PORTION DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT, ACALIFORNIA SPECIAL DISTRICT, RECORDED JANUARY 22, 2009, INSTRUMENT NO. 2009-0010830, OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.PARCEL2:BEING A PORTION OF THE PARCEL DESCRIBED IN THE DEED TO EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FROM ATLANTICRICHFIELD COMPANY, RECORDED JANUARY 5, 1982, IN BOOK 10634 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS, AT PAGE 434, CONTRA COSTACOUNTY RECORDS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:COMMENCING AT A POINT ON A WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "B" AS SHOWN ON PARCEL PARCEL MAP SUBDIVISION MS764-81, FILED APRIL 1, 1982, BOOK 100 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGE 23, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS, SAID POINT BEINGTHE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THE COURSE DESIGNATED AS NORTH 01°40'50" WEST THEREON; THENCE ALONG SAIDWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "B", NORTH 01°40'50" WEST, 289.57 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUINGALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL "B" NORTH 01°40'50" WEST, 305.43 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID WESTERLY LINEOF PARCEL "B", SOUTH 88°19'10" WEST, 249.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 15°00'11" EAST, 313.88 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88°19'10"EAST, 177.03 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.BASIS OF BEARINGTHE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS MAP IS NORTH 30°13'06" WEST BETWEEN TWO FOUND BRASS DISKS IN MONUMENTWELL ON THE CENTERLINE OF CANAL BOULEVARD AS SHOWN ON THAT CERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP,SUBDIVISION MS-764-81", FILED APRIL 1, 1982 IN BOOK 100 OF PARCEL MAPS AT PAGE 23, CONTRA COSTA COUNTYRECORDS.NOTES1.DISTANCES SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.2.VERTICAL DATUM IS NORTH AMERICAN VERTICAL DATUM OF 1988 (NAVD88) PER GPS SURVEY. PROJECTBENCHMARK IS THE FOUND 2.5" BRASS DISK IN MONUMETN WELL LOCATED ON CANAL BLVD AS SHWON ON THATCERTAIN MAP ENTITLED "PARCEL MAP, SUBDIVISION MS 764-81", FILED APRIL 1, 1982 IN BOOK 100 OF PARCELSMAPS, PAGE 23, CONTRA COSTA COUNTY RECORDS. ELEVATION OF SAID PUNCHED DISK BEING 13.2'.3.TOPOGRAPHY SHOWN WAS PERFORMED BY OTHERS AND AN ADDITIONAL FIELD SURVEY WAS PERFORMED INAPRIL OF 2021 TO CONFIRM CONTROL AND BOUNDARY INFORMATION SHOWN HEREON. NO MATERIALDISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN LOCATING MONUMENTS IN APRIL OF 2021 WHILE RETRACING

4 STOP
132 5678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
63 SEACLIFF DRIVELANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791

SEACLIFFDRIVE
LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 LANDS OF SEACLIFF AT POINTRICHMOND OWNERS ASSOCIATION2006-0343286 CITY OF RICHMOND(1986-212374)LANDS OF RICHMOND COVE 1, INC.PARCEL 2 (2009-0018031)CONSERVATION EASEMENT(2009-0010832)

LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT

LANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICT
LANDS OF EAST BAY REGIONALPARK DISTRICT (2009-0010830)
60' WIDE ACCESS &UTILITY EASEMENT

FUTURE STAGINGAREA BY OTHERS

CANAL BLVDCANAL BLVD
SLOPE EASEMENT(1986-21237213278 OR 444)
80' WIDE TEMPORARYCONSTRUCTION, GRADING,AND SLOPE EASEMENT 80' SOIL NAILWALL EASEMENT

PARCEL APARCEL B

PARCEL C

PARCEL D

PARCEL F
PROPOSED E.V.A.EASEMENT AREA

PARCEL E

PROPOSED BAY TRAILCONNECTION
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

PARCEL G
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C3.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 80 ft.1608080
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINELOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENT

RIGHT OF WAY

4132 5678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
6326'
24' 24'
24'
24' 24'
24'

A STREETA STREETA STREET

B STREET

B STREET

C STREETD STREET

MAINENTRY

SEACLIFF DRIVE
SEACLIFF DRIVEPROPOASED E.V.A.EASEMENT AREA(AREA = 6,221 SF)EVAROADLANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791 LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
52' R/W

PARCEL APARCEL B

PARCEL C

PARCEL D

PARCEL F
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

PARCEL E
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

FUTURE STAGING AREA CONNECTION,SEE SHEET C3.0
24'36' R/W
PARCEL G3 STALLS
3 STALLS
4 STALLS
9 STALLS
10 STALLS PLAY AREA
4' 4'8'
62'
34'
R/WTRC
4' 4'
10'
62'
34'
R/WTRC
4' 4'
8'
62'
34'
R/WTRC
10'5'
5'
5'
PLAN 1(1,143 SF)PLAN 2(1,120 SF)PLAN 3(1,154 SF)10'
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C3.1THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
TYPICAL LOT LAYOUTSCALE: 1" = 20'
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAYLOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTPROPOSED CURB & SIDEWALKPROPOSED WALLPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREAPROPOSED PAVEMENT NOTES:TYPICAL LOT AREA: 2,108 SFFRONT SETBACK: 5'SIDE SETBACK: 4'REAR SETBACK: 8'

26'
24' 24'
24'
24' 24'
24'

A STREETA STREETA STREET

B STREET

B STREET

C STREETD STREET

MAINENTRY

SEACLIFF DRIVE

SEACLIFF DRIVEEVAROAD
LANDS OF KM PHOENIXHOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306 34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
52' R/W
PARCEL APARCEL B9,154 SF

PARCEL C

PARCEL D

PARCEL F
PARCEL E1,948 SF
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.
24'
9'91'
39'60'43'62'34'62'34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'40'
40' 64'32'
45'62'34'
62'34'
62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'40'
40'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'
34'34'34'62'34'34'62'62'34'34'62'34'34'62'34'34'62'34'34'62'62' 34'62'34'62'34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
40'62' 63'62'37'62'34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'34'62'34'62'34'
34'62'33'62'34'
34'62'62'39'
33'62'34'
34'62'34'
34'
33'1'64'34'34'63'62'34'34'62'34'34'62'34'34'62'36'35'62' 38'62' 34'62'
34'62'
34'62'
34'
25'23'54'34'70'35'34'62'34'34'62'34'59'
31'64'34'65'34'63'34'
34'62'34'
34'
34'34'34'
62'34'
34'
34'38'
52'
34'
34'
45'
32'
33'
44'41'33'
40'
35'
56'64'
3,081 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,480 SF
12345678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
63 2,108 SF2,450 SF2,136 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,398 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,480 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,395 SF 2,068 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF
2,108 SF2,346 SF
2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,146 SF
2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,480 SF 2,209 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF
2,147 SF2,113 SF
2,299 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,375 SF2,236 SF
2,097 SF2,108 SF2,126 SF2,161 SF2,197 SF2,797 SF
2,819 SF2,116 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,223 SF2,108 SF2,109 SF2,225 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF2,108 SF 7,410 SF
10,606 SF
3,796 SF
2,428 SF

PARCEL G
7,410 SF
19'12'5'54'
56'62'20'2,075 SF9'8'
39'14'36'26'19'
5'
519,848 SF
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C3.2THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTVESTING TENTATIVE MAP Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAYLOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTPROPOSED CURB & SIDEWALKPROPOSED WALLPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREAPROPOSED PAVEMENT SUMMARY OF LOT COVERAGELOT NO.PLAN NO.LOT AREA(SF)BUILDINGFOOTPRINT(SF)LOTCOVERAGE1 3 2,1081,15455%2 2 2,1081,12053%3 1 2,1081,14354%4 3 2,1081,15455%5 2 2,1081,12053%6 1 2,1081,14354%7 2 2,1081,12053%8 3 2,4801,15447%9 2 2,1461,12052%101 2,1081,14354%113 2,1081,15455%122 2,1081,12053%131 2,1081,14354%143 2,3461,15449%152 2,1081,12053%161 2,1081,14354%173 2,0681,15456%183 3,0811,15437%191 2,1081,14354%202 2,1081,12053%213 2,1081,15455%221 2,1081,14354%232 2,4801,12045%243 2,1081,15455%251 2,4501,14347%262 2,1361,12052%273 2,1081,15455%281 2,1081,14354%292 2,1081,12053%302 2,1081,12053%313 2,3981,15448%321 2,1081,14354%332 2,1081,12053%343 2,1081,15455%352 2,1081,12053%361 2,1081,14354%372 2,4801,12045%383 2,1081,15455%391 2,1081,14354%402 2,1081,12053%413 2,1081,15455%422 2,1081,12053%432 2,3951,12047%441 2,1471,14353%452 2,1131,12053%463 2,1081,15455%472 2,1081,12053%482 2,1081,12053%493 2,2091,15452%503 2,0751,15456%513 2,1081,15455%522 2,1081,12053%531 2,1081,14354%542 2,2991,12049%551 2,3751,14348%563 2,2361,15452%571 2,1081,14354%583 2,0971,15455%592 2,7971,12040%601 2,1971,14352%612 2,1611,12052%621 2,1261,14354%633 2,8191,15441%641 2,1161,14354%652 2,1081,12053%663 2,1081,15455%671 2,1081,14354%682 2,1081,12053%693 2,1081,15455%701 2,2231,14351%712 2,1081,12053%723 2,1091,15455%731 2,2251,14351%742 2,1081,12053%751 2,1081,14354%762 2,1081,12053% SUMMARY OF REMNANT COVERAGELOT NAMEPLAN AREA (SF)STREET82,125PARCEL A7,410PARCEL B9,154PARCEL C10,606PARCEL D3,796PARCEL E1,948PARCEL F2,428PARCEL G519,848 TOTAL AREALOT COVERAGE165,968 SFREMNANT COVERAGE637,315 SFTOTAL803,283 SF (18.44 AC)

2.0%
TSM 39.8TSM 39.5
TW 52.0BW 50.6
TW 69.0BW 51.5
TW 54.0BW 52.3
TW 54.0BW 52.6TW 60.0BW 52.6TW 50.0BW 50.0
TW 52.0BW 52.0TW 56.0BW 51.2
TW 57.0BW 50.0
TW 57.0BW 48.7
TW 60.0BW 51.4TW 51.2BW 50.0TW 49.9BW 39.5 TW 45.1BW 39.8 TW 53.0BW 51.0TW 61.7BW 51.7TW 52.0BW 45.5
TW 34.5BW 30.5
TW 50.0BW 37.5

2.0%2.0%

2.0%

1.5%

1.0%

1.0%1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%2.4%

1.0%14.0%

43.945.648.8
HP 51.9
HP 49.4
LP 47.0
GB 47.1

49.6 49.1

49.7 GB 42.6FF 50.9PAD 49.9FF 50.2PAD 49.2FF 49.5PAD 48.5FF 48.9PAD 47.9FF 48.2PAD 47.2FF 47.5PAD 46.5FF 46.8PAD 45.8FF 46.1PAD 45.112345678 91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
5152535456575859606162
6364656667686970717273747576
FF 46.1PAD 45.1FF 47.4PAD 46.4FF 48.2PAD 47.2FF 48.8PAD 47.8FF 49.1PAD 48.1FF 49.5PAD 48.5FF 49.8PAD 48.8FF 50.1PAD 49.1FF 50.5PAD 49.5FF 50.9PAD 49.9FF 51.2PAD 50.2FF 51.6PAD 50.6FF 52.0PAD 51.0FF 52.3PAD 51.3 FF 51.6PAD 50.6FF 51.9PAD 50.9FF 52.5PAD 51.5FF 53.2PAD 52.2 FF 53.3PAD 52.3FF 52.6PAD 51.6
FF 52.5PAD 51.5FF 51.5PAD 50.5FF 51.8PAD 50.8
FF 51.0PAD 50.0FF 51.6PAD 50.6
FF 52.3PAD 51.3FF 53.0PAD 52.0FF 52.6PAD 51.6FF 52.0PAD 51.0 FF 49.7PAD 48.7FF 50.1PAD 49.1
FF 49.1PAD 48.1FF 48.5PAD 47.5FF 47.9PAD 46.9FF 47.3PAD 46.3FF 47.7PAD 46.7FF 48.3PAD 47.3FF 49.7PAD 48.7FF 49.4PAD 48.4FF 49.0PAD 48.0FF 48.7PAD 47.7 FF 53.0PAD 52.0FF 52.5PAD 51.5FF 52.2PAD 51.2FF 51.8PAD 50.8FF 51.5PAD 50.5FF 51.1PAD 50.1FF 50.7PAD 49.7FF 50.6PAD 49.6FF 50.6PAD 49.6FF 50.9PAD 49.9FF 51.2PAD 50.2FF 50.9PAD 49.9FF 50.5PAD 49.5FF 50.2PAD 49.2FF 49.9PAD 48.9FF 49.6PAD 48.6FF 49.2PAD 48.2FF 49.2PAD 48.2FF 49.2PAD 48.2FF 49.5PAD 48.5FF 49.9PAD 48.9FF 50.2PAD 49.2FF 50.6PAD 49.6FF 50.9PAD 49.9FF 51.3PAD 50.3FF 51.6PAD 50.6 3:1 MAX
3:1 MAX14.0%
TW 45.1BW 39.5
TW 49.9BW 48.9TW 49.5BW 39.8SEACLIFF DRIVE

SEACLIFF
SOIL NAIL WALL & DEBRIS FENCEPER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (TYP.) SOIL NAIL WALL & DEBRIS FENCEPER GEOTECHNICAL REPORT (TYP.)

SOIL NAIL WALL

SOIL NAIL WALL

SOIL NAIL WALL

RETAINING WALL

RETAINING WALL

1.8%
AC5.0
BC5.0
DC5.0
DC5.0
EC5.0
IC5.0
HC5.0 GC5.0

DAYLIGHTTO EXISTING

DAYLIGHTTO EXISTING
80' SOIL NAILEASEMENT
80' GRADINGEASEMENT

THRU-CURBSLOT DRAIN

EXISTING KINDER MORGANPETROLEUM PIPELINE
TW 40.5BW 34.3 TW 40.5BW 35.3TW 40.8BW 34.0
CC5.0
FC5.0DRIVE

1.0%
LP 48.4445055FF 48.9PAD 47.9
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C4.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTGRADING PLAN
Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
HPHP
HP
HP
HP
ADAD
AD
ADAD
AD
TRCR/W5.0'0.835'
12" PVC PIPETEE FITTING3' MINS=0.0050MIN

TYPICAL LOT DRAINAGE DETAILNOT TO SCALE
BLIND CONNECTION,SEE DETAIL 'A' LEFT4" PVCRIGHT OFWAY12" PVC PIPES=0.0050 MINCURB & SIDEWALKPER PLANSPLAN VIEWDETAIL 'A' LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINELOT LINEPROPOSED CURB & SIDEWALKPROPOSED WALLPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREAPROPOSED MAJOR CONTOURPROPOSED MINOR CONTOUREXISTING MAJOR CONTOUREXISTING MINOR CONTOUR SD
PROPOSED CURB INLETPROPOSED FIELD INLETPROPOSED STORM DRAIN MANHOLESPOT GRADESLOPE ARROW45.01.0% PRELIMINARY EARTHWORKCUT: 9,000 CYFILL: 52,400 CYNET FILL: 43,400 CY PAD

DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C5.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTSITE CROSS SECTIONS

SECTION ANOT TO SCALE

2.0%
BNDY14.0'±TC
4:1 MAX

7.4' MAXRET WALLA STREET

SECTION BNOT TO SCALE
BNDY17.5' MAX

RET WALL(NO BATTER)

PAD SECTION DNOT TO SCALE
PL8.8' MAXRET WALL
PAD

12.0'DEBRIS BENCH5' DEBRIS FENCE

24.0' EVA ROADTC TC

12.5' MAX2.0%

SECTION ENOT TO SCALE

PL BNDY

PAD SEACLIFFDRIVE
3:1 MAX
VARIES2.0'

BIORETENTION
VARIES

SECTION GNOT TO SCALE
FENCE

9.7' MAX
EXISTING 8" GAS LINE
12:1 12:1
12:1
12:1

RET WALL RET WALL

PL BNDY

PAD SEACLIFFDRIVE
3:1 MAX

17.9'±

BIORETENTION
VARIES

SECTION HNOT TO SCALE
FENCE

10.4' MAX
EXISTING 8" GAS LINE
12:1RET WALL

PADFENCEPL
3:1 MAX PADFENCEPL
3:1 MAXRET WALL4' MAX RET WALL4' MAX

26.0' MAIN ENTRY5.0'SW 5.0'SW12.5'± 12.5'±TC TCCL13.0'13.0'

2.0%2.0%

SECTION INOT TO SCALE TYPICAL RESIDENTIALSTREET SECTIONNOT TO SCALE

24.0'CL12.0'12.0'5.0'SW 5.0'SWTRC TRC

2.0%2.0%SPILL ROLLED CURBCATCH ROLLED CURB

SECTION D(ALTERNATE)NOT TO SCALE
EG
EG EG
EG
2' DRAINAGECHANNEL
PL6.6' MAXRET WALLPAD

8.0'DEBRISBENCH5' DEBRIS FENCE12:1
EG
2' DRAINAGECHANNELEG

6.0'2.0%EG2:1 2:1

R/W R/W R/W R/W
2' DRAINAGECHANNEL FENCEPAD
PL
EG
EG
3:1MAX

4.0'2.0'2.0'

SECTION CNOT TO SCALE

FL DITCH

PAD SEACLIFFDRIVE
3:1 MAX
VARIES12.0'BAY TRAIL
SECTION FNOT TO SCALEEXISTING 8" GAS LINE
BNDY
FENCE
PL10.0'± 3.0'5.0'-7.0'

SHOULDER

12.0'BAY TRAIL3.0'5.0'-7.0'

SHOULDER

12.0'BAY TRAIL3.0'5.0'-7.0'

DECOMPOSED GARNITESHOULDER

4132 5678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
63 SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SS SS
SS
SSSS
SS
SS
SS
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SS
SS SS
SS
SS
SS
SS
SSSS
SSW
CSDW W
WCSD
W
W
W
W
WCSD
CSD

CSD CSD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD
SS
SS
CSD
CSD

CONNECT TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN

CONNECT TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN

CONNECT TO EXISTINGSTORM DRAIN

10.0' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

10.0' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

10.0' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

10.0' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

CONTINUE TO CANAL BLVD TOCONNECT TO EXISTING SANITARYSEWER AND WATER PIPES SS
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C6.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTUTILITY PLAN
Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
LEGEND:CSDCLEAN STORM DRAIN PIPESDSTORM DRAIN PIPESSSANITARY SEWER PIPEW WATER PIPE 18''SD8''GOHOHOHEXISTING STORM DRAIN PIPEEXISTING GAS PIPEEXISTING OVERHEAD LINE

SSSDSTORM DRAIN CURB INLETSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN MANHOLESANITARY SEWER MANHOLEFIRE HYDRANTBLOWOFFWATER VALVEJOINT TRENCH LINE

TYPICAL UTILITY LAYOUTNOT TO SCALE

CLR/W R/W

6.0'6.0'11.17'11.17'

5.0'12.0'12.0'5.0'TRC TRC

2.5'

JTSD WSSCSD

5.17'SD

TRANSFORMER

4132 5678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
63 SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD
SD

CSD CSD
CSD

CSD CSD
SD
SD
SD
SDSD
SD
SD SD
SD
SD
SD
SD SD
CSD
CSDCSD
SD
SD
CSDDMA 1
DMA 2
DMA 3DMA 4IMP 1 IMP 2IMP 3IMP 4
DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C7.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTSTORMWATER CONTROL PLAN Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TABLEDMATOTAL AREA (SF)IMPERIOUSAREA (SF)PERVIOUSAREA (SF)EFFECTIVEIMPERVIOUSAREA (SF)REQUIREDTREATMENTAREA (SF)TREATMENTAREA PROVIDED(SF)1 138,500110,80027,700113,5704,5434,5602 131,900105,52026,380108,1584,3264,5903 4,7253,7809453,8751551904 3,6702,9367343,009120180ASSUMPTIONS:1.ON-SITE DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT AREAS AREASSUMED TO BE 80% IMPERVIOUS.2.REQUIRED TREATMENT AREA DETERMINED USING4% METHOD.

LEGEND:CSDCLEAN STORM DRAIN PIPESDSTORM DRAIN PIPE

SD STORM DRAIN CURB INLETSTORM DRAIN FIELD INLETSTORM DRAIN MANHOLE

DMA BOUNDARY

STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
NOTES:1.SCARIFY SUBGRADE BEFORE INSTALLING BIORETENTION AREAAGGREGATE AND BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA.2.COMPACT EACH 6" LIFT OF BIORETENTION SOIL MEDIA WITHLANDSCAPE ROLLER OR BY LIGHTLY WETTING. IF WETTING, LET DRYOVERNIGHT BEFORE PLANTING.3.NEVER WORK WITHIN BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS DURING RAIN ORUNDER WET CONDITIONS.4.KEEP ALL HEAVY MACHINERY OUTSIDE BIORETENTION AREA LIMITS.5.BIORETENTION IS NOT DESIGNED FOR PERCOLATION. WATER WILLBE DIRECTED TO STORM DRAIN OUTLET PIPE THROUGH 4"PERFORATED PIPE.

TSM
LIMIT OF BIORETENTION AREA6"8"CLEANOUT
18"MIN12"MINBIORETENTION SOIL12" MIN CLASS II DRAIN ROCK4" PERFORATED PIPEOUTLET PIPE CONCRETE DROP INLET WITHFRAME. ATRIUM OR BEEHIVEGRATE PREFERRED; 14" OPENINGSRETAINING WALLRETAINING WALL

TYPICAL BIORETENTION DETAILNOT TO SCALE

4132 5678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
63 DateProject#CheckedDrawnScale
Sheet Description:Rev:
5870 Stoneridge Mall Rd, Suite 203Pleasanton, California, 94588http://www.cswst2.com925.523.4001C S W S T 2 AS SHOWNCSERS04/01/222130074
Seal & Signature:

Sheet Number:

RICHMOND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CALIFORNIA
Date:Description:

C8.0THE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTPRELIMINARY PHOTOMETRIC ANALYSIS Graphic Scale (in feet)0
1 inch = 40 ft.804040
SELUX SATURN 1 LED POLE MOUNTED LIGHTLEGEND:

12345678
91011121314151617 1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243 454647484951525354
64656667686970717273747576
4450
555657585960616263
120"
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 L1 04080 20 RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536THE QUARRY
ROCK TEXTURE SOIL NAILRETAINING WALL TOPPED WITHWIRE DEBRIS FENCE, S.C.D.

APRIL 2022DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING
SEE SHEET L2 FORENLARGEMENT PLANTYPICAL LANDSCAPETREATMENT SEE SHEET L2 FORENLARGEMENT PLANCOMMON AREAS
SEE SHEET L3 FORENLARGEMENT PLAN

DISTURBED AREAS OF THEHILLSIDE PLANTED WITH NATIVEOAKS AND HYDROSEEDED WITHNATIVE BUCKWHEAT, GRASSES,AND COASTAL SCRUB VEGETATION

COMMUNITY MAILBOXES
5'-0" WIDE CONCRETE WALKWAYGATED EMERGENCY VEHICLEACCESS ROAD STORM WATER TREATMENT AREAWITH BOARD FORM CONCRETERETAINING WALLS PLANTED WITHSTORM WATER TOLERANT TREES,SHRUBS, GRASSES AND CLINGINGVINES. WALL HEIGHT VARIES, S.C.D.NO-MOW FESCUE AND CALIFORNIABUCKWHEAT HYDROSEEDED WITHCOAST LIVE OAK TREES AND DRIFTSOF EVERGREEN NATIVE SHRUBS.12-0" WIDE ASPHALT BAY TRAILWITH 3'-0" DECOMPOSED GRANITESHOULDER SEPARATED FROMSTREET BY A PLANTING STRIP OFLOW EVERGREEN GROUND COVER.

SEACLIFF DRIVE
6'-0" TALL HORIZONTAL WOODPROPERTY LINE FENCING ANDGATES

SERVICE ACCESS ROADSEEDED WITH NO-MOWGRASS WITH TURF RINGS FLOWERING ACCENT TREESAND SHRUBS LINE ENTRY ROADAND EVERGREEN SHRUBSSCREEN WALLS AND FENCINGEXISTING STREET LIGHTTO REMAIN.SEE SHEET L4 FOREBRPD CONNECTIONRETAINING WALL

LANDSCAPE SITE PLAN

SCATTERED BOULDERS ATENTRY PLANTED WITH DRIFTSOF TALL NATIVE GRASSES

COLORED STAMPEDASPHALT PAVING ANDCROSS WALKGUEST PARKING COMMON AREA WITH TURF,PLAY AREA, PICNIC TABLES,BARBEQUE GRILL, BENCHES ANDTRASH/RECYCLE RECEPTACLES .COMMUNITY GARDEN WITHIN6'-0" HIGH WOOD AND WIREFENCE, ACCESSIBLE 4'-0" WIDEWOODEN RAISED BEDS,COMPOST BINS AND STABILIZEDDECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVING

VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 L2 01020 5 RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536THE QUARRYAPRIL 2022DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

DROUGHT TOLERANTTURF COMMON AREA

ORNAMENTAL STREET TREEEVERGREEN GROUND COVERGUEST PARKING BENCH AND TRASH/RECYCLE RECEPTACLEORNAMENTALEVERGREEN SCREENSHRUBS ALONG FENCETO BUFFER RESIDENTSSELUX SATURN 1 LED POLEMOUNTED LIGHT WITH DARK SKYCUT OFF LENS, 3,000 MAX.SEE SHEET C8.0 SCALE: 1"=10'-0"COMMON AREA ENLARGEMENT PLAN
SCALE: 1"=10'-0"TYPICAL UNIT FRONT LANDSCAPE ENLARGEMENT PLAN SELUX SATURN 1 LED POLEMOUNTED LIGHT WITH DARK SKYCUT OFF LENS, 3,000 MAX.SEE SHEET C8.0SHARED WALK FROM GARAGESFOR SIDE DOOR ACCESSEVERGREEN GRASS OR ACCENT PLANTCOLUNMAR ACCENT SHRUB ATGARAGE DOORS

ORNAMENTAL TREE WITHEVERGREEN SHRUB BELOWSTREET TREESIDEWALK PLAN 1PLAN 2RPLAN 3PLAN 2R
6'-0" TALL HORIZONTAL WOODPROPERTY LINE FENCING ANDGATES 44 ENLARGEMENT PLAN -TYPICAL UNIT AND COMMONAREA LANDSCAPE PLANS

TRELLIS

45678
333435363738394041
51525354
646566676869707172
555657585960616263
120"
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 L3 02040 10 RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536THE QUARRYAPRIL 2022DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING HILLSIDE PLANTED WITH NATIVE OAKSAND HYDROSEEDED WITH NATIVEBUCKWHEAT, GRASSES, AND COASTALSCRUB VEGETATION.RETAINING WALL TOPPED WITHWIRE DEBRIS FENCE, S.C.D.GUEST PARKING WITH TWO ACCESSIBLESTALLS AND TWO ELECTRIC VEHICLECHARGING STATIONS (EV)SELUX SATURN 1 LED POLEMOUNTED LIGHT WITH DARK SKYCUT OFF LENS, 3,000 MAX.SEE SHEET C8.0 6'-0" TALL HORIZONTAL WOODPROPERTY LINE FENCING ANDGATES STORM WATER TREATMENT AREAWITHIN BOARD FORM CONCRETERETAINING WALLS PLANTED WITHSTORM WATER TOLERANT TREES,SHRUBS, GRASSES AND CLINGINGVINES.WALL HEIGHT VARIES, S.C.D.NO-MOW FESCUE ANDCALIFORNIA BUCKWHEATHYDROSEEDED WITH COAST LIVEOAK TREES AND DRIFTS OFEVERGREEN NATIVE SHRUBS12'-0" ASPHALT BAY TRAIL WITH3'-0" DECOMPOSED GRANITESHOULDER SEPARATED FROMSTREET BY A PLANTING STRIP OFLOW EVERGREEN GROUND COVER.BAY TRAIL CROSSING SIGN (TYP.)ALERTING VEHICLES TO TRAIL TRAFFIC LOCATED AT THE PROJECTEXIT DRIVE, PRIOR TO THE SOUTHBOUND RIGHT TURN INTO THEPROJECT ENTRANCE DRIVE AND PRIOR TO THE NORTHBOUND LEFTTURN INTO THE PROJECT ENTRANCE DRIVE.BAY TRAIL CROSSING AT PROJECT ENTRY WITH HIGH VISIBILITY LADDERSTRIPED PAVEMENT WITH A GREEN COLORED CENTER AREA AND CURB CUTSAND TRUNCATED DOMES THE FULL WIDTH OF THE TRAIL. LARGE BAY TRAILLOGO SIGNS (18"x18") TO BE LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE TRAIL AT THESIDEWALK AND EXIT DRIVE TO IDENTIFY THE TRAIL ENTRANCE AND CROSSING.

SEACLIFF DRIVE
FLOWERING ACCENT TREESAND SHRUBS LINE ENTRY ROADAND EVERGREEN SHRUBSSCREEN WALLS AND FENCINGEXISTING STREET LIGHTTO REMAIN.

ENLARGEMENT PLAN -ENTRY AND COMMON AREAS

SCATTERED BOULDERS ATENTRY PLANTED WITH DRIFTSOF TALL NATIVE GRASSES

COLORED , STAMPED ASPHALTCROSS WALK

MAINTENANCE ACCESS AREA
COMMUNITY MAILBOXESCOMMUNITY GARDEN WITHIN6'-0" HIGH WOOD AND WIREFENCE,ACCESSIBLE 4'-0" WIDEWOODEN RAISED BEDS,COMPOST BINS AND STABILIZEDDECOMPOSED GRANITE PAVINGTURFLARGE TURF AREA WITH BENCHESAND TRASH/RECYCLE RECEPTACLESBOUNDED BY EVERGREEN SCREENSHRUBS AND GROUND COVER COLORED STAMPEDASPHALT PAVING ANDCROSS WALKGUEST PARKING

SMALL TURF AREAWITH BENCH ANDTRASH/RECYCLERECEPTACLE
(EV)(EV)COMMON AREA WITH TURF,PLAY AREA, PICNIC TABLES,BARBEQUE GRILL, BENCHES ANDTRASH/RECYCLE RECEPTACLES .

STOP
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN121 PARK PLACEPOINT RICHMOND, CA 94801TELEPHONE 510.237.7745 L4 02040 10 RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536THE QUARRY
EXISTING VEGETATION WILL BEINVENTORIED AND NATIVE TREES,SHRUBS GRASSES AND FORBSWILL REMAIN AND BE PROTECTEDIN PLACE. ALL NON-NATIVE TREESAND SHRUBS REMOVED.DISTURBED AREAS PLANTED WITHCOAST LIVE OAKS AND AND NATIVEEVERGREEN SHRUBS ANDHYDROSEED WITH NATIVEBUCKWHEAT, GRASSES, ANDCOSTAL SHRUB VEGETATION.SEE SHEET L6 FOR NATIVEHILLSIDE PLANT LIST.

APRIL 2022DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING

EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS ROADEAST REGIONAL PARKDISTRICT, MILLER/KNOXPARK TRAILHEAD, NEWPARKING AREA,CONNECTED TOEXISTING TRAIL EXISTING SHIPYARD 3 TRAIL

CANAL BOULEVARD

SEACLIFF DRIVE
RETAINED NATIVE SHRUB AREASWITH BACCHARIS, TOYON,COFFEEBERRY AND FESCUEGRASSES. AREAS AREDIAGRAMMATIC AND ILLUSTRATETHE GENERAL CONCEPT OFPROTECTED VEGETATION ZONES EXISTING OVERHEAD POWERLINES. TREES LOCATED TO AVOIDCONFLICT WITH LINES ANDUNDERGROUND UTILITYEASEMENTS

ENLARGEMENT PLANMILLER/KNOX TRAILHEAD PARKINGAND IMPROVEMENTS

OPTIONAL SIDEWALK AND STAIRCONNECTION FROM SERVICE ROAD TOEVA ROAD COAST LIVE OAK, PLANTED AT15-GALLON SIZENATIVE EVERGREEN SHRUB,TOYON, COFFEBERRY, BACCHARISOR CEANOTHUS, PLANTED AT1-GALLON SIZE, MINIMUM HYDROSEED IN DISTURBED AREAS.SEE SHEET L6 FOR NATIVEHILLSIDE PLANT LIST 12'-0" WIDE ASPHALT SERVICEROAD WITH 3'-0" WIDEDECOMPOSED GRANITESHOULDERS TO EITHER SIDE.SERVICE ROAD CONNECTS TOTHE BAY TRAIL ALONGSEACLIFF ROAD

NEW GATE ANDBOLLARDS INSTALLEDAT TRAIL ENTRANCE
PARALLEL PARKINGSTALLS AT TRAIL HEADNEW 5'-0" WIDESIDEWALK INSTALLEDALONG CURB ATPARALLEL PARKINGSTALLS

NEW GATE INSTALLEDAT SERVICE ROADENTRANCE

01 08
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
121 PARK PLACE
POINT RICHMOND, CA 94801
TELEPHONE 510.237.7745
0 20 4010RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536

THE QUARRY
NOVEMBER 2021
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING L5
WALLS

SOIL NAIL WALL DIAGRAM SOIL NAIL WALL ROCK FINISH BOARD FORM CONCRETE

SELUX SATURN POLE LIGHT

SITE LIGHTING

FENCING

PLAY AREA AND PARK
TIMBERFORM LOG CLIMBER 2-12 YR TIMBERFORM PLAY STRUCTURE 2-12 YR - BIRDHOUSE ID SCULPTURE, STEPPING ROCKS 2-12 YR, AND SIGNAL PEAK
CLIMBING BOULDER - 5-12 YR

FIBAR SAFETY SURFACING

SITE AMENITIES

LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES BENCH AND TRASH/RECYCLE

LANDSCAPE STRUCTURES PICNIC TABLE MAILBOXES

STAMPED ASPHALT CROSSWALK

HORIZONTAL WOOD FENCE DEBRIS FENCE

SITE IMAGES
MARCH 2022

GARDEN FENCE

PLAY AREA FENCE
APRIL 2022

LANDSCAPE PLANTS
Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak

NATIVE HILLSIDE TREE
Erigonum fascicuatum, California Buckwheat

NATIVE HILLSIDE HYDROSEED

NATIVE AND HILLSIDE PLANTS
Baccharis pilularis Chapparal Broom/Coyote-Brush
Bromus carinatus/Native “Bay Area” California Brome
Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’, Ray Hartman Wild Lilac
Eriogonum fasciculatum, California Buckwheat
Eschscholzia californica, California Poppy
Elymus glaucus/ “Bay Area” Blue Wildrye
Festuca rubra Molate, Native Red Fescue
Frangula californica, Coffeeberry
Heteromeles arbutifolia, Toyon
01 08
VALLIER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INC.

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE PLANNING DESIGN
121 PARK PLACE
POINT RICHMOND, CA 94801
TELEPHONE 510.237.7745
0 20 4010RICHMOND, CA # 2016-0536

THE QUARRY
NOVEMBER 2021
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEETING L6MARCH 2022
Arbutus ‘Marina’, Marina Manzanita Acer palmatum, Japanese Maple Ceanothus ‘RayHartman’, Ray Hartman Wild Lilac Hordeum californicum/California Barley
Lupinus arboreus Yellow Tree Lupine
Lupinus succulentus Arroyo Lupine
Mimulus aurantiacus, Sticky Monkeyflower
Nyssa sylvatica ‘Wildfire’, Wildfire Tupelo
Quercus agrifolia, Coast Live Oak
Verbena bonariensis, Tall Verbena
Westringia fruticosa, Coast Rosemary
Heteromeles arbutifolia, Toyon
Bacchari pilularis, Coyote Brush
Frangula californica, Coffeeberry
Verbena bonariensis, Tall Verbena
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*Stormwater compatible plants for use in basins
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Mimulus aurantiacus, Sticky Monkeyflower
Nyssa sylvatica ‘Wildfire’, Wildfire Tupelo
Westringia fruticosa, Coast Rosemary
*
*
APRIL 2022

MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 1B+/- 26'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

Front Elevation 1A+/- 27'-2"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

Front Elevation 1C+/- 26'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

A1.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

5'-0"
Garage21'-2" x 20'-0"
62'-0"
34'-0"
Great Room17'-6" x 20'-4"
First Floor652 s.f.

Kitchen
EntryPdr47'-0"10'-0"4'-0"26'-0"4'-0"5'-0"49'-0"8'-0"
UP17R
Dining Room11'-0" x
storage5'-6"3'-6"6'-0"6'-0"
Porch
Second Floor993 s.f.

W.I.C.20'-6" l.f.

PrimaryBedroom14'-2" x 14'-2"PrimaryBath
Bedroom 210'-5" x 10'-5"Bath 2Laund.DN17RBedroom 310'-5" x 10'-5"linenDN17RLoft / Opt.Bedroom 310'-5" x 12'-8"linen Opt. Bedroom 3A1.1FLOOR PLAN 10248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"2 BEDROOMS + LOFTOPT. BEDROOM 32.5 BATHS1,645 S.F.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 1A+/- 27'-2"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.
4:124:12
4:12
4:12
4:126:126:12RIDGE4:12RIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEY
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"4:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :

Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 27'-2"
F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 27'-2" F.F.

Enhanced Garage- 1A
A1.2 PLAN 1A - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'A' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishFiber PanelEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 1B+/- 26'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.
6:124:12
6:126:126:12RIDGE6:12
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :6:12
6:126:12
6:12
6:126:126:12RIDGEHIPHIP

HIPHIPVALLEYHIPHIPHIPVALLEYHIPHIP
RIDGE
Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 26'-0"
F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 26'-0" F.F.

Enhanced Garage- 1B
A1.3 PLAN 1B - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'B' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious SidingDecorative CorbelsEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 1C+/- 26'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.
6:124:12
4:126:126:12RIDGE6:126:12
6:12RIDGEVALLEYRIDGEVALLEY
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :

Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 26'-0"
F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 26'-0" F.F.

Enhanced Garage- 1C
A1.4 PLAN 1C - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'C' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious Board & Batt SidingEnhanced SillsDecorative CorbelsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 2B+/- 25'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

Front Elevation 2A+/- 28'-6"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

Front Elevation 2C+/- 25'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

A2.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

5'-0"
Garage20'-0" x 20'-0"
62'-0"Great Room25'-0" x 14'-0"
First Floor680 s.f.UP17REntryKitchenPdrw/h
4'-0"26'-0"4'-0"34'-0"
20'-6"26'-6"10'-0"
5'-0"47'-0"10'-0"
5'-4"5'-6"6'-0"3'-6"
ZoneDropPorch
Second Floor1085 s.f.

W.I.C.17'-6" l.f.

PrimaryBedroom15'-0" x 14'-0"PrimaryBathLoft /Opt. Bedroom 414'-7" x 11'-0"Bedroom 310'-0" x 10'-6" Bedroom 211'-5" x 10'-0"Bath2Laund.DN17R
A2.1FLOOR PLAN 20248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BEDROOMS + LOFTOPT. BEDRM 42.5 BATHS1,765 S.F.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 2A+/- 28'-6"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.
4:12
4:12
4:12
6:126:12RIDGE6:126:12RIDGERIDGE
R.VALLEYVALLEY
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"4:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :

Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 28'-6"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 28'-6"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

A2.2 PLAN 2A - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Optional Enhanced Garage Doorglass'A' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishFiber PanelEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood Posts MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 2B+/- 25'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.
6:12
6:12
6:12
6:12RIDGE6:12
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :6:126:126:12RIDGEHIPHIPVALLEYVALLEYHIP

HIPHIPHIP HIP
RIDGE
HIP
HIP6:126:12
Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 25'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left Elevation
9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 25'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Rear Elevation atEnhanced LotsA2.3 PLAN 2B - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'B' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious SidingDecorative CorbelsEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 2C+/- 25'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.
6:126:12
6:12RIDGE6:126:12

RIDGEVALLEY
ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :VALLEYRIDGE6:126:12HIPVALLEYHIP Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 25'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 25'-8"F.F.P.L.F.F.

A2.4 PLAN 2C - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'C' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile RoofingMetal RoofingStucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious Board & Batt SidingEnhanced SillsDecorative CorbelsDecorative RailingWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 3B+/- 27'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

Front Elevation 3A+/- 29'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

Front Elevation 3C+/- 29'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

A3.0EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALMARCH 01, 2022 MARCH 16, 2022

5'-0"
Garage20'-4" x 20'-0"
62'-0"
34'-0"
Great Room15'-8" x 18'-10"
First Floor690 s.f.

Dining Room x 10'-8"Pdr.

Kitchen
UP17RstorageEntryPorch46'-8"10'-4"
5'-0"49'-0"8'-0" 4'-0"26'-0"4'-0"5'-0"5'-6"3'-6"5'-6"
Second Floor1150 s.f.

Laund.PrimaryBedroom14'-8" x 15'-0"W.I.C.18'-6" l.f.PrimaryBath Bedroom 210'-0" x 10'-0"Bedroom 310'-0" x 12'-4"
Bath2DN17RBedroom 411'-3" x 10'-0"linen Loft / Opt.Bedroom 419'-9" x 10'-0" Opt. Bedroom 4
belowopen to
A3.1FLOOR PLAN 30248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0"3 BEDROOMS + LOFTOPT. BEDRM 42.5 BATHS1,840 S.F.Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 3A+/- 29'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :
6:126:12
6:12
6:126:12RIDGEVALLEYVALLEYRIDGE
Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 29'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 29'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

A3.2 PLAN 3A - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
Optional Enhanced Garage Doorglass'A' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishFiber PanelEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood Posts MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 3B+/- 27'-0"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :6:126:12RIDGE6:12RIDGEHIPHIPVALLEYHIPHIP HIPHIP6:12
6:12
6:126:126:126:12
Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 27'-0"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 27'-0"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

A3.3 PLAN 3B - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALMARCH 01, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'B' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile Roofing Stucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious SidingDecorative CorbelsEnhanced SillsDecorative Gable End DetailsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 16, 2022

Front Elevation 3C+/- 29'-8"9'-034" 9'-034"P.L.

F.F.

F.F.P.L.

ROOF PLANOVERHANG : 12"RAKE : 3"6:12 U.N.OROOF PITCH :
6:126:12
6:12
6:126:12RIDGEVALLEYVALLEYRIDGE
4:124:12
Right ElevationRear Elevation9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 29'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.Left ElevationRear Elevation atEnhanced Lots9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 29'-8"F.F.P.L.

P.L.F.F.

A3.4 PLAN 3C - EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
04816Scale: 1/8" = 1'-0"
'C' ELEVATIONSFlat Concrete Tile RoofingMetal RoofingStucco Fine Sand FinishCementitious Board & Batt SidingDecorative CorbelsWood PostsOptional Enhanced Garage Doorglass MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

A5.0ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 Flat ConcreteTile Roofing
Trellis:See 3/ A5.0.1for more detailWood PostUnit Address & Lighting FixtureGarage Door Fiber Cement PanelStucco-Fine Sand Finish
Flat ConcreteTile RoofingLouveredMetalAwningStucco-Fine San FinishPlanter Shelfon WoodBrackets Flat ConcreteTile Roofing
Wood Post
Standing SeamMetal Roof
Stucco-Fine Sand Finish
Flat ConcreteTile Roofing
Stucco-Fine Sand FinishFiber CementBoard and Batten Siding-Battens at 16" O.C.

Juliette BalconySee 2/ A5.0.1for more detail
4"w x 2"dFiberCementTrim
4"W x 2" DHigh DensityFoamTrim4"w x 2"dHigh DensityFoamTrim Plan 1_REAR 4" W x 2" DFiber Cement Trim3"x4" HighDensityEnhanced Foam4" w x 2"d HighDensityFoam TrimDecorative Corbels2" x 8" HighDensityFoam Trim Wood PostTrellis:See 3/A5.0.1for more detail
Recessed Window
Entry DoorEntry Door
4" w x 2"d HighDensityFoam Trim
Unit Address & Lighting FixtureGarage DoorTrellis:See 3/ A5.0.1 for more detail Wood PostTrellis:See 3/A5.0.1for more detail

1. Plan 1_FRONT2.

Plan 2_REAR3.

Plan 2_FRONT4.Fiber CementBoard and Batten Siding-Battens at 16" O.C.

MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

3'-6"5'-10"9'-4"
7'-4"
3'-4"1'-8"1'-8"
3'-10"8'-4"
A5.1ARCHITECTURAL DETAILSArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALMARCH 01, 2022 Flat ConcreteTile Roofing
Flat ConcreteTile Roofing
Stucco-Fine Sand Finish
Fiber CementShingle SidingPlanter Box
4" w x 2" diber CementTrim
4" w x 2" dHigh DensityFoamTrim Plan 3_REAR1.

Plan 3_FRONT2.

Trellis:See 3 / A5.0.1 for more detailWood PostUnit Address & Lighting FixtureGarage DoorStucco-Fine Sand Finish 4" W x 2" DFiber CementTrim 4" w x 2"d HighDensityFoam TrimPlanter Box Entry DoorFiber CementShingle Siding
Wood Post
Trellis:See 3/A5.0.1for more detail
JULIETTE BALCONY @ PLAN 24.
6" x 6"Wood Post
2" x 4"Wood Rafter
StuccoFine SandFinish
4" x 8"Wood Beam

PLAN VIEW

FRONT VIEWSIDE VIEW
PERSPECTIVE VIEWENTRY TRELLIS3.

Wood Bracket6" x 6" Wood Beam
42" H WoodDecorativeWood Railing
STUCCO REVEAL REFERENCE IMAGE5.

BOARD AND BATTEN SIDING SAMPLE IMAGE6.Decorative Corbels MARCH 16, 2022

9'-034" 9'-034"+/- 27'-2"
F.F.Garage
W.I.C.PrimaryBath Loft / Opt.Bedroom 3
Great RoomDining Room
Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022A4.0PLAN 1 SECTION-TYPICAL0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

A6.0COLOR SCHEMES0248 Scale: 1/4" = 1'-0" Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALJANUARY 12, 2022 'A' ELEVATIONS'B' ELEVATIONS'C' ELEVATIONS
MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

A7.0STREET SCENE

KEY MAP
Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALMARCH 01, 2022 MARCH 01, 2022
MARCH 16, 2022

A7.1STREET SCENE

KEY MAP
Architecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRYRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTALMARCH 21, 2022

A6.0COLOR SCHEMESArchitecture + Planning888.456.5849ktgy.comNEW WEST ADVISORS, LLCTHE QUARRY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTRICHMOND, CA # 2021-0566DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTAL 1B
12345678
91011121314151617
1819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243
4546474849
51525354
64656667686970717273747576
44505556575859606162
6326'
24' 24'
24'
24' 24'
24'

A STREETA STREETA STREET

B STREET

B STREET

C STREETD STREET

MAINENTRY

SEACLIFF DRIVE
SEACLIFF DRIVEPROPOASED E.V.A.EASEMENT AREA(AREA = 6,221 SF)EVAROADLANDS OF EAST BAYREGIONAL PARK DISTRICTAPN 560-330-03111495 OR 791 HOLDINGS, LLCAPN 560-330-0232016-18306
34' R/W
29' R/W
34' R/W
34' R/W
29' R/
29' R/W
52' R/W

PARCEL APARCEL B

PARCEL C

PARCEL D

PARCEL F
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT
10' STORM DRAINEASEMENT

PARCEL E
RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

RE-PAVE EXISTINGBAY TRAIL, TYP.

FUTURE STAGING AREA CONNECTION,SEE SHEET C3.0
24'
4'
8'
62'
34'
LOT AREA2,108 SF
R/WTRC
Graphic Scale (in feet 0
1 inch = 40 ft.4040
TYPICAL LOT LAYOU SCALE: 1" = 20'
LEGEND:BOUNDARY LINERIGHT OF WAYLOT LINEEXISTING EASEMENTPROPOSED EASEMENTPROPOSED CURB & SIDEWALKPROPOSED WALLPROPOSED BIORETENTION AREAPROPOSED PAVEMENT 1C
2B
2A
3C
1B
3A
2C
1B
1A
3C
1B
2A
2C
3B
1A
3C
2B
2A
3C
1B
3A
1C

PRELIMINARY PLAN & STYLE PLOTTING
(FINAL PLOTTING MAY VARY)
A8.0
LEGEND
1 3C
NUMBER = PLAN TYPE
LETTER = BUILDING STYLE
A = SOUTHERN COTTAGE
B = CALIFORNIA COTTAGE
C = CONTEMPORARY COTTAGE
3A
1B
3C
1A
1B
2C
3A
2B
1C
3C
1B
2A
2C
3B
1A
1C
2B
3A
3C
3B
2A
2C
2B
3A
1C
3B
1A
2C
2B
2A
3C
1B
3A
1C
3B
2C
3A
2B
1C
1A
2A
1B
1A
2C
2B
3C
2A
3B
1C
3A
1B
2A
3C
1B
Plan Type Style
1 A 8
2 A 9
3 A 8
1 B 9
2 B 8
3 B 8
1 C 9
2 C 8
3 C 9
76 HOUSE
# times occurs
Total
APRIL 2022

9/29/21
City of Richmond Planning Department
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
Attention Richmond Planning Commissioners;
I am writing as a follow-up to the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council’s LUDRC’s 9/29/21 Virtual Meeting review of the Quarry Housing Project Update

LUDRC members in attendance:

Rod Satre, Chair
Bonnie Daly
Jane Lundin
Stephen Parker
Charmain Tyler, Secretary

From PRNC:

Garry Hurlbut

Neighbors:

Brian Lewis Leisa Johnson
Karen Monte Bill Monsen
June Hight Latadra Goode

From the Quarry Housing Project:

Terry Manly, New West
David Burton, KTGY, Architect and Land Planners
Robert Stevens, CSW, Civil Engineer
Marcia Vallier, Landscape Architect

Motion made by Bonnie and seconded:

To approve this project, with limited approval. We would like to see a change in the street access, and a redesign on how these houses look from the street.

Vote:

In favor: 3
Opposed: 2
Motion passes

Stephen supports what has been presented. The smaller footprint is OK.

Stephen is in favor of the limited approval to change the look of the garages in the front.

Peter Thelin
President, PRNC
(510) 326-8108
[email protected]
https://pointrichmond.org/

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Melvin Willis, Councilmember

Subject:

Recognition of National Poetry Month
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

There has been no previous action taken.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

April is National Poetry Month. Each year a Poet
Laureate is selected by the Richmond Arts and Culture
Commission.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE poetry reading from Poet Laureates David Flores and Adriana Avalos in honor of National Poetry Month –
Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412-2050). This item was continued from the April 26, 2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

Launched by the Academy of American Poets in April 1996, National Poetry Month reminds the public that poets have an integral role to play in our culture and that poetry matters.

David Flores is the current FY2021-2022 Poet Laureate for Richmond. He is a former teacher of 11 years at Grant Elementary and is currently the Lead Trainer at Mindful Life AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
Project. He was born and raised in Richmond where he lives with his wife and two college-aged children, Maya and Francisco.

Adriana Avalos is a youth who was selected by RYSE to serve as the 2022 Youth Poet Laureate of Richmond. Adriana is a Bay Area born Chicana poet, activist, and scholar.

Congratulations to both David Flores and Adriana Avalos on being selected.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – “Home” by Adriana Avalos
Attachment 2 – “WE ARE RICHMOND” by David Flores

Home
I am fromfoundations built onyou can’t be good at thisand peeling painttrying to lean on support beamsthat aren’t really theremaybe this is my metaphoror maybe it’s my matchis a “place” with a roof too much toask for?I invested in security Giving it my allbut instead I got them staring at meode to silencehow are youyou making my life betterwhen all you do is sit there when others are taken away So I am fromAre you sure you know where you’re going?because i’m too smallI’m too womanI’m too chicanato possibly have a goal I am here to tell youI had to runbefore I learned to walkI can’t seem to rememberbut I only know the tastebecause it stayed in my mouthafter you told me to keep it closedI can’t seem to rememberbut I know the smellbecause that’s all the air I breathe now

maybe my senses are gonebut I still seeI went to Richmond saw trash on the streetI saw a white man in a buildingand a brown woman on the concreteI said how is there representationwhen we still have to deal with gentrificationtake a trip with meI am from being doubted and looked atbecause I’m simply a body with no brainbut you can’t get me out of your headwhen I spit my truthI went to richmondI said ethnicitymore like ethnic citybecause the people from around hereare not to be forgotten so maybe I rememberedand YOU told me to forget .
tried to chase me out of the placeI found my hope inthe city I createdmy career inI am from land of ohloneSoil of i won’t be forgottenrepping VallejoBecause that’s where I took my first breathRepping the cityBecause that's when i learned about“Painting” over artThe walls covered in wordsAre now plain and almost forgottenExcept for the light silhouette of“Pride in community”Pride in community?Pride in getting rid of itPride in taking overPride in kicking my family out

Pride in corporations
Your richesIs what caused my poverty.So the thick paintCaused my heavy mindAnd my loud tongue But our resilienceCaused my fist in the airAnd vocals of protestRichmond, rich-mind Mother earth and remediesLearning my rights andDeep breathingOde to-Our city , continuous healing.

WE ARE RICHMONDBy David Flores
WE ARE RICHMONDLaying the GROUNDWORK for a future we can all live inProviding the STEPPING STONES and the BUILDING BLOCKS for RICH CITY KIDSBeginning with the FIRST 5 years as a foundation to digAn URBAN TILTH planting the seeds for RICHMOND YOUTH, the next EARTH TEAMSaying YES to NATURE and NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSEs lined on the greenWay is spreading love and compassion like a WATERSHEDThe true PEACEKEEPERS of the BAY AREA honoring life and the deadDefying that RUBICON existing before them resilient and strongBringing true INITIATIVE to MAIN ST. and beyondOn an MISSION to RESCUE RICHMOND’S SOLHousing it’s inhabitants in habitats that holdWhite, Asian, Black, and LATINA at the CENTER of our diversity and strengthLike that image of ROSIE putting TRUST in our faithAn ongoing PROJECT to RETURN to the SAFENo criminals all LEGAL provided with AIDAnd not gonna stop until we REACH that FELLOWSHIPRPA and RPD, as a partnership of PALs who don’t tripAnd when the grown ups can’t get together in synchWe watch as boys and GIRLS lead the way with action and INCNot only in writing but through READ ALOUDS and PERFORMING ARTS at its CENTERTrue expression of each individual growing like MILO in the winterWatch as we RYSE and RECYCLE worn out ideas FOR CHANGEIn a way that is MINDFUL of LIFE as we turn the pageA new chapter renewed like love and life at POGO PARKWe approach the end of that ARCRichmond is wondrous like ART

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin

Subject:

Proclamation Honoring the Children’s Book Loujain
Dreams of Sunflowers and its Co-Author Richmond
Resident Uma Mishra-Newbery
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this item

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

In 2010, Richmond proclaimed the first City-wide
Reading Book and it is time to keep this great tradition going by honoring another great children’s book.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Richmond Human Rights Human Relations
Commission and their liaison, Councilmember Gayle
McLaughlin, heard from Richmond resident Uma Mishra-
Newbery about the children’s book Loujain Dreams of
Sunflowers that she co-authored. The Commission is
encouraging the Richmond City Council to proclaim this
children’s book as a City-wide Reading Book for our city.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

PROCLAMATION Honoring the Children’s Book Loujain
Dreams of Sunflowers and its Co-Author Richmond
Resident Uma Mishra-Newbery and Proclaiming it a City-
Wide Reading Book - Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin
(510-620-6636).

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022

DISCUSSION:

The Richmond Human Rights Human Relations (HRHR) Commission received a presentation from Richmond resident Uma Mishra-Newbery, who co-authored a wonderful children’s book called Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers. This delightful and meaningful children’s book was inspired by real-life human rights activist Loujain AlHathloul, who led the effort to change the laws in Saudi Arabia that made it illegal for women to drive cars. As a result of her advocacy work, Loujain AlHathloul was imprisoned for nearly three (3) years by the Saudi government as well as being subjected to torture. She has been released conditionally as of February 2021.

As the liaison to the HRHR Commission, I, Councilmember McLaughlin, also had the opportunity to hear from Uma Misha-Newbery. The Commission and I decided it was important to honor this book and its co-author Richmond resident Uma Misha-Newbery by proclaiming it a City-wide Reading Book in the City of Richmond.

This book builds on the tradition we started in 2010 proclaiming City-wide Reading Books. It is also stated in this proclamation that we encourage the City of Richmond to reinstitute our annual Literacy Fair to encourage reading by all and to promote wonderful, inspiring books like Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation
Attachment 2 – Resolution by the Human Rights Human Relations Commission in support of the proclamation

Proclamation honoring the children’s book Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers and its co- author Richmond resident Uma Mishra-Newbery and
Proclaiming it a City-wide Reading Book

WHEREAS, reading is an essential life skill, both for personal edification and practical application; and

WHEREAS, research shows that unless children read in the summer, they lose much of what they have learned during the previous school year; and
WHEREAS, for years the City of Richmond, along with Richmond Neighborhood Councils, Richmond foundations, Richmond non-profits, and West Contra Costa Unified School District have been committed to make sure that all children in our city are reading at grade level or higher; and
WHEREAS, reading the same book can ignite conversations about reading and literary discussions within families and families reading aloud with children at home is considered the single most important element for success at school; and WHEREAS, in 2010, Richmond proclaimed the wonderful and inspiring book Richmond Tales:

Lost Secrets of the Iron Triangle as the first City-wide Reading Book, promoting it widely among our community and schools; and

WHEREAS, it is time that Richmond proclaims an additional City-wide Reading Book to keep this great tradition going; and

WHEREAS, there is a truly moving children’s book called Loujan Dreams of Sunflowers recently published in 2022; and

WHEREAS, this children’s book is a fictional story about a young girl who dreams of “flying” but she lives in a place where girls are not allowed to fly; and WHEREAS, this uplifting and lyrical story is inspired by real-life human rights activist Loujain AlHathloul, who led the effort to change the laws in Saudi Arabia that made it illegal for women to drive cars (suffering political imprisonment and torture because of her advocacy work); and WHEREAS, the co-authors of this book are Lina AlHathloul (Loujain AlHathloul’s youngest sister) & Richmond resident Uma Mishra-Newbery with beautiful illustrations by Rebecca Green; and
WHEREAS, Uma Mishra-Newbery is a global social justice and women’s rights leader, former Executive Director of Women’s March Global, the initiator and facilitator for the Racial Equity Index, and an organizational strategy and racial equity consultant; and

WHEREAS, young (and adult) readers will be thrilled and galvanized by the fictional Loujain’s quest to fulfill her dream of flying – thereby helping to make the world fairer and more just; and WHEREAS, the Richmond Human Rights Human Relations Commission passed a resolution supporting this proclamation to honor this amazing children’s book and its inspiring message; and
WHEREAS, we are living in times when the rights of women (and the future of girls) is at risk, due to threats to important legislation like Roe Vs. Wade.

Now, Therefore Be It Resolved, that I, Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin, together with the entire City Council, proclaim Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers as a Richmond City-wide Reading Book.

Be it Further Resolved that the City of Richmond continues to support reading for everyone, and will consider reinstituting our annual Richmond Literacy Fair where Citywide books like Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers are highlighted and promoted!

Gayle McLaughlin
Gayle McLaughlin
Councilmember
May 24, 2022

Human Rights and Human Relations Commission
RESOLUTION NO.

ICSfSfnnt-wSSil

RESOLUTION OF THE HUMAN MGHTS AND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND ENDORSES CITY COUNCILMEMBER GAYLE

MCLAUGHLIN'S PROCLAMATION IN SUPPORT OF AUTHOR UMA MISHRA NEWBERY'S CHILDREN'S BOOK, "LOUJAIN DREAMS OF SUNFLOWERS" WHEREAS, the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission strongly appreciates the book "Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers" by Uma Mishra Newbery and Lina AlHathloul, because of its inspiring message; and
WHEREAS, Gayle McLaughlin, Councilmember and Liaison to the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission will introduce a Proclamation calling for this book to be one of Richmond's City-wide Reading Books; and
WHEREAS, as a Human Rights Commission we support Children's Rights and this book through story telling encourages imagination, dreaming big and courage; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission of the City of Richmond hereby encourages Children's Rights and Children's Literature within the City of Richmond; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission wholeheartedly supports City Councilmember Gayle IVIcLaughlin's Proclamation declaring "Loujain Dreams of Sunflowers," a City-wide Reading Book in Richmond.

I CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Human Rights and Human Relations Commission of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on April 25, 2022.

AYES: Victoria Sawicki, Chris Broglio, Jason Woody, Jeff Ritterman, Megan Sanchez, Najari Smith, Sahar Delijani
NOES: 0
ABSTENTIONS: 0
ABSENT Reza Yazdi
Victoria SawI^Ici, Q^iai^.

Human Rights ancTHuman ^.el^tierfs Commission
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmembers Melvin Willis and Claudia Jiménez

Subject:

Improve Staff Morale
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact related to this presentation.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Over the past few years, employee morale has been declining for a number of reasons. After conducting several
conversations with various employees, I have learned that many employees have concerns about communication,
working conditions, staffing levels, and treatment from elected officials and senior staff. The purpose of this item is to improve staff morale, not to place blame on one source or group.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation on ideas to maximize
communication, raise employee morale, and to acknowledge the dedication of staff; and provide direction to staff.

Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412-2050) and
Councilmember Claudia Jiménez (510) 620-6565. This item was continued from the March 22, 2022, and April 26,
2022, meetings.

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The issue of declining staff morale has been happening for the past couple of years.

This item is an attempt to acknowledge and address the concerns of staff. The City of Richmond cannot best serve its residents and clients if the staff feels that they are not supported, appreciated, respected, or heard.

For several reasons, the morale of our employees has dropped for both causes under our control and out of our control. The administration has been unstable for the past few years with the revolving door of city managers and the departure of department heads.

In addition to the continued change in administration, the City Council hasn’t always demonstrated confidence in the expertise of staff or respected the level of work generated by City Council directives. The most apparent reason is the uncertainty and impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic, the shelter in place orders, and the inconsistency of the telecommuting process.

Over the course of three months, I have listened to employees, observed their temperament at City Council meetings, reviewed the findings from the Race and Equity Team’s Healing Circles, and held conversations with staff. The following items are direct responses from employees.

Data Gathering from November through early March 2022:
 Held 30 scheduled conversations with various staff members over the course of two months.

 Received 10 written submissions from staff who wished to remain anonymous Note: During the development of this agenda item, some of the concerns were addressed administratively. Footnotes have been used to identify said changes.

Concerns:
 Lack of timely communication throughout the organization

 Staff directory needs updating. Staff is unaware of outgoing and newly hired staff. The information is needed for staff working onsite and remotely to ensure that the correct contact information is provided to the community.

 Staff are leaving the organization due to morale issues. Institutional knowledge is leaving the city. Succession plans are needed.

 Need an all-city staff meeting once or twice a year to receive the status of city services, upcoming changes, and budget highlights.

May 24, 2022
 Staff is overworked and many are working out of class due to understaffing or budget cuts. Burnout has occurred for many employees, including department heads.

 Department heads will accept projects without understanding the scope of work before assigning the projects to staff or preparing/training staff.

 Due to understaffing, many community service calls are delayed

 There is fear of retaliation from supervisors, if staff reports issues to supervisors, union representatives, or Human Resources. Staff shared experiences of retaliation from supervisors.

 Decorum at City Council meetings has set a less than professional example for the organization as a whole and instilled fear in employees.

o Staff is fearful of presenting at city council meetings due to the potential of being torn down and/or their integrity being challenged o Staff has experienced personal attacks that can ruin their professional reputation - this type of behavior hinders efforts to recruit new employees o General hostile work environment - staff feels brow beaten o City Council sponsored agenda items often are agendized without staff having sufficient time to prepare, to research the current/proposed policy, the history, to identify red flags, or vet the item
o City Council doesn’t respect or acknowledge staffs’ experience or skills in their respective departments or units.
o City Council doesn’t trust staff
o City Council doesn’t routinely speak with staff about their questions prior to City Council meetings or work with staff to address some concerns administratively.

 Security

o Only one guard onsite
o Security guards aren’t onsite at 8:30am
o No universally known protocol with security threats or emergencies o Need to resume and practice emergency drills to refresh the staff and department/unit coordinator of their duties during an evacuation of the buildings
o Unhoused people are sleeping and causing disturbances in the courtyard o RPD doesn’t respond within the hour when security guards request assistance with disturbances at or around the Civic Center Plaza.

May 24, 2022
Solutions:
 RPD should re-evaluate the beat to increase response time to emergencies at or near the Civic Center Plaza, including calls from the security guards.  Monthly “All City Staff” communication to inform staff of policy and organizational changes.

 Reinstate semiannual or annual “All City Staff” meetings to inform staff of policy and organizational changes. The “All City Staff” meetings provided staff an opportunity to provide input and ask questions.

 Intensive effort to promote in-house prior to recruiting externally. Address barriers to advancement within the department or a promotional move to another department. Many long-term employees feel stifled from upward mobility. Staff could provide input on barriers and ideas that will help to improve outcomes.

 Create career paths and plans to professionally develop staff to prepare them for promotional opportunities. Staff doesn’t believe there is equity in promotional opportunities.

 Create uniformity in ability to telework. The ability to work remotely varies from department to department.

 Release the Classification & Compensation Study and adjust salaries and wages accordingly.

 Acknowledge staff: annual holiday celebrations, annual picnics, years of service recognition (methods used prior to the pandemic). Staff would also appreciate work anniversaries being acknowledged.

 Bring back the health fair and Public Works week to help residents understand what the City does and the resources available.

 Staff would like an opportunity to evaluate their supervisors without retaliation to help them improve their management skills.

 Supervisors, senior and executive staff should participate in regular training to improve their management and people skills and to learn best practices.

 Team building activities to help the city’s work environments to return to a community environment instead of silos or one department pitted against another.

 Be aware that it's an emotionally tumultuous time for all, but more so for communities of color. Let staff take time off and support self-care. Support staff in taking breaks, time off, walks around the building, and joining GARE or

May 24, 2022
extracurricular events. Allow staff to heal, grieve, feel what they feel, or educate themselves.

 City Council should ask staff the amount of time needed to complete their research or policy analysis requests.

 Free access to City-owned pools for employees to increase physical activity and well-being.

 Limit the use of the staff break rooms as storage spaces.

 The City Council should listen to and consider the experience of staff in their respective areas when making decisions.

The concerns and suggested solutions in this report were provided by staff. Additional suggestions from supervisors, senior staff, and the City Council should be submitted to the Human Resources Director and City Manager.

The staff members that accepted the invitation to chat with Councilmember Willis were not interviewed. They were only asked to share their experiences and suggestions to improve morale. Even though staff expressed their gratitude for the opportunity to chat, many of the staff members asked if their comments would make a difference.

Councilmember Jiménez and I commit to doing our best to stress to our fellow councilmembers, the mayor, executive and senior staff that our behavior and treatment of subordinates has a strong impact on the morale of our employees.

The purpose of the item is not to place blame, but to bring awareness to the City Council and the executive staff of the impacts of our behavior, divisiveness, and insufficient communication throughout the organization. It is a trickledown effect and we need to take note of ourselves to analyze how each of us can contribute to improving the morale of our staff. We challenge those of you who feel you are fair, communicate changes in city and departmental policies in a timely manner, and consider your staff first before hiring externally, to ponder these questions.

 Am I creating an environment where my staff feels they can share their ideas and observations about service?
 Am I in touch with each of the divisions in my department and the effectiveness, professionalism, and behavior of the leads/supervisors?  Am I questioning my staff about their career goals and suggesting professional development or training to prepare them for the opportunity when it arises?  Am I being mindful of how I interact with my colleagues privately and publicly?  Am I being equitable when reviewing requests for telework agreements?  Am I aware of my bias and have measures in place to ensure that my biases are not negatively impacting my decisions?
 What am I doing to improve morale in our city?

May 24, 2022
In addition to supporting and caring for our employees, the well-being of our workforce is imperative to the outcome of services provided to the community. The ultimate goal is to provide excellent and equitable service to our customers, the Richmond residents and business community.

We are grateful and appreciate the staff, senior staff, and management that have taken steps to support their subordinates and improve service to the community. We know that the majority of our leadership and frontline staff are doing their best; however, there is room for improvement on all of our parts. Thank you for your time and consideration of the issues presented in this agenda item.

In partnership,

Councilmembers Willis and Jiménez

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - PowerPoint

Lifting Up Our
Employees
Raising employee morale and maximizing communication comesfrom listening and appreciating employee input.

Purpose
The purpose of this item is to improve
staff morale, not to place blame on
one source or group. The well-being
of our workforce is imperative to the
outcome of services provided to the
community.

Statement of the Issue
Over the past few years, employee morale has been
declining for a number of reasons. After conducting
numerous conversations with various employees, I
have learned that many employees have concerns
about communication, staffing levels, and treatment
from elected officials and senior staff.

Why chat with staff?
This item is an attempt to acknowledge and address the
concerns of staff who have been negatively impacted by the current working conditions. The City of Richmond cannot best serve its residents and clients if the staff feels that they are not supported, appreciated, respected or heard.

Data Gathered:
❏ Held 30 scheduled
conversations with various staff
members.
❏ Received 10 written
submissions from staff who
wished to remain anonymous.
2019 Staff Training Picture- Implicit Bias. Not associated with staff morale.

Concerns
The topics listed were mentioned by several staff members. The staff report includes additional topics.

Communication: Lack of “All City Staff” communication throughout the pandemic.

Staffing: Staffing levels have consistently declined over the past few years. Many staff members are required to take on the duties of 2-3 staff members w/o extra compensation. Quality of service is reduced and staff has become burned out.

Decorum of Council during City Council meetings: Acts of unprofessionalism, badgered staff, grandstanding, staff expertise isn’t taken into account during decision making.

Fear of Retaliation: Staff is uncomfortable with reporting misconduct or concerns to their supervisor or Human Resources.

Concerns continued…
Treatment: Staff doesn’t feel they are trusted or appreciated.

Frontline staff aren’t given the same opportunities as management.

Security: Staff are concerned with the increase of the homeless in the courtyard - It appears that some have addiction or mental health issues.

RPD doesn’t have the capacity to respond to calls from security guards at Civic Center in a timely manner.

Suggested Solutions:

Improve Communication: Reinstate City Manager led annual or bi-annual “All City Staff”meetings, include policy or major changes in the Human Resources Newsletter, and inform staff of changes related to telework policy two-weeks in advance of required changes.

Improve Professional Dev Opps: Create systems or training that will prepare employees for promotions when they become available. Performance Evals should include areas of improvement needed to prepare employee for career advancement. Ensure that equitable methods are used in efforts to promote internally prior to external recruitment.

Solutions continued…
● Acknowledge staff: Reinstate annual holiday celebrations, annual picnics, years of service recognition (methods used prior to the pandemic). Staff would also appreciate acknowledgement of work anniversaries.
● Management Skills: Staff would like an opportunity to evaluate their supervisors without retaliation to help them improve their management and people skills. ● Equity in Pay: Release the Classification and Compensation Study and revise as needed.
● Decorum: reinstate the code of ethics, strive to be professional at all times, be respectful and practice common courtesy during interactions with staff and the public.
● Respect Staff: Consider the expertise and experience of staff when receiving recommendations for policy or program development.

Let’s create an environment of community!!
By working together, supporting each other and caring about the well-being of others.

Again, the purpose of the item is not to place blame, but to bring awareness to the City Council and the executive staff of the impacts of our behavior, divisiveness and insufficient communication throughout the organization. It is a trickle down effect and we need to take note of ourselves to analyze how each of us can contribute to improving the morale of our staff.

We all have room for improvement…
● Am I creating an environment where my staff feels they can share their ideas and observations about service?
● Am I in touch with each of the divisions in my department and the effectiveness, professionalism and behavior of the leads/supervisors?
● Am I questioning my staff about their career goals and suggesting professional development or training to prepare them for the opportunity when it arises? ● Am I being mindful of how I interact with my colleagues privately and publicly? ● Am I being equitable when reviewing requests for telework agreements? ● Am I aware of my bias and have measures in place to ensure that my biases are not negatively impacting my decisions?
● What am I doing to improve morale in our city?
Ask yourself:

Let’s do this together….

We are grateful and appreciative to the staff, senior staff and management that have taken steps to support their
colleagues and subordinates while improving service to the community. We know that the majority of our leadership and frontline staff are doing their best. Thank you for your time and consideration of the issues presented in this agenda item.

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Nathaniel Bates

Subject:

Private Landowner Encroachments into the public Right-
of-Way
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The financial impact relative to this item includes staff time associated with this matter.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 19, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City Council should receive a legal opinion for the City Attorney’s Office regarding the legality of staff
awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a report from the City Attorney regarding the
legality of staff awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council - Councilmember
Nathaniel Bates (510-620-6743). This item was
continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

At its April 19, 2022, meeting, the City Council considered an ordinance amending RMC Chapter 12.30 (“Video Service Provider, Utility and Special District Encroachments”) by incorporating Chapter 12.29 (“Street Opening and Pavement Restoration Regulations”); adding provisions that address private landowner encroachments into the public Right- of-Way (ROW); easements; and street vacations; retitling Chapter 12.30 “Encroachments and Easements,” and rescinding Chapter 12.29 in its entirety.

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
The City Council should receive a report from the City Attorney’s Office regarding the legality of staff awarding and transferring city property without approval from the City Council.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

NONE

May 24, 2022

Mayor's Office

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Tom Butt

Subject:

The Segal Group Inc., Classification and Compensation
Study
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

April 21, 2020, January 18, 2022

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City contracted with The Segal Group, Inc., to
conduct a Class and Compensation Study. The end date
of the contract was June 30, 2022, but the submitted
schedule anticipated completion in 7 months, which
would have been December 2020. The results of the
study have yet to be released to the City Council or the public.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

DIRECT the City Manager to release the Class and
Compensation Study to the City Council – Mayor’s Office (Mayor Tom Butt 510-620-6503). This item was
continued from the May 17, 2022, meeting.

DISCUSSION:

The objective of the Class and Compensation Study was to provide information about comparable classifications and compensation in public agencies similar in size and complexity to Richmond. It was intended to be used as a tool to evaluate practices in AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
Richmond, ensure that Richmond is competitive in the labor marketplace, and plan for future budgets.

The results of the study have been available to staff for a significant period, but the City Council continues to be told that “there are questions.”

If there are questions or continuing issues, they can continue to be pursued, and can be flagged by staff, but this study needs to be released.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Contract with The Segal Group, Inc.

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Nathaniel Bates

Subject:

Contra Costa County Increasing Per Capita Cost for
Animal Services in County Cities
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The City’s per capita rate will increase which will equate to approximately $100k more than the current annual
cost of $755k.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

The City Council annually approves an agreement with
Contra Costa for Animal Services.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Contra Costa County Animal Services Department is
providing presentations to cities in Contra Costa County on the proposed new agreements and increases in fees
for service.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation from the Contra Costa County
Animal Control Department on the proposed new
agreement and increase in fees for service –
Councilmember Bates (510-620-6743).

DISCUSSION:

The Contra Costa County Animal Services Department will present the proposed new agreement to the Richmond City Council and answer questions regarding services.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

None
AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022

City Council

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Councilmember Claudia Jiménez and Councilmember
Melvin Willis

Subject:

A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub Program and Measure X
FINANCIAL IMPACT: This is an informational item. There is no financial impact.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

No previous action taken.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Behavioral health issues are widespread and increasingly recognized as a major area of need. The Anyone
Anywhere Anytime Community Crisis Response (A3)
seeks to provide a non-police response for those seeking assistance relative to a mental health emergency.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a report from the Contra Costa Health
Services on the A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub Program (A3)
and Measure X – Councilmember Claudia Jimenez (510-
620-6565) and Councilmember Melvin Willis (510-412-
2050).

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
DISCUSSION:

Contra Costa Health Services (CCHS) is working to address the unmet behavioral health needs in Contra Costa County through the A3 initiative.

A3 provides timely and appropriate behavioral health crisis services to Anyone in Contra Costa County Anywhere at Anytime. Currently, A3 operates five days a week during specific hours. As the CCHS expand these services, A3 will provide 24/7 emergency behavioral health support. 24/7 support is slated to be available in the last quarter of 2023.

The CCHS plans to use Measure X funding to fund the response. CCHS has allocated $5 million one-time funds for infrastructure and technology and $20 million on-going for A3 program beginning July 2023. Measure X is a countywide 20-year, ½ cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020. Collection of the tax began on April1, 2021. The ballot measure language stated that the intent of Measure X is “to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.”. Visit the Contra Costa County website for more information on Measure X.

Measure X | Contra Costa County, CA Official Website (civicplus.com)

A3 Funding

Measure X half-cent sales tax
• $5 million one-time funds for infrastructure and technology • $20 million on-going for A3 program beginning July 2023

Federal funding
• $1 million to add two crisis response teams
• $1 million to renovate the A3 Campus • Contra Costa Regional Health Foundation
• Financial support for process

Background

In Nov. 2020, the County brought together a multi-disciplinary team to start the design phase of A3. The Design Team consisted of people with lived experience, family members, law enforcement, fire and emergency medical responders, behavioral health professionals, improvement advisors, and mobile crisis team members.

They worked to develop a caring approach that is culturally and clinically responsible and came up with the A3 vision.

The A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub is the central component of the A3 model. This is the front- door to access mobile crisis services. Once fully rolled out, the Hub will be a high-tech call center open 24/7 staffed by both licensed behavioral health clinicians and peer staff.

May 24, 2022
The diverse and well trained behavior health staff will answer calls, triage the situation, and deescalate over the phone or dispatch a team to respond.

Currently, the A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub operates Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. If you or someone you know is experiencing a behavioral health crisis, call 833-443-2672.

The A3 Miles Hall Crisis Hub was named for Miles Hall and in honor of the hundreds of other Contra Costa residents who face the challenge of a mental health incident, as well as the added jeopardy of getting the wrong help or no help at all.

Miles was a young man who was tragically killed by law enforcement while experiencing a behavioral health episode. His mother, Taun Hall, has advocated for more services like A3 in Contra Costa County. Visit the Contra Costa Health Services website to watch a video where Ms. Hall shares her story and to learn more.

Miles Hall Crisis Hub :: Behavioral Health :: Contra Costa Health Services (cchealth.org).

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation Slide Deck
Attachment 2 – Measure X Program Allocation Summary

Contra Costa Health Services
Richmond City Council
May 24, 2022
A3 Crisis Response:
anyone, anywhere, anytime

Behavioral Health: 4th Arm of Emergency Response
Law Enforcement
Medical
Fire Behavioral Health

Providing timely,
appropriate behavioral
health crisis services to
anyone,
anywhere at
anytime
in Contra Costa County.

Nov. 2020
Value Stream
Mapping
April 2021
Rapid
Improvement
Event #1
April 2021
Rapid
Improvement
Event #2
June 2021
Rapid
Improvement
Event #3
August 2021
Mayors
Conference
January 2022
Community
Event
Sept. 2020
Mayors Conference
cchealth.org/a3

Where We Stand Today
• A3 Miles Hall Crisis Call Center open
Monday – Friday, 8 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.
• Building out the A3 Miles Hall Crisis Call Center
• Increase staffing
• Technology enhancements
• Refining triage process
• A3 campus construction project
• Collaborating on training
Over 66%
referred by family
members or law
enforcement
Over 70%
of callers have
psychiatric need
1 in 5
need a mobile
response

Estimated Timeline & Goals
May 2022
Happening Now
Jun – Sept
2022
Oct – Dec
2022
Jan – Apr
2023
May – Aug
2023
Sept – Dec
2023
Goals by December 2023: 34 Response Teams, enhanced technology, and A3 campus open A3 Miles Hall
Crisis Call Center open
Workflow enhancements
& training with law
enforcement
Workflow, training & tech
enhancements
30% of patrol officers &
dispatchers trained
A3 campus construction
50% of patrol officers &
dispatchers trained
A3 campus construction
75% of patrol officers &
dispatchers trained
A3 campus open
100% of patrol officers &
dispatchers trained
Hours of operation:

Mon – Fri,
8 a.m. – 6:30 p.m.

Expand hours:

Saturday (8 hours)
Expand hours:

Sunday (8 hours)
Expand hours:
weekdays: 8 – 12 a.m.
weekends: + 8 hours
Expand hours:
weekends + 4 hours Operating 24/7
Averaging
250 calls / month
Estimated demand:
300 calls / month
Estimated demand:
350 calls / month
Estimated demand:
600 calls / month
Estimated demand:
800 calls / month
Estimated demand:
1,000–1,250 calls / month
3 response teams 8 response teams 16 response teams 23 response teams 30 response teams 34 response teams Average response
time for field visits:
60> minutes
Average response
time for field visits:
50 minutes
Average response
time for field visits:
40 minutes
Average response
time for field visits:
30 minutes
Average response
time for field visits:
20 minutes
Average response
time for field visits:
10 minutesPage 301 of 690
A3 Campus Construction
• Facility renovation – 1034 Oak Grove Road, Concord
• Anticipated opening by winter 2023
• A3 Services:
• Miles Hall Crisis Call Center
• Alternative destinations
• Peer Respite
• Sobering Center
• Urgent Care

A3 Funding
• Measure X half-cent sales tax
• $5 million one-time funds for infrastructure
and technology
• $20 million on-going for A3 program beginning
July 2023
• Federal funding
• $1 million to add two crisis response teams
• $1 million to renovate the A3 Campus
• Contra Costa Regional Health
Foundation
• Financial support for process

Workstreams Specialty groups tasked with employing their expertise to move specific A3 tasks forward.

Ongoing
Input from &
Outreach to
Community
A3 Governance & Team Structure
Joint
Governance
Group
Provides foresight, oversight & insight.

Responsible for setting direction, allocating resources, evaluating success & ensuring integrity of vision.

Integration
Group
Responsible for chartering & coordinating all A3
activities with an eye to the effective management
of resources & efforts to deliver on A3 mission.

Ongoing
Coaching
Training &
Guidance from
Process Leaders

Join the A3 Team
Learn More & Apply:
cchealth.org/a3
or scan the QR code

Providing timely, appropriate
behavioral health crisis services
to anyone, anywhere at anytime
in Contra Costa County.

Providing hope…

QUESTIONS?
If you or someone you know is
experiencing a behavioral health
crisis, call the

Measure X Program Allocation Summary One‐Time FY  2022/23 Total  Allocation On‐Going
FY 2023‐2024 Exhibit
Goal #1: Mental Well Being:

CCRMC Psychiatric Emergency Services ‐ 3,000 square feet Expansion 5,000,000 $              5,000,000$              1 A3 Contra Costa Community Crisis Initiative 5,000,000 $              5,000,000$              20,000,000$            2 EPSDT Leverage Fund for Children’s Mental Health Services 3,250,000 $              3,250,000$              3 San Ramon Valley FPD Behavioral Health Crisis Response Pilot Program 740,200 $                 740,200$                 4 Goal #2:  Equity in Action:

Innovation Fund (Pilots and Innovative Projects)  2,000,000$              2,000,000$              5 Racial Equity and Social Justice ‐$                          600,000$                 600,000$                 1,200,000$              6 Arts and Culture Programs ‐ $                          250,000$                 250,000$                 250,000$                 7 Language Access Equity for Measure X Meetings 50,000 $                    25,000$                    75,000$                    25,000$                    8 Measure X Needs Assessment Report Writer 20,000 $                    20,000$                    9 Family Navigators  584,000$                 584,000$                 584,000$                 10 Library Literacy Program 200,000$                 200,000$                 200,000$                 11 Startup cost for the Library Foundation 50,000 $                    50,000$                    12 Goal #3: Healthy Communities:

Contra Costa Regional Medical Center 40,000,000 $            40,000,000$            40,000,000$            13 CCRMC Medical Clinic and Office  Complex  ‐ 40,000 square feet  30,000,000$            30,000,000$            1 New Public Health Lab ‐ 15,000 square feet 25,000,000 $            25,000,000$            1 CCRMC Parking Structure ‐ 325 spaces 15,000,000 $            15,000,000$            1 CCRMC Interventional Radiology ‐ 5,000 square feet  5,000,000$              5,000,000$              1 Local Housing Trust Fund 10,000,000$            10,000,000$            12,000,000$            14 Permanent Supportive Housing (Net of Match) 5,200,000 $              5,200,000$              15 CC CARES ‐ Expanded/Comprehensive Healthcare for Uninsured 750,000 $                 750,000$                 750,000$                 16 Development of Additional Childcare Providers 1,500,000 $              1,500,000$              1,500,000$              17 Library Building Improvements 4,000,000 $              4,000,000$              18 Goal #4: Intergenerational Thriving:

County Youth Centers ‐ East and Central County 10,000,000 $            1,750,000$              11,750,000$            3,500,000$              19 Accessible Transportation Strategic Plan Implementation ‐$                          1,400,000$              1,400,000$              1,400,000$              20 Master Plan for Aging/Local Community Based Aging Services 250,000 $                 1,000,000$              1,250,000$              2,000,000$              21 Early Childhood Education/Childcare 450,000$                 450,000$                 450,000$                 22 Children with Disabilities/Childcare Provider Support 4,000,000 $              4,000,000$              4,000,000$              23 Goal #5: Welcoming & Safe Community:

East County Fire – Build/Reopen and Staff Fire Stations (via annexation) 17,200,000 $            17,200,000$            3,500,000$              24 Contra Costa County Fire ‐ Reopen and Staff Fire Stations 1,600,000 $              3,500,000$              5,100,000$              3,500,000$              24 Fire/Wildland Mitigation/Fuel Reduction 4,500,000 $              4,500,000$              4,500,000$              24 Pinole Fire – Increase Service (via contract or annexation) 2,000,000 $              2,000,000$              2,000,000$              24 Body Worn and In‐Car Cameras ‐ Sworn Staff 720,000 $                 1,841,000$              2,561,000$              1,841,000$              25 Climate Sustainability‐Sustainability Trust Public Works Projects 2,500,000 $              2,500,000$              2,500,000$              26 Climate Equity and Resilience Investment in Conservation/Development 500,000 $                 500,000$                 500,000$                 27 Community Based Restorative Justice  2,000,000$              2,000,000$              28 Illegal Dumping Initiative 600,000$                 600,000$                 600,000$                 29 Sales Tax Consulting Administrative Expense 65,000 $                    200,000$                 265,000$                 200,000$                 30 County Facilities Deferred Maintenance 3,750,000 $              3,750,000$              31 Refugee Resettlement Resources 1,000,000 $              1,000,000$              32 Totals 136,895,200$         78,150,000$            215,045,200$         107,000,000$        Page 308 of 690

May 24, 2022

City Attorney's Office

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Dave Aleshire, Interim City Attorney

Subject:

Point Molate DDA closing issues - Resolution finding
closing conditions not satisfied
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The sale price is $45M with half going to the City and half to Upstream and Guidiville Rancheria of California
(Upstream/Tribe). The timely closing of Disposition and Development Agreement with Winehaven Legacy LLC
(“Developer”) will result in the City receiving $22.5M and $2M+ for reimbursement from Developer of City costs.

Additionally, with the payment to Upstream/Tribe, various claims are resolved, and the lis pendens is released.

Failure to close will result in sale of development areas to Upstream/Tribe for $400.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

At the May 17, 2022, City Council meeting, the Council
determined that Winehaven had not submitted proper
documentation or satisfied all closing conditions , and directed the City Attorney to prepare a confirming
resolution giving the reasons for not closing.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

At the prior Council meeting, City Attorney reported that critical closing conditions of the DDA have not been met by Winehaven including: (i) master financial plan not
based on a CFD supported by the General Fund; (ii)
submission of sufficient bonds or financial statements
concerning MSD Capital as Guarantor; (iii) submission of a funding commitment, and (iv) payment of outstanding
legal fees and costs. The Council determined not to close and directed preparation of a resolution at the next
meeting (May 24).

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution determining that closing
conditions have not been satisfied and the sale of
property to Winehaven Legacy LLC should not close,
and giving notice to Winehaven Legacy LLC and
Upstream/Tribe – City Attorney’s Office (Dave
Aleshire 510-620-6509).

The following discussion was included in the May 17, 2022 , staff report. The status of closing issues is updated in the chart on page 4 of this staff report.

DISCUSSION:

This staff report provides a (i) brief history of the acquisition of the Point Molate Property, (ii) the lawsuit and settlement with Upstream and Guidiville Tribe pursu ant to the Amended Judgment; (iii) status of closing of the sale to Winehaven Legacy LLC pursuant to the Disposition and Development Agreemen t, and (iv) a resolution finding condition s to close unsatisfied.

PROPERTY HISTORY
In 2003, the US Navy transferred certain real property consisting of 270 acres of upland and 134 acres of tidal and submerged real property (“Property”) to the City of Richmond (“City”).

In 2004, the City and Guidiville Rancheria of California and Upstream Point M olate LLC (jointly “ Plaintiffs”) executed that certain Land Disposition Agreement which was subsequently amended (“ LDA”). In 2012 , the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in Federal court against the City alleging , among other things, that the City breached that LD A and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing and for unjust enrichment . In November of 2019, after 7 long years of expensive litigation, the lawsuit was finally amicably resolved by the parties pursuant to an “Amended Judgment” issued by the Federal Court (“Judgment”).

The Judgment was entered by the Court on November 21, 2019 (“Effective Date”) and is binding on the Property.

JUDGMENT REQUIREMENTS
The Judgment mandates that 270 acres of upland area, thirty percent (30%) was to be “development areas” and seventy percent (70%) was to be open space. The Judgment also defines four (4) areas within the Property as “Development Areas.” The City was provided the opportunity to market the Development Areas with an outside sale date being the earlier of (i) 30 months from the Effective Date; or (ii) 24 months after issuing the last discretionary approval (“Outside Sale Date”).

If the City successfully sells the Property, “net” revenues from the sale are to be split equally between the City and the Plaintiffs. “Net” revenues are determined as the gross sales price less all costs incurred by the City with respect to the Sale.

If the City does not consummate the sale of the Development Areas by the Outside Sale Date, Plaintiffs have the option to acquire (“Option”) all or any portion of the Development

May 24, 2022
Areas (“Option Property”) from the City for $100 per Development Area (for a maximum amount of $400).

If the Option is exercised by the Plaintiffs, the Plaintiffs must thereafter market and sell the Option Property within 5 years. The Plaintiffs or their transferees can pursue alternate development of the Acquired Option Property (or portions thereof) although new approvals would be subject to the City’s discretion.

Upon Plaintiffs ultimately selling t he Option Property, Plaintiffs are obligated to transfer 50% of the net proceeds to the City. The Judgment provides for various reporting obligations of the Parties as well as auditing rights with respect to the calculation of the “Net Revenues.”

WINEHAVEN DDA
The principal goal of the Judgment was to induce the sale of the Property, preferably to a capable developer, and use the proceeds to satisfy Upstream/Tribe claims. This occurred on September 30, 2020, when the City executed that certain Di sposition and Development Agreement (“ DDA”) with Winehaven Legacy, LLC (“ Developer”) for the sale of all the Development Areas for $45M (“Sale Price”).

Concurrently with the DDA, the City and Developer also executed that certain Development Agreement dat ed October 20, 2020, which was recorded against the Property on October 23, 2020, as Instrument No. 2020-247749 in the Official Records of Contra Costa County. The proposed project anticipates 1,260 new residential units plus a mix of uses in rehabilitated historic buildings and 250,000 square feet of new construction in the Winehaven Historic District.

Pursuant to the Judgment, the Outside Sale Date for closing the sale to Developer is May 21, 2022.

Pursuant to the DDA, Developer is required to reimburse the City for all costs which it incurred including, but not limited to, attorney fees, reports, processing fees, etc. as set forth in the DDA (“Reimbursement Amounts ”). Furthermore, t he DDA requires Developer to pay all closing costs for the sale (title, escrow, documentary transfer taxes, etc.).

CFD AND GENERAL FUND IMPACT
The DDA included a tentative financing plan, which included the proposal for a Community Facilities District (CFD) to finance the extensive public facilities and services of police and fire needed for the development. The CFD was intended to prevent the Project from having an impact on the General Fund. Extensive finance projections and studies were prepared. The Developer made changes to try and eliminate financial impact on the General Fund. On March 18, 2022, the City Council concluded the impact could not be eliminated and disapproved the CFD. The Resolution is Attachment A.

STATUS OF DDA CLOSING REQUIREMENTS
On May 9, 2022, Interim City Attorney David Aleshire sent Developer a letter summarizing the pending issues required to be resolved prior to the Closing. See Attachment B. Most

May 24, 2022
items have been resolved but those below remain. This will be updated at the meeting if status changes occur.

CLOSING ISSUES AS OF MAY 18

Red comments were as of May 11 Staff Report

UPDATES ARE IN PURPLE

Closing Requirements
Per DDA Status as of Date of this Report

1. Parcel map filed Completed

2. Transfer of remediation
responsibility
Pending, but expected to be completed prior
to closing.

Form of agreement approved by counsel.

3. “Approved Guarantor” to be
reviewed and approved by
City.

Guaranty provides
completion security for the
Phase I Master
Improvements (rough
estimate of $130M)
Winehaven now does not want to provide any
security at all prior to closing which is failure
of a specific condition to closing under the
DDA.

On Friday Winehaven wanted to provide
bonds (its right under DDA). Bonds must be
reviewed and approved by City. Note: bonds
usually specify exact work and maximum
cost which cannot be done as construction
plans are not final. No bonds yet received.

City suggested proceeding with guarantee
pending receipt and approval of bonds.

Guarantor will be MSD Capital (a private
investment firm originally started by Michael Dell
of Dell Computer)
Requested audited financial statements to
determine if qualified. Pending receipt.

PENDING RECEIPT
Financial information will be reviewed by Mark
Northcross for City. City acceptance of
Approved Guarantor pending.

PENDING RECEIPT to Northcross who will
execute NDA and will review and advise City.

4. Conceptual plans for Phase
1 Developer submitted in March. Staff has
reviewed and made comments. Plans are not
finalized so guaranty will cover future approved

May 24, 2022
plans. City needs to move final approval to be
post-closing.

City staff states comments to plan comments
were provided on March 3. Nothing
Approval of plans is NOT a condition to closing,
only submittal of plans is a closing condition.

Developer submitted plans timely, so this
condition has been satisfied.

5. City approval of Master
Financing Plan
Developer must resubmit revised Financing Plan
to City. City approval pending receipt.

PENDING RECEIPT. Nothing yet received by
Northcross as of 10AM.

6. Evidence of availability of
funds.

MSD Capital (equity partner) to submit letter to
City confirming its commitment to invest equity
funds in Winehaven sufficient for Closing.

Pending receipt of letter.

Letter dated 5.16.22 received but inadequate.

PENDING RECEIPT of revised letter from the
source of funds (not from the Developer) and
financial documents evidencing funds are
available.

Received letter 5.17.22 from MSD Capital
(equity partner) with funding commitment
conditioned upon CFD. Advised Developer
the condition was not acceptable and to
resubmit.

7. Reimbursement obligations
(entitlement fund, litigation
fund, pre-development fund)
Developer is delinquent with respect to a number
of funding requirements, not all of which have
previously been invoiced by the City. Staff is
calculating amounts due which Developer has
agreed to pay through escrow at closing.

Pending determination of total amounts due.

8. FF&E for fire station

In process between City and Developer.

Pending but expected to be finalized before
closing.

Confirming with staff. Developer will concede
what City wants.

9. Architect/Engineer’s
Consent to Developer’s
Developer’s Assignment of Development
Documents is closing condition. Developer
has deposited into escrow but lacking

May 24, 2022
Assignment of
Development Documents
consents from any current
architects/engineers to the assignment of
plans.

PENDING RECEIPT FROM DEVELOPER.

Developer has advised they are working to
obtain the consents.

COUNCIL ACTION ON MAY 17, 2022
The City Attorney had anticipated submittal of the outstanding items by May 17, but there was no progress on any of the major outstanding items. The most important items on the above list w ere numbers (3) Approved Guarantor, (5) Master Financing Plan, (6) Availability of Funds, and (7) Reimbursement Obligations. As of the date of this report, no progress has been made and they remain outstanding. The Council determined that these conditions were material and not waivable and directed that a resolution be prepared finding that without the satisfaction of the conditions, the City would decline to proceed with the sale. That resolution is Attachment C . It also directs that we notify Upstream/Tribe and work on the closing with them of they chose to exercise their option.

The City Attorney has been working with them concurrently over the last several months and we have been advised that they would move quickly.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment A – March 18 Resolution Disapproving CFD
Attachment B – Letter from Dave Aleshire to Developer
Attachment C – Resolution Funding Conditions of Closing Not Satisfied

01337.0021/775248.1 NG-U9ZQVMF2/4889-7097-7799v6/200952-0001 A-1
Exhibit A

EXHIBIT B

DESCRIPTION OF THE FACILITIES, SERVICES AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES

TYPES OF FACILITIES
CFD No. 2022 -1, on behalf of itself and each improvement area thereof, is hereby authorized to finance the costs of the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of facilities permitted under the Mello-Roos Act from the proceeds of special taxes and bonds issued by CFD No. 2022-1, including, without limitation:

CITY FACILITIES
The types of City Facilities that are proposed to be financed by CFD No. 2022-1 with the proceeds of special taxes and bonds issued by CFD No. 2022 -1 consist of backbone infrastructure needed for new and existing development (both within the project limits as well as offsite improvements), such as roadway, bridge, sewer, dry utilities, storm drain, sea wall, street and parkway landscaping, curb and gutter, medians, median landscaping, traffic signals, entry signage, parks, trails, police facilities, fire facilities, and appurtenances and appurtenant work.

The description of City Facilities is general in nature. The final nature and location of the City Facilities will be determined upon preparation of final plans and specifications. Addition, deletion or modification of descriptions of the City Facilities may be made consistent with the requirements of the City Council of the City, CFD No. 2022-1 and the Act.

EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITIES DISTRICT (“EBMUD”) FACILITIES The proposed EBMUD Facilities include the construct ion, purchase, modification, expansion, improvement and/or rehabilitation of public facilities to be owned and operated by EBMUD including, without limitation, water system facilities and acquisition of water system capacity.

The EBMUD Facilities listed herein are representative of the types of facilities authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2022 -1. Detailed scope and limits of specific projects will be determined as appropriate, consistent with the standards of the EBMUD. Addition, deletion or modification of descriptions of the EBMUD Facilities may be made consistent with the requirements of the governing board of the EBMUD, CFD No. 2022 -1 and the Act. The Facilities are necessary for CFD No. 2022 -1 (and each improvement area thereof) and are generally intended to comply with the requirements of the City.

The description of Facilities is general in nature. The final nature and location of the Facilities will be determined upon preparation of final plans and specifications.

Any Facility authorized to be financed by CFD No. 2022 -1 may be financed through the construction and acquisition of the Facility or through the payment of fees for such Facility.

The Facilities constructed or acquired may be located within or outside CFD No. 2022-1.

The Facilities to be financed shall include all hard and soft costs associated with the Facilities, including the costs of the acquisition of land and rights -of-way, the costs of design, B-1

engineering and planning, the costs of any environmental or traffic studies, survey s or other reports, costs related to landscaping and irrigation, soils testing, permits, plan check, and inspection fees, insurance, legal and related overhead costs, coordination and supervision and any other costs or appurtenances related to any of the f oregoing as may be further defined in one or more acquisition agreements with the developer of the property in CFD No. 2022-1.

TYPES OF SERVICES
The types of Services that are proposed to be provided by CFD No. 2022-1 and funded with the proceeds of special taxes levied by CFD No. 2022-1 consist of services permitted to be financed under the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 including, without limitation, police and fire protection, ambulance and paramedic se rvices, street sweeping, traffic signal maintenance and the maintenance of City -owned parks, parkways and open spaces, lighting, flood and storm protection services and the operation of storm drainage systems . All of the services to be financed must be in addition to those provided within the boundaries of CFD No. 2022-1 before CFD No. 2022 -1 is created, and shall not supplant services already available within that territory when CFD No. 2022-1 is created.

TYPES OF INCIDENTAL EXPENSES
The Incidental Expenses to be paid from bond proceeds and/or special taxes include:

All costs associated with the creation of CFD No. 2022-1, the issuance of the Obligations, the determination of the amount of special taxes to be levied, costs incurred in order to carry out the authorized purposes of CFD No. 2022-1, including legal fees, fees of consultants, engineering, planning, designing and the annual costs to administer CFD No. 2022-1 and any Obligations.

B-2

SQ.FT. UNITS EPS DPFG TOTAL RATE UNITS PPH POPULATION SERVED Owner-Occupied
LDR 185 $1,400,00 0 $576,000 $106,560,000 5.0% 176 - 495 495 MDR 0 $0 $0 $0 5.0% 0 - 0 0
HDR/Townhomes 173 $1,175,00 0 $432,000 $74,736,000 5.0% 164 - 461 461 HDR/Condo 802 $1,250,00 0 $416,000 $333,632,000 5.0% 762 - 2,141 2,141 Subtotal 1,160 $514,928,000
Renter-Occupied
HDR/Townhomes 68 $400,00 0 $128,000 $8,704,000 5.0% 65 - 183 183 HDR/Condo 157 $450,00 0 $144,000 $22,608,000 5.0% 149 - 419 419 Affordable 67 $0 $0 5.0% 64 - 180 180
Subtotal 292 $31,312,000
Residential Subtotal 1,452 $546,240,000
Nonresidential
Historic Retail 20,000 - $300 $300 $6,000,00 0 10.0% 18,000 250 72 36 Historic Office 352,580 - $350 $350 $123,403,00 0 10.0% 317,322 250 1,269 635 New Retail 35,000 - $300 $300 $10,500,00 0 10.0% 31,500 250 126 63 New Office 31,194 - $350 $350 $10,917,90 0 10.0% 28,075 400 70 35 New Public 15,000 - $0 $0 $0 10.0% 13,500 0 0 0
Subtotal 453,774 $150,820,900 1,537 769
Subtotal Residential & Nonresidential 1,452 $697,060,900 5,416 4,648 Other Land Uses

P/QP - -
PR - -
OS - -

NAPOTS - -
Preserve/Avoidance - -

ROW - -
Subtotal
Total 1,452

PEOPLEVACANCY
TABLE 2
Point Molate Fiscal Impact Analysis
Land Use and Assumptions

ASSESSED VALUE
C-1
Exhibit C

Assumption1 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Buildout Units 100 350 438 850 1,100 1,452
Persons Served 320 1,120 1,402 2,721 3,521 4,648
Revenues $10,380 per unit $422,149 $1,477,521 $1,849,012 $3,588,265 $4,643,637 $6,129,601 Plus CFD ($2M each of first two years) $10,380 per unit plus $2M (Year 1 & 2) $2,422,149 $3,477,521 $1,849,012 $3,588,265 $4,643,637 $6,129,601 Expenses $4,252 per unit $425,150 $1,488,026 $1,862,158 $3,613,777 $4 ,676,653 $6,173,182 Full Police Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) $2,090,945 plus $2,811 per unit $2,372,091 $3,074,955 $3,322,364 $4,480,684 $5,183,549 $6,173,182 Full Fire Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) $3,264,037 plus $2,004 per unit $3,464,391 $3,965,277 $4,141,589 $4,967,049 $5,467,935 $6,173,182 Surplus/Deficit w/Base Revenues
Expenses per Unit ($3,001) ($10,505) ($13,146) ($25,512) ($33,016) ($43,581) Full Police Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) ($1,949,942) ($1,597,434) ($1,473,352) ($892,419) ($539,911) ($43,58 1) Full Fire Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) ($3,042,242) ($2,487,756) ($2,292,577) ($1,378,784) ($824,297) ($43, 581) Surplus/Deficit w/Base Revenues PLUS CFD
Expenses per Unit $1,996,999 $1,989,495 ($13,146) ($25,512) ($33,016) ($43,581) Full Police Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) $50,058 $402,566 ($1,473,352) ($892,419) ($539,911) ($43,581) Full Fire Year 1 (all other expenses per unit) ($1,042,242) ($487,756) ($2,292,577) ($1,378,784) ($824,297) ($43,58 1) Footnotes:
1See Table 9.

Table 10
Point Molate Fiscal Impact Analysis
Cash Flow
C-2

01337.0021/776965.1
Exhibit D

PARTIAL HISTORY OF FINANCIAL SUNCAL FINANCIAL INCIDENTS:

Financial Incidents. Links to some of the reported incidents are:

1. Albuquerque, Westland DevCo
https://www.reuters.com/article/westlanddevco/albuquerque-developer-files-for- bankruptcy-idUSN0519094320100405

2. SunCal-Lehman Brothers 2008 crash
SunCal’s financial backing was inadequately diversified, so when Lehman collapsed, SunCal declared bankruptcy in 20 -23 projects (tallies vary in news reports)

Specific examples:
a. Oak Knoll
https://www.oakknollcoalition.org/history

b. Marblehead
https://www.sanclementetimes.com/marblehead-bankruptcy-now-what/

c. Palmdale
ORDERED PUBLISHED - Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov › Palmdale-09-1100
d. 14 bankruptcies in Orange County
https://www.ocregister.com/2008/11/10/14-projects-by-oc-developer-file- bankruptcy/

D-1

David J. Aleshire
[email protected]
(949) 250-5409
18881 Von Karman Avenue,
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92612
P (949) 223-1170
F (949) 223-1180

01337.0021/788675.2
May 9, 2022

VIA E-MAIL

Linda C. Klein
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, CA 94111-4710

E-Mail: [email protected]

Re: Point Molate – Winehaven Closing

Dear Ms. Klein:

On Wednesday (May 3) I learned that Winehaven has proposed setting a date for closing of May 18, 2022. This is exciting news . I set an internal meeting of involved Directors and staff for the following day to learn if eve rything is in position to achieve this closing date and a number of issues were revealed that need to be resolved before we can close . These issues arise out of the Disposition and Development Agreement ( dated September 30, 2020) and will require consultation with the City Council. Other issues are a part of the closing process, while some issues need to be on a list of follow up items after the closing . To this end, we have assembled a Summary, attached as Exhibit A , which identifies i tems which under the DDA will need to be addressed in order to close, and certain items that we may consider deferring to post - closing. Nothing herein is intended to modify any provision of t he agreement, but to assure the parties that these issues remain important and will be addressed.

With regard to our consultation with the Council, the next Council meeting is on May 17 which is only the day before the developer’s proposed closing date. If the Council raises any issues, it may take several days to weeks to address them. In that regard, I have asked Upstream/Guidiville if we may have a short extension. They have previously told me that was possible if we need it. I do not have a response yet to my specific request. In raising these issues with you now I’m hoping you can address them satisfactorily b y May 17 - in fact with the agenda deadlines it would be best if any input was provided to us by the end of day Friday, May 13.

Here are issues of concern:

A. Transfer of Remediation Responsibility.

On April 20, I participated in a zoom call with a number of individuals who have been involved with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Department of Navy and other entities concerning the remediation and clean -up

Linda C. Klein
May 9, 2022

01337.0021/788675.2
obligations of the Property. We discussed th at with the Property Transfer, those obligations under the remediation plan (“RAP”) and other regulatory ag reements, would pass to Winehaven. There was agreement that the DDA provided for this, but that there were future steps which needed to occur for transfer of obligations.

Developer’s counsel, Robert Doty, by email on April 22 outlined some of these tasks. We need written assurance that as of the closing, the developer shall be the land owner and responsible party under applicable law.

B. Project Performance and Payment Security.

Section 4.6.1.12 states: “ Guaranty or Initial Project Performance and Payment Security. Developer shall have delivered to the City either a Guaranty or Initial Project Performance and Payment Security for the First Site Improvement Phase.” It is my u nderstanding that the final plans for First Site Improvement Phase have not been finalized. Accordingly the cost for the First Phase Master Infrastructure is not definable but I understand that the estimated cost of those improvements is on the order of $130M. Moreover, it is also not clear exactly when such improvements would be constructed. The DDA provides for the security in the form of bonds or a guarantee (Section 2.8.1.) Since the improvement plans do not have enough definition for a refined estimate of costs, nor could a bonding program be developed at this time, we think the Guaranty option provided in section 2.8 of the DDA is the route we will need to take . A form of Guaranty is provided in the DDA, and the qualifications for an “Approved Guarantor” (defined in Section 1.1 – page 2 & 3). In order for the City to have a reasonable time to evaluate the qualifications of the proposed Guarantor, please promptly provide the name of the proposed entity together with appropriate financial information which should include 3 years of audited financial statements.

As I write this letter I was advised by Mark Northcross that the proposed Guarantor is MSD Capital which is privately held. Please note that we can provide a method for their financial information to be kept confidential.

C. Financing Plan.

Section 2.5 of the DDA provides that the Developer must deliver to the City a Master Financing Plan for financing “all costs of acquisition of the Property and the construction of all of the Site Improvements, including the Offsite Improvements…”. City approval of the Final Financing Plan for the First Site Improvement Phase is a condition to closing under Section 2.5 of the DDA. As you are aware, the preliminary plan placed reliance on the formation of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”), but after months of study and discussion, and public hearings, on March 18 the City Council disapproved the use of the CFD mechanism

Linda C. Klein
May 9, 2022

01337.0021/788675.2
on the basis provided in Section 2.5.1 because it would “result in a negative fiscal impact on the City’s general fund” and oth er reasons; the City had the right “to reject the Proposed Master Financing Plan…in the City’s sole and absolute discretion.” After months of discussions and a public hearing on February 22, at a hearing on March 28, 2022, the City Council by Resolution disapproved utilizing the proposed CFD and the Financing Plan based thereon. You have resubmitted that same Financing Plan which utilizes the disapproved CFD. On March 24, 2022, the City’s Finance Team suggested to t he Developer various other financing mechanisms which might not have an adverse impact on the general fund. On May 4, through the City’s Financial Advisor Mr. Mark Northcross, the issue was again raised that you should present an alternative Financial Plan to the City which was acceptable. We would advise you to submit a Plan which has not already been rejected and has no adverse general fund impact - and hope that you have an alternative and can submit it promptly.

D. Payment of Fees and Costs:

At the March 18 meeting outstanding fees and costs owed to the City were identified. These costs have still not been paid. The City is assembling a more current listing of outstanding costs. This will be provided to you by Friday, May

13. These will need to be paid prior to closing.

E. Remaining Closing Issues:
i. FF&E Specifications for Fire/Police Station. This needs to be completed. ii. Status of Proposed Final Plans for First Site Improvement Phase. iii. Evidence of Availability of Funds needs to be provided. iv. Any matters required to be completed prior to closing and must be shifted to post -closing will need to be approved by the City and confirmed in writing.

We would be happy to discuss other items on the list and any timing issues.

Linda C. Klein
May 9, 2022

01337.0021/788675.2
F. Cooperation Regarding Closing Date Extension
We hope that all the items herein can be wholly addressed by March 17, but on the chance they might not be, we hope that you join with us in requesting an extension from Upstream of the May 21 closing deadline.

We look forward to hearing your response to the issues raised herein.

Very truly yours,

ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP

David J. Aleshire, City Attorney
City of Richmond

DJA:krb

cc: Mayor Butt and Councilmembers
Shasa Curl
Joe Leach
Lina Velasco
Mark Northcross
Anne Lanphar
Jodi Fedor

EXHIBIT A
01337.0021/789160.1 1

DDA Pre-Closing, Closing and Initial Post-Closing Requirements

COMPLETED PRE-CLOSING TASKS:

DDA § TASK: STATUS:

DDA §2.6.1 Developer Submittal of Proposed Final Plans for First Site Improvement Phase.

• DEVELOPER SUBMITTED 2/20/22
-
• Initial comments provided, on -going
discussions between parties
•
DDA §2.3.7 • Developer to obtain Final Large Lot Map or First Phase Final Map.

CITY APPROVED 5/3/22 -

City staff proceeding with execution
and recordation, must be completed
by Closing
DDA §2.3.8 Developer to submit Transit Plan for the Project. DEVELOPER SUBMITTED 4/21/22

DDA does not specify approval or
response time, only submittal
requirement
DDA §2.9

Submittal of Preliminary Master HOA Documents. • DEVELOPER SUBMITTED 4/22/22 •
DDA §2.10 Submittal of Certificate of Readiness.

DEVELOPER SUBMITTED TO
ESCROW 4/22/22
DDA §4.6.1.14

Submittal of Evidence of Insurance PROVIDED:

In connection with existing Permits
for Security and Historic
Preservation
DDA §4.4.1 Developer Delivery of Closing Documents to Escrow DEVELOPER SUBMITTED TO ESCROW 4/22/22
DDA §4.6.1 Developer Entity Formation/Authorization Documents Submitted to City
DEVELOPER SUBMITTED 4/21/22

REMAINING PRE-CLOSING TASKS:

DDA § TASK: STATUS:

DDA §1.1 Mutual Agreement of FF&E Specifications for Police & Fire Station.

On-going discussions between
parties; if not resolved by Closing
consider moving to post -closing
obligation

01337.0021/789160.1 2
09683\004\9227393.v2
DDA §2.5.2 Developer Submittal of Proposed Phase Financing Plan for the First Site Improvement.

• DEVELOPER SUBMITTED 3/22/22
-
Plan included CFD assumptions after
CFD was not approved by the City so
was not adequate or acceptable.

Developer to re -submit reflecting
alternative financing mechanisms.

Approval of Financing Plan is a
condition to City’s obligation to Close

DDA §2.5.3 Developer Submittal of Evidence of Availability of Funds for First Site Improvement Phase.

Consistent with Approved Financing
Plan; to be received and accepted as a
condition to City’s obligation to Close
DDA § 2.2 &

2.3.2;
Development
Agreement,
other
Developer reimbursement of all City costs incurred,
including for costs intended to be covered by
unreplenished Pre -development and Entitlement Fees
Fund, litigation and CFD expenses
To be included on closing statement:

Developer to pay all amounts
outstanding through Escrow
DDA §4.4.1.1 Developer deposit of funds (including Purchase Price) required to Close to Escrow
To be submitted at least one business
day prior to Closing of Escrow
DDA §4.6.2.4 Developer’s Title Policy Condition benefiting Developer DDA §4.4.2 City Delivery of Closing Documents to Escrow, including City Grant Deed
Forms agreed
DDA § 4.4.1.2
& 2.8.2
Current Architect/Engineer’s Consent to Assignment
of Development Documents provided by Developer to
City
Developer to provide in form attached
to the Assignment of Development
Documents
DDA §4.10.6.1 Developer Acknowledge of Assumption of
Environmental Remediation Obligations and third
party documentation as needed
In progress; specifics to be confirmed
and agreed

IMMEDIATE POST-CLOSING TASKS (IF NOT COMPLETED PRE-CLOSING):

DDA § TASK: STATUS:

DDA §2.6.1 City Approval of Developer Submittal of Proposed Final Plans (can be conceptual plans) for First Site
Improvement Phase.

Approval of Plans is not a closing
condition (submittal is a closing
condition benefiting City)
DDA §2.3.8 City to Provide Comments, Developer to submit revisions to Transit Plan for the Project to reflect
mitigation and other requirements, final Project, etc.

Not a Closing Condition

01337.0021/789160.1 3
09683\004\9227393.v2
DDA §4.6.2.7 Site Improvement Permit for First Site Improvement Phase issued or ready to be issued by City
Closing Condition benefiting
Developer, can be waived/deferred to
post-close
DDA §5.6.1 Initial Project Performance and Payment Security for First Site Improvement Phase (to replace Guaranty) ;
Infrastructure Improvement Agreement
Not a Closing Condition if Guaranty
is provided instead
DDA §5.5.8 Project O&M Plan submitted by Developer to City for approval
Not a Closing Condition, but a
condition to issuance of permits
DDA §1.1 Submerged Lands Lease and related Easement to
access pier
Not a Closing Condition ; required
prior to commencement of work on
pier

01337.0021/792076.1 Page 1

RESOLUTION NO. _______

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND,

CALIFORNIA DECLINING TO WAIVE CERTAIN IMPORTANT FINANCIAL

CONDITIONS PRECEDENT IN THE DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT

AGREEMENT BETWEEN WINEHAVEN LEGACY, LLC AND THE CITY
(DDA).

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond, California (“City”) is the fee title owner of 100% of the real property (“Property”) described in (i) Exhibit A-1 to that certain Disposition and Development Agreement for Point Molate Mixed-Use Development, by and between the City and Winehaven Legacy LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (“ Winehaven”), dated as of September 30, 2020 (“ DDA”), and (ii) Exhibit A to that certain Development Agreement, by and between the City and Winehaven, dated as of October 21, 2020 (“DA” and together with the DDA, the “ Development Agreements”) and the attached Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, for purposes of this Resolution, defined terms not specifically defined in this Resolution shall have the meaning as defined in the DDA; and WHEREAS, the Property was formerly within the boundaries of Point Molate Naval Fuel Depot (“ Naval Fuel Depot ”) prior to its closure and was acquired from the United States, subject to the Point Molate Reuse Plan adopted by the City in 1997, during base closure process through 2002; and
WHEREAS the Naval Fuel Depot closed in 1995 and since disposition to the City, the City has been engaged in various processes to determine how to use the land. One project proposed by the Guidiville Band of Pomo Indians and Upstream Point Molate, LLC (jointly “Upstream/Tribe”) included a Casino and went through environmental review in 2011 but was turned down by the voters in an advisory measure which caused the Council to decline the project and led to litigation. The lawsuit resulted in a settlement (“Amended Judgment”) where the City agreed to consider other developers over a period of four (4) years by the “ City Sales Deadline”, and if approved, City would sell the Property and split the net proceeds with Upstream/Tribe. If no sale occurred by the City Sales Deadline, Upstream/Tribe has the option to purchase the Property for Four Hundred Dollars ($400) (“Option”) and thereafter would have five (5) years to sell or develop the Property and would share net proceeds with City. The City Sales Deadline is May 21, 2022 and if the sale to Developer is not consummated by May 21, 2022, Upstream/Tribe may exercise the Option anytime thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Development Agreements provide for the establishment of a Community Facilities District (“CFD”), and multiple improvement areas therein, to provide for financing of certain facilities and services described therein, b ut the DA clearly established that while the City would cooperate with Winehaven in the establishment of one or more CFDs, it stated that the City will not be obligated to pay any cost related to

01337.0021/792076.1

formation or implementation of any Financing Mechanism from its General Fund (at Section 4.2 Assessment Financing); and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on March 18, 2022, the City did not approve the Developer’s proposed CFD for a variety of reasons including , but not limited to, the fact that proposed CFD did not satisfy the specific requirement that it was not to have a negative impact on the General Fund (“Disapproved CFD”); and

WHEREAS, DDA Section 4.3.2 specifically states that Escrow must close no later than May 21, 2022 (“Outside Closing Date”) and also states that the Closing Date is specifically limited by the terms of Amended Judgment and the Option held by Upstream/Tribe; and
WHEREAS, Developer advised the City that Developer would not be obtaining third party financing but rather would be f unding the closing obligations directly as its financial investor was MSD Capital (“Equity Investor”) which would be contributing funds into the Winehaven as an equity investment; and
WHEREAS, City’s obligation to sell the Property to Winehaven under the DDA is subject to a number of specific conditions precedent set forth in DDA Section 4.6.1, including, among others:
(i) City’s approval of the Approved Final Financing Plan for the First Site Improvement Phase (Section 4.6.1.7) revised to omit reference to the Disapproved CFD (“Revised Financing Plan”);
(ii) City’s receipt and approval of the Evidence of Availability of Funds (Section 4.6.1.8) (“ Availability of Funds Letter ”) which City requested be executed by the Equity Investor; and
(iii) City’s receipt from Developer (Section 4.6.1.12) of either (a) the Guaranty executed by an Approved Guarantor which must be approved by City, OR (b) Initial Project Performance and Payment Security in the form of bonds as approved by City (“Guarantor/Bonds Security”); and
WHEREAS, the City’s receipt and approval of (i) the Revised Financing Plan, (ii) Availability of Funds Letter , and (iii) the Guarantor/Bonds Security , are all of critical importance to the protection of the City (collectively “Critical Financial Conditions”); and WHEREAS, on May 17, 2022, Developer provided a proposed Availability of Funds Letter (dated May 16, 2022) which was executed only by Winehaven and which was disapproved by the City; and
WHEREAS, later on May 17, 2022, Developer provided a second proposed Availability of Funds Letter which was executed by the Equity Investor but stated that the commitment of the Equity Investor to contribute the funds into Winehave n was

01337.0021/792076.1

conditioned upon an approved and formed CFD, which later was rejected by City because of the CFD contingency; and
WHEREAS, since late March 2022, the City Attorney and the City’s financial consultant Mark Northcross have repeatedly requested that Developer provide the documents needed to satisfy all the Critical F inancial Conditions but , except for the disapproved Availability of Funds Letter, has not received any of the information for the Critical Financial Conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Critical Financial Conditions were not satisfied by the Outside Closing Date; and
WHEREAS, on May 9, 2022 the City Attorney sent Developer a letter summarizing remaining issues needed to accomplish closing by Developer’s desired date of May 18, 2022, including reimbursement of outstanding fees and costs, and certain other issues, and while several of these issues were addressed, in addition to Critical Financial Conditions, the payment of the outstanding fees and costs were not addressed; and WHEREAS, the Developer’s failure to pay outstanding fees and costs was part of the City’ s reasons for not approving the CFD on March 18, and since that date the Developer has not addressed the issue of reimbursing legal expenses arising from the indemnity obligation to defend the project, consultant costs on the CFD, or other matters that total $867,314.58 as of last calculation; and
WHEREAS, the City was led to believe that Winehaven would be making submissions intended to satisfy the foregoing after the posting of the May 17, 2022 agenda but did not do so, and accordingly, staff made no recommendation of resolution, so when the City Council considered these matters on May 17 and the lack of Developer’s performance, and the City Council determined by motion approved 4-2-1 (Bates and Butt voting no, Johnson absent), that the conditions were too critical to waive and that a resolution confirming the action should be prepared by the City Attorney for the next meeting (May 24); and
WHEREAS, it is recognized that the Outside Closing date for Upstream/Tribe is May 21 and they may exercise their opti on after that date, and as of the date of agenda posting for the May 24 agenda, i.e., May 19, Developer has made no further submittals.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND THAT:

Section 1. Recitals. Each of the above recitals is true and correct and made a part hereof, and is a part of the findings hereunder.

Section 2. Failure of City’s Conditions Precedent . The Critical Financial Conditions have not been satisfied and the City finds it would be financially irresponsible to waive same and accordingly declines to waive the Critical Financial Conditions . As stated in the recitals and staff reports, the conditions in combination assure that there is security for the performance of obligations on the order of $13 0 million just in the first

01337.0021/792076.1

phase, a Guarantor, and funds to proceed. The Developer is continuing to base the whole project on a CDF provided by the City and not willing to consider other financial options not reliant on the City or its General Fund.

Section 3. Other Conditions. In addition to the Critical Financial Conditions, the Developer has not reimbursed expenses as stated herein, and has not performed other requirements of the DDA, as stated in the Staff Report . While these might have been workable in and of themselves, in combination with the Critical Financial Conditions and the failure to pay fees and costs, the City Council cannot waive the conditions nor support closing.

Section 4. Notice to Upstream Tribe . The City Attorney shall transmit this Resolution to Developer and to Upstream/Tribe and proceed with efforts to close at such time as Upstream/Tribe may exercise its option. The City Attorney shall provide a full explanation of the reasons for this action.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be effective upon its adoption.

PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Richmond held on the 24th day of May, 2022.

Tom Butt,
Mayor
ATTEST:

Pamela Christian,
City Clerk

May 24, 2022

Public Works

DATE: May 24, 2022
TO: Mayor Butt and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Joe Leach, PE, Director of Public Works
Patrick Phelan, Infrastructure Administrator

Subject:

Presentation of Draft Local Roadway Safety Plan
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Development of the plan was funded through a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) grant of $72,000 by the
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and a local match of $8,000.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

City Council adopted a resolution to accept and
appropriate the funds and to authorize the development
of the plan on December 15, 2020.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond and Contra Costa County have
completed multiple safety-related plans with more in
progress, and this Local Roadway Safety Plan is an
exciting opportunity to bring together multiple streams of work for a comprehensive picture of safety in Richmond.

Input was sought from an advisory group consisting of
staff from the City of Richmond and partner public
agencies. Fehr & Peers assisted the City of Richmond in preparing the plan.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE presentation of draft Local Roadway Safety
Plan; and PROVIDE feedback – Public Works (Joe
Leach/Patrick Phelan 307-8111).

AGENDA
REPORT

May 24, 2022
DISCUSSION:

The City of Richmond is committed to prioritizing safety and decreasing/eliminating the amount of traffic related deaths and serious injuries on City streets. This Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) proactively evaluates “hot spots” (i.e., areas with higher rates of documented traffic incidents) throughout the City to identify the proven countermeasures that can be implemented through the current and future Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).

This will be the first comprehensive safety plan for the City of Richmond which provides the City and its major stakeholders a blueprint for a safe and more accessible community. This LRSP will assist the City when it applies for safety infrastructure funding sources. For example, the Cycle 11 Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) funding cycle anticipated in 2022 will require an LRSP for an agency to be eligible to apply for funds.

The City hired Fehr & Peers to assist in preparing the plan. City staff from the Public Works Engineering Division provided background information and developed Geographic Information System (GIS) layers of traffic data such as posted speed limit, speed surveys, traffic counts, and traffic signal details. City staff met regularly with Fehr & Peers consultants to develop the plan. Fehr & Peers conducted a safety analysis, investigating collision records from 2015-2019, to describe historic collision trends and identify high-risk locations. This information is the primary resource for the plan and was used to develop collision trends, a high injury network, collision profiles, a countermeasure toolbox, and four priority project locations.

Stakeholders were identified to ensure the LRSP included the perspective of various departments and organizations. The stakeholder group included representatives from City Council as well as staff from Community Development, Fire, Police, and Public Works Departments. The group met three times: June 2021, August 2021, and April 2022.

Fehr & Peers and City staff conducted targeted outreach with the RYSE center, the Richmond Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and other groups. Wider audiences were reached with the planning and engagement effort called Travel Safe Richmond. A website was set up with an interactive map for the public to submit safety concerns and improvement ideas. An online community workshop was hosted in December 2021 and an in-person event on May 18, 2022; presentations were also made to the Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council as well as neighborhood councils. Travel Safe Richmond also includes a Bicycle and Pedestrian Action Plan, and outreach and development of that plan continues.

The draft LRSP includes twelve emphasis areas, a combination of four priority corridors and eight collision profiles that were identified based on the number of total collisions, number of fatal and severe injuries, and stakeholder input. Each priority corridor is presented on a cutsheet with strategies to help the City achieve the identified safety goals and seek relevant grant opportunities.

May 24, 2022

Implementation of the LRSP is a vital next step. Successful implementation requires sustained and coordinated support from key stakeholders, elected officials, and City staff. Strategies outlined in the plan include oversight & accountability; coordination & partnership; funding; and communication & transparency. The plan should be regularly updated, and stakeholder engagement should continue.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Draft Local Road Safety Plan dated April 6, 2022 Attachment 2 – Resolution 142-20
Attachment 3 – PowerPoint Presentation

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
i

LOCAL ROADWAY

SAFETY PLAN

LOCAL ROADWAY
SAFETY PLAN April 2022

Engineer’s Seal & Acknowledgments
ii
Section 148 of Title 23, United States Code

REPORTS DISCOVERY AND ADMISSION INTO EVIDENCE OF CERTAIN REPORTS, SURVEYS, AND INFORMATION — Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or data compiled or collected for any purpose relating to this section, shall not be subject to discovery or admitted into evidence in a Federal or State court proceeding or considered for other purposes in any action for damages arising from any occurrence at the location identified or addressed in the reports, surveys, schedules, lists, or other data.

Statement of Protection of Data from Discovery
and Admissions
This study applies a systemic safety approach that identifies certain features on particular roadways that are correlated with specific collision types and frequencies. This broad approach is necessitated by the inherent nature of covering an entire agency’s facilities in one study and the limited scope/budget available to prepare LRSPs. Limited time is available to perform field observations throughout the study area to contextualize the data, and therefore, it is beyond the scope of work to perform in-depth “hot spot” evaluations at all locations.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
iii
Acknowledgments
The City of Richmond and Contra
Costa County have completed multiple
safety-related plans with more in
progress, and this Local Roadway
Safety Plan (LRSP) is an exciting
opportunity to bring together multiple
streams of work for a comprehensive
picture of safety in Richmond.

The 2022 City of Richmond Local
Roadway Safety Plan was primarily funded
through a Local Roadway Safety Plan
(LRSP) grant provided by the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
and supplemented by a local matching
grant. Additional funding was provided
by the Metropolitan Transportation
Commission (MTC) in relation to a
Vehicle Miles Traveled (MTC) Reduction
Pilot Project. Input was sought from an
advisory group consisting of staff from
the City of Richmond and partner public
agencies. Fehr & Peers assisted the City
of Richmond in preparing the plan.

CALTRANS LRSP GRANT ID: LRSP030
Advisory
Group Members
Councilmember Claudia Jimenez
Richmond City Council, District 6
Councilmember Gayle McLaughlin
Richmond City Council, District 5
Luis Padilla
Fire Inspector, Richmond
Fire Department
Eric Govan
Fire Marshal, City of Richmond
Fire Department
Eric Munson
Deputy Fire Marshall,
Richmond Fire Department
Donovan Decious
Traffic Sergeant, Richmond
Police Department
Tawfic Halaby
Senior Civil Engineer,
City of Richmond
City of Richmond Staff
Patrick Phelan
Infrastructure Administrator
Robin Chee
Engineer II
Lina Velasco
Community Development,
Director, City of Richmond*
Denée Evans
Transportation Services Project
Manager, City of Richmond*
Roberta Feliciano
Senior Planner, City of Richmond*
Emily Carroll
Planner I, City of Richmond*
Lydia Elias
Planner I, City of Richmond*
Nathalie Zaldivar
Intern
Keelan Jones
Intern
Fehr & Peers Team
Ryan McClain, PE
Molly Riddle
Dana Weissman
Gabriela Picado-Aguilar
Kristine Ojascastro
Krystle Li
Lee Reis
Sam Inoue-Alexander
Susie Hufstader
Terence Zhao
*Richmond Staff Advisory
Group Members

Glossary & Table of Contents
iv
Glossary
(A)ADT (annual) average daily traffic
ABAG Association of Bay
Area Governments
ADA Americans with Disabilities Act
AHSC Affordable Housing and
Sustainable Communities
ATP Active Transportation Program
AV Autonomous Vehicle
B/C Benefit/Cost
BTA Bicycle Transportation Account
BUILD Better Utilizing Investments
to Leverage Development
CDBG Community Development
Block Grant
CIP Capital Improvement Plan
CRF Crash Reduction Factor
CSSA Complete Streets
Safety Assessment
CCTA Contra Costa
Transportation Authority
CVC California Vehicle Code
DOT Department of Transportation
DUI Driving Under the Influence
EMS Emergency Medical Services
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
GIS Geographic Information System
HSIP Highway Safety
Improvement Program
ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers
KSI Killed or Severely Injured
LED Light-emitting Diode
LPI Leading Pedestrian Interval
LPP Local Partnership Program
LRSM Local Roadway Safety Manual
LRSP Local Road Safety Plan
LSRP Local Streets and Roads Program
LTF Local Transportation Fund
MTC Metropolitan Transportation
Commission
MUT Median U-Turn
MUTCD Manual on Uniform
Traffic Control Devices
OTS Office of Traffic Safety
PCF Primary Collision Factor
PHB Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
RCUT Restricted Crossing U-Turn
RRFB Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
SCCP Solution for Congested
Corridors Program
SGC Strategic Growth Council
SR2S/SRTS Safe Routes to School
STIP State Transportation
Improvement Program
SWITRS Statewide Integrated
Traffic Records System
TCC Transportation Climate Communities
TDA Transit Development Act
TIGER Transportation Investment
Generating Economic Recovery
TIMS Transportation Injury Mapping System
TNC Transportation Network Company
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
v
1 Introduction
Overview of Safe System Approach and
Project Background
2 Vision and Goals
Summary of Safety Vision and Goals for Richmond
3 Safety Partners
Summary of Safety Partners
4 Existing Efforts
Summary of the City’s Safety Efforts
5 Safety Analysis
Summary of Safety Analysis Results, including the
Historic Collision Landscape, Hot Spot Identification, and Development of Crash Profiles through Systemic Analysis 6 Countermeasure Toolbox
Summary of Safety Countermeasures Covering
Engineering, Education, Enforcement, Emergency
Services and Emerging Technology
7 Emphasis Areas and Strategies
Summary of 12 Priority Location Project Recommendations 8 Evaluation and Implementation
Funding Opportunities, and Considerations for
Implementation and Evaluation of Safety Projects
9 Appendices
(A) High Injury Networks, (B) Countermeasure Toolbox
Table of Contents
Page
1 5
7 11
19 31
45 71
79

Chapter 1: Introduction
vi
A Safe System
acknowledges the
vulnerability of the
human body when
designing and operating
a transportation
network to minimize
serious consequences
of crashes

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
1 Introduction
Chapter 1
The City of Richmond is committed
to prioritizing safety and decreasing/
eliminating the amount of traffic
related deaths and serious injuries on
City streets. This Local Road Safety
Plan (LRSP) proactively evaluates
hot spots throughout the City to
identify the proven countermeasures
that can be implemented through
the current and future Capital
Improvement Plan (CIP). This
section defines the Safe Systems
approach, an idea which underlies
this LRSP, and provides background
on safety work in Richmond.

What is the Safe
System approach?
Each day, people are killed and seriously
injured on our roads. Crashes can
irreversibly change the course of human
lives, touching victims, their families and
loved ones, and society as a whole.

Through collective action on the part
of all roadway system stakeholders—
from system operators and vehicle
manufacturers, to law enforcement and
everyday users—we can move to a Safe
System approach that anticipates human
mistakes, with the goal of eliminating fatal
& serious injuries for all road users. A Safe
System acknowledges the vulnerability of
the human body – in terms of the amount
of kinetic energy transfer a body can
withstand – when designing and operating
a transportation network to minimize
serious consequences of crashes.

According to the World Health
Organization, the goal of a Safe System
is to ensure that if crashes occur, they
“do not result in serious human injury.”
1 A Safe System approach addresses the
five elements of a safe transportation
system – safe road users, safe vehicles,
safe speeds, safe roads, and post-crash
care – in an integrated manner, through a
wide range of interventions (see Figure 1).

The Safe System approach to road safety
started internationally as part of the Vision
Zero proclamation that, from an ethical
standpoint, no one should be killed or
seriously injured on the road system.
2 3 It
is founded on the principle that people
make mistakes, and that the road system
Figure 1. The
Safe System
Approach
Source: Fehr &
Peers for FHWA

Chapter 1: Introduction
2 should be adapted to anticipate and
accommodate human mistakes and
the physiological and psychological
limitations of humans.
4 Countries that
have adopted the Safe System approach
have had significant success reducing
highway fatalities, with reductions in
fatalities between 50 and 70%.
5 The Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE) and the Road to Zero Coalition’s
Safe Systems Explanation and Framework
articulate that to anticipate human
mistakes, a Safe System seeks to:
• Separate users in a physical space (e.g.,
sidewalks, dedicated bicycle facilities),
• Separate users in time (e.g., pedestrian
scramble, dedicated turn phases),
• Alert users to potential hazards,
• Accommodate human injury
tolerance through interventions that
reduce speed or impact force.

Creating a Safe System means shifting
a major share of the responsibility from
road users to those who design the road
transport system. “Individual road users
have the responsibility to abide by laws
and regulations”
6 and do so by exhibiting
due care and proper behavior on the
transportation system. While road users
are responsible for their own behavior,
this is a shared responsibility with those
who design, operate, and maintain the
transportation network: including the
automotive industry, law enforcement,
elected officials, and government bodies.
7 In a Safe System, roadway system
designers and operators take on the
highest level of ethical responsibility.

Background
This will be the first comprehensive
safety plan for the City of Richmond
which provides the City and its major
stakeholders a blueprint for a safe and
more accessible community. This LRSP
will assist the City when it applies for
safety infrastructure funding sources. For
example, the Cycle 11 Highway Safety
Improvement Program (HSIP) funding cycle
anticipated in 2022 will require an LRSP for
an agency to be eligible to apply for funds.

About Richmond
The City of Richmond, located in Contra
Costa County, is home to approximately
116,450 people.
8 Richmond residents
identify as 20% White alone, 19% Black
or African American alone, 4% Asian
alone, 2% American Indian and Alaska
Native alone, 1% Native Hawaiian and
other Pacific Islander alone, 31% some
other race alone, and 13% two or more
races. Additionally, approximately 45%
of Richmond’s population identifies as
being of Hispanic or Latino origin and
54% of residents speak a language
other than English at home. The citywide
median household income in 2020 was
$72,463. Several census tracts within
the City are identified as Disadvantaged
Communities based on the State of
California’s measures of health, economic
and environmental factors. Seven of the
City’s census tracts are also in the lowest
quartile for healthcare access according
to the California Healthy Places Index,
including one tract in the 8th percentile.

ITE Safe System
Framework: Focus
on Safe Speeds
The ITE Safe System framework provides
important context for the focus on
safe speeds within a Safe System
approach. For vulnerable users speed
is a determining factor in survivability
– a human’s chance of surviving being
struck by a vehicle increases from
20% at 40 miles per hour to 60% at 30
miles per hour to 90% at 20 miles per
hour. Reducing speed in the presence
of = vulnerable users is a key Safe
System strategy. Approaches include:
• Physical roadway designs
(width, horizontal alignment)
to limit free flow speeds,
• Traffic calming treatments
that induce slower speeds,
• Traffic signal timing that
minimizes high speed flow,
• Traditional or automated enforcement
that discourages speeding.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
3 Endnotes
1 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9.
2 Johansson, R. (2009). Vision Zero - Implementing a policy for traffic safety. Safety Science, 47, 826-831.
3 Tingv all, C., & Haworth, N. (1999). An Ethical Approach to Safety and Mobility.

Paper presented at the 6th ITE International Conference Road Safety and Traffic Enforcement. 6-7 September 1999, Melbourne, Australia. 4 Belin, M.-Å., Tillgren, P ., & Vedung, E. (2012). Vision Zero - a road safety policy innovation. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion, 19, 171-179.
5 W orld Resources Institute (2018). Sustainable and Safe: A Vision and Guidance for Zero Road Deaths. Retrieved from https://www.wri.org/publication/ sustainable-and-safe-vision-and-guidance-zero-road-deaths. 6 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf, p. 9.
7 World Health Organization (2011). Decade of Action for Road Safety 2011-2020. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/
roadsafety/decade_of_action/plan/plan_en.pdf.
8 U.S. Census Bureau, 2020 Decennial Census Redistricting Data (PL 94-171).

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
4 Together, the vision statement
and goals establish a concise
yet comprehensive focus for
investments in infrastructure,
education, emergency
services, and enforcement

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
5 Vision and Goals
Chapter 2
Vision
Statement
Traffic safety impacts the
health and comfort of all
those who live and travel
in the City of Richmond.

The implementation of
this plan is a step towards
making the transportation
system safer and more
equitable for users of all
transportation modes.

The City of Richmond vision statement
was developed during early stakeholder
meetings and outreach efforts. The
vision statement highlights the central
importance of improving health, safety
and equitable access to multimodal
transportation facilities for all roadway
users. Complementary goals for the LRSP,
developed through stakeholder outreach
and data analysis, represent a mix discrete,
measurable goals for specific facets of the
transportation system set alongside higher-
level holistic objectives for communitywide
health and safety improvements. Together,
the vision statement and goals establish
a concise yet comprehensive focus for
investments in infrastructure, education,
emergency services, and enforcement.

Goal 1: Reducing Collisions
Reduce fatal and serious
injury collisions, particularly
those involving people
walking and biking.

Goal 2: Equity
Ensure equitable traffic safety
investments in neighborhoods
needing them most.

Goal 3: Pedestrian Crossings
Enhance roadway crossings,
especially near schools
and other high pedestrian
activity areas, to promote
and support safe travel for
people walking and biking.

Goal 4: Nighttime Visibility
Improve the visibility of
roadway and sidewalk
users traveling at night.

Goal 5: Safe Speeds,
DUI Prevention
Encourage safe driving
practices (such as driving
at lower speeds, obeying
railroad crossing controls, and
avoiding driving under the
influence) through roadway
design and outreach.

Goal 6: Climate Resiliency
Invest in the next generation of
people in Richmond through
climate-resilient transportation
safety infrastructure,
particularly near schools
and in neighborhoods.

Goal 7: Post-Crash Care
Improve post-crash care
through increased multi-
jurisdictional collaboration
and appropriate emergency
vehicle access.

Goals

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
6 Priorities for community
outreach included
engagement with
community councils
and partnering with
local organizations

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
7 Safety Partners
Chapter 3
Stakeholders were identified
in collaboration with City of
Richmond staff to ensure the LRSP
included the perspective of various
departments and organizations.

The stakeholder group included
representatives from the following:
• Richmond City Council
• Richmond Community
Development Department
• Richmond Fire Department
• Richmond Police Department
• Richmond Public Works
First Stakeholder Meeting
At the first stakeholder meeting on
June 8, 2021, the group discussed
the LRSP vision and priorities, and
existing safety conditions in the City
of Richmond. An Overview of the Safe
System Approach, existing collision
trends, community concerns, and
sample safety countermeasures were
provided. Additional discussion focused
on prioritization schemes for locating
and implementing countermeasures,
the potential for incorporating green
infrastructure into traffic calming measures,
community outreach strategies, and
project budget and funding. Priorities
for community outreach included
engagement with community councils
and partnering with local organizations
like the RYSE Center and Rich City
Rides. Reported locations of particular
concern to the community included
Carlson Boulevard, Tehama Avenue,
Esmond Avenue, and Garvin Avenue.

Chapter 3: Safety Partners
8 Lastly, a visioning exercise was conducted
to establish a framework for identification
of the LRSP safety vision and goals. The
stakeholder-generated word cloud of
vision priorities is shown in Figure 2.

Second Stakeholder Meeting
At the second stakeholder meeting on
August 30, 2021, the group discussed
the draft vision statement and goals,
existing safety trends, collision profiles
identified via the safety analysis, and
preliminary countermeasures. Feedback
on the vision statement and goals called
for the inclusion of goals pertaining
to transit-specific safety and access,
school-related safety, traffic calming, and
efficient mobility. Stakeholders reported
observed safety trends of concern to the
community including speeding issues,
poor sidewalk condition and gaps,
discomfort riding bikes or using bicycle
facilities adjacent to high-speed traffic,
and poor signal visibility. Stakeholders
emphasized the importance of prioritizing
countermeasures that facilitate safe
connections between modes (i.e.,
colocation of crosswalks and transit bus
stops) and slow speeds to make existing
bicycle and pedestrian facilities safer and
more comfortable. Accounting for the long-
term maintenance of countermeasures
was also identified as an LRSP priority.

Figure 2. Stakeholder responses to the prompt, “What words come to mind when you think of a safety vision for Richmond?”

COMFORT

CREATIVE IDEAS
EASE

ENFORCEMENT

FEWER CARS

HEALTH IN ALL POLICIES

MEDIANS

MORE SAFETY FOR ALL

PROACTIVENESS

PROTECTION FOR PEDESTRIANS

TRAFFIC CIRCLES

WALKABLE AND BIKEABLE STREETS

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
9 Third Stakeholder Meeting
At the third stakeholder meeting on
April 13, 2022, the group discussed
the countermeasure toolbox and
proposed priority projects for emphasis
corridors and collision profiles.

Conclusions pending completion of
this meeting on April 13, 2022.

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
10 The Richmond General
Plan, Bicycle Master
Plan, and Pedestrian
Plan establish goals
for improving safety
on the transportation
network in Richmond
and set a vision for
infrastructure in the City

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
11 Existing Efforts
Chapter 4
In recent years, the City’s efforts
to improve safety have been most
visible through a range of plans
and programs. These range from
citywide plans that set safety-
focused policies and goals to
corridor plans that detail multimodal
access and safety recommendations
for specific corridors, and area
plans that prioritize improvements
across broader regions. Together,
these existing efforts establish
goals for improving safety on the
transportation network in Richmond
and set a vision for infrastructure in
the City. They are further supported
by ongoing engagement with
the community regarding safety
planning and implementation as
well as systematic enforcement of
Richmond’s existing traffic policies.

Citywide and Area Plans
Richmond General Plan
The Circulation Element of the Richmond
General Plan (2012) lays out a community
vision and policy framework for
transportation planning in Richmond.

In this vision, a grid-based network
balances modes of travel, with traffic
calming, bike routes, trails, and sidewalks
supporting safe and comfortable
conditions for people walking and biking.

The Circulation Element outlines a
place-based circulation classification
system that is tailored to surrounding
land use, street function, and desired
character. This classification system
assigns modal priorities to each
accessway type and provides design
recommendations for each one.

While the General Plan does not
include a transportation safety analysis,
policies and actions in the Circulation
Element set safety as a high priority:
• Policy CR1.5 calls for safe and
convenient walking and bicycling.
• Action CR1.C calls for the
development and implementation
of Bicycle and Pedestrian Plans.
• Policy CR3.1 focuses on safety and
accessibility, with focus on walking,
bicycling, and transit. The policy
also emphasizes at-grade railroad
safety, with a dedicated action item
for rail crossing improvements.
• Action CR3.B calls for traffic
calming on streets that experience
speeding or cut-through traffic.
/0/1/2/3/4/5/6/7/i255/9/10/6 /10/0/11 /12/i255/13/12/11 /6 /i255/14/15/16/15

Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
12 Richmond Bicycle Master Plan
The City of Richmond Bicycle Master
Plan (2011) sets forth a blueprint for a
145-mile system of bikeways and support
facilities within the City of Richmond.

It focused on connections between
neighborhoods, safe routes to schools
and access to major destinations such as
employment centers, stores and shops,
parks, trails, and open space areas.

The Bicycle Master Plan outlines four main
goals, with Goal 3 focused on making
Richmond’s streets safer for bicyclists,
both during the day and at night. In the
network development and prioritization,
safety was worth three out of twenty
points, scored based on number of
previous bicycle collisions per mile.

The chapter on collision history in the
Bicycle Master Plan identified four
main “hot spot” corridors, which also
all received high priority for bikeway
implementation in the project list:
• 13th Street/Harbour Way
• Macdonald Avenue
• 22nd and 23rd Streets
• Cutting Boulevard
While these key corridors all received
bikeway project recommendations in the
Bicycle Master Plan, new design best
practices including Class IV bikeways are
not reflected in the network. Since 2011, 24
miles of bike facilities have been installed
in Richmond. Key hot spot corridors have
also undergone more in-depth safety and
Complete Street studies, including Harbour
Way, Rumrill/13th Street, and 23rd Street.

Richmond Pedestrian Plan
Completed in 2011, the Richmond
Pedestrian Plan aims to improve the
safety, convenience, and appeal of
walking throughout the City. Central
Richmond, comprised of the Downtown,
Civic Center, transit center and a number
of historic mixed income and low-income
neighborhoods, is the focus of the plan.

The Pedestrian Plan includes a safety
and connectivity analysis with criteria for
project prioritization focusing on proximity
to Pedestrian Improvement Districts
(General Plan), community connectivity,
safety, and ease of implementation.

Top tier projects from the Richmond
Pedestrian Plan include Marina Way,
Nevin Avenue, the Richmond Greenway,
South 23rd Street, Barrett Avenue, 6th
Street, Ohio Avenue, and Harbour Way.

The Pedestrian Plan also includes a
Crosswalk Policy, treatment toolbox,
action plan, and roundabout concept for
Cutting Boulevard at Carlson Boulevard.

Richmond Area Community-
Based Transportation Plan
Led by CCTA and completed in 2020,
the Community-Based Transportation
Plan (CBTP) for the Richmond Area
recommended a series of projects and
programs identified during community
outreach and review of existing studies in
parts of Richmond and several neighboring
areas. These recommendations were
prioritized using evaluation criteria
developed with plan advisors. The CBTP
focuses on addressing the needs of
economically disadvantaged communities
in Contra Costa County through robust
/0/1/2 /3 /i255 /5 /6 /i255
/7/1/8 /9 /10/5 /11 /12
/13 /14 /12 /14 /15 /2 /16 /1 /17 /11 /i255
/13 /18 /17 /11
/19 /20 /21 /22 /23 /20 /21 /24 /i255 /26 /27 /28
/29 /30 /31 /32 /33 /i255/35/30/36 /37 /38 /39/40/37/39 /41 /i255 /42 /30/40/40/43/44 /44 /43 /30 /39 /45 /46 /i255 /23 /47 /47 /48 /49 /50 /23 /51 /50 /48 /46 /i255/52/50/51 /53 /28 /54 /37 /55 /38 /i255 /32 /39 /56 /i255 /57 /37 /37 /38 /44 /58/30/30 /38 /37 /i255 /59 /32 /31 /30 /60 /32 /39 /30 /i255/35/30/33 /41 /44/40/32/39 /61/32/33 /62 /32 /63 /33 /37 /i255 /32 /39 /56 /i255 /29 /43 /36 /32 /63 /33 /37 /i255 /42 /30/40/40/64/39 /43 /41 /43 /37 /44 /i255 /59 /39 /44 /41 /43 /41 /64 /41 /37 /42 /30 /39 /41 /38 /32 /i255 /42 /30 /44 /41 /32 /i255 /42 /30 /64 /39 /41 /65 /i255 /66 /37 /32 /33 /41 /55 /i255 /67 /37 /38 /36 /43 /31 /37 /44 /68/31/41 /30 /63 /37 /38 /i255 /69 /70 /71 /71
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /4 /3 /2 /i255 /i255 /7 /i255 /i255 /8 /9 /10 /9/11/12/9 /13 /i255 /14 /15 /14 /15 /16 /17 /18 /19 /20 /21 /i255 /16 /17 /23 /19 /21 /i255 /24 /20 /21 /18 /23 /25 /17 /20 /19 /21 /19 /26 /17 /18 /i255 /27 /28 /19 /29 /17 /20 /26 /19 /30

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
13 community engagement and demographic
analysis to identify issues, priorities,
and potential solutions for mobility.

Based on feedback from a Project
Working Group, the Richmond Area
CBTP selected four criteria for project
prioritization: community priorities,
increased access, financial feasibility,
and ease of implementation. Based on
these criteria, the CBTP outlines a set of
high need and high potential projects
and programs. While a collision analysis
was not central to the CBTP, results of
the robust community outreach process
centered largely on improving safety and
accessibility of the transportation network.

Priorities in Richmond included a focus
on ADA accessibility in North Richmond,
sidewalk gaps and arterial safety along
San Pablo Avenue, and arterial corridor
safety on MacDonald Avenue.

South Richmond Transportation
Connectivity Plan (SRTCP)
Focusing on key corridors in South
Richmond, the South Richmond
Transportation Connectivity Plan (2015)
identifies deficiencies in the existing
transportation system and provides
specific recommendations to improve
multimodal connectivity to and within
the area. Key objectives of the SRTCP
include connecting South Richmond
Neighborhoods to opportunities
for employment, education and
recreation on the South Shoreline
and connecting key opportunity sites
in South Richmond with major transit
hubs at Richmond and El Cerrito BART
stations and the WETA ferry terminal.

With a focus on connectivity, the SRTCP
proposes complete streets designs
for major corridors in South Richmond
including Harbour Way South, Marina
Way South, Hoffman Boulevard, Carlson
Boulevard, Central Avenue, and Bayview
Avenue. Multimodal safety was one of six
criteria to determine project and corridor
prioritization. Since the publication of the
SRTCP, the high priority Carlson Boulevard
Crosstown Connection project has been
implemented. The SRTCP also informed
the development of the more recent
Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete
Streets Plan, with multimodal investments
on Harbour Way designed and funded.
/i255 /i255
/i255
/1 /2 /3 /4 /i255 /6 /7 /i255 /8 /2 /1 /9/10/6/11 /12 /i255 /13 /14 /15 /16 /17 /i255 /8 /18 /19 /17/20/14/21 /22 /i255 /3 /23 /24 /21 /25 /26 /14 /23 /16 /24 /16 /18 /14 /21 /i255 /1 /14 /21 /21 /27 /19 /16 /18 /28 /18 /16 /29 /i255 /30 /31 /24 /21 /i255 /32 /13 /8 /3 /1 /30 /33 /i255 /12 /i255 /8 /i255 /34 /i255 /7 /i255 /3 /i255
/i255
/7 /27 /35 /23 /15 /24 /23 /29 /i255 /36 /37 /38 /39 /i255 /i255
/40 /41 /i255 /43 /44 /44 /45 /46 /40 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /48 /40 /47 /49 /50 /i255 /51/24/31 /31 /24 /19 /27 /i255 /8 /14 /35 /27 /23 /16 /25 /i255 /52 /i255 /3 /14 /22 /22 /i255 /7 /27 /17 /23 /i255 /52 /i255 /30 /27 /27 /23 /25 /i255 /53 /54 /7 /i255
/55 /49 /40 /44 /i255 /56 /57 /45 /58 /59 /46 /47 /i255 /40 /44 /i255 /60 /61 /41 /62 /59 /62 /i255 /40 /41 /i255 /56 /43 /57 /47 /i255 /63 /64 /i255 /43 /i255 /65 /57 /43 /41 /47 /i255 /47 /49 /57 /45 /61 /65 /49 /i255 /47 /49 /59 /i255 /66 /43 /67 /40 /60 /45 /57 /41 /40 /43 /i255 /68 /59 /56 /43 /57 /47 /69 /59 /41 /47 /i255 /45 /60 /i255 /55 /57 /43 /41 /44 /56 /45 /57 /47 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /70 /66 /43 /67 /47 /57 /43 /41 /44 /71 /i255 /66 /45 /69 /69 /61 /41 /40 /47 /64 /72 /73 /43 /44 /59 /62 /i255 /55 /57 /43 /41 /44 /56 /45 /57 /47 /43 /47 /40 /45 /41 /i255 /74 /67 /43 /41 /41 /40 /41 /65 /i255 /56 /57 /45 /65 /57 /43 /69 /75 /i255/i255

Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
14 Corridor and
Neighborhood Plans
The following corridor and area
plans expand on the goals from
the citywide plans and develop
more specific improvement
recommendations throughout the City.
23rd Street Streetscape
Improvement Plan
The 23rd Street Project Report (2009)
focuses on a one-mile stretch of 23rd
Street and 22nd Street within the City of
Richmond, between the Carlson Boulevard
over-crossing at the south to Costa Avenue
at the north and the stretch of 22nd Street
between the Carlson Boulevard over-
crossing at the south to the Brooks Avenue
crossover. The 23rd Street corridor hosts
a major commercial district and provides
a north-south arterial connection between
the Cities of Richmond and San Pablo
and Interstate 580. The recommended
improvements outlined in the report
aim to promote pedestrian and bicycle
safety along the corridor by reducing
the number of travel lanes, widening the
sidewalks, shortening crossing distances
for pedestrians, and improving overall
pedestrian and bicycle visibility.

Rumrill/13th Street
Complete Street Study
The Rumrill Boulevard and 13th Street
Complete Streets Study (2015) was
developed through an intensive
community-based design process focused
on transforming the street into a safe and
friendly place for people and business
by improving conditions for walking,
bicycling, and transit. Both the Cities of
San Pablo and Richmond and community
members of adjacent neighborhoods
identified Rumrill Boulevard/13th Street
as a corridor in need of a safety,
comfort, and placemaking vision for
the corridor. The Study documents the
identification of existing conditions,
alternatives development for corridor-
wide improvements, and a preferred
concept alternative for the community’s
complete streets vision for the corridor.

Y ellow Brick Road Iron Triangle
Walkable Neighborhood Plan
The Y ellow Brick Road Walkable
Neighborhoods Project (2015) addresses
key community-identified barriers, issues,
and opportunities in the community to
design and implement complete streets
improvements along roadways in the
community-identified Y ellow Brick Road
(YBR) network. The routes would connect
the key assets in the neighborhood,
including local elementary schools,
parks, and transit. The Y ellow Brick Road
concept was conceived by local youth
living in the Iron Triangle neighborhood to
safely link key areas in the neighborhood
through bright yellow brick patterns
on the sidewalks and roadways.

Richmond Wellness Trail Study
The 2016 Richmond Wellness Trail Vision
Plan provides a comprehensive plan for a
north-south corridor connecting existing
transit facilities and key destinations,
with the main spine along Marina Way
from the shoreline to Central Richmond.

The locations along the corridor include
the Bay Trail, Ferry Terminal, Greenway,
Walking the Iron T riangle: Y ellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhoods Project For the City of Richmond’s Yellow Brick Road Walkable Neighborhoods project, we worked collaboratively with Pogo Park to develop and implement an innovative and grassroots community engagement process. Using walk audits, we identified key issues, barriers, and opportunities in the study neighborhoods, such as missing or broken sidewalks, lack of signage, and the need for improved greenery to enhance the pedestrian experience. We later used the input to develop a 48-hour installation, which transformed the 7th Street/Elm Avenue neighborhood into a “living preview” with temporary striping, potted plants, totem pole art installations, and spray chalk to showcase community- driven ideas to improve the streetscape. The public outreach greatly informed the final recommendations included in our project plan.

Fehr & Peers develops strong client relationships by following our core values:

Understand the Issues
Our objective is to work with
Richmond, agency staff, and the
community to gain support for
solutions that can be implemented
within a specified timeline and
budget.

We will listen well to the
immediate needs and ask
questions when we need
clarification.

Develop Feasible Solutions
We understand that what works
in one community may not work
in another. We will work closely
with the City and local agencies to
develop innovative solutions for the
community’s unique needs.

Embrace Creative Solutions
FEHR & PEERS | TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS THAT IMPROVE COMMUNITIES 11 Y ellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan.

Source: Fehr & Peers.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
15 /0 /1 /2 /3/4/5/6 /7 /i255 /9 /1 /0 /10 /11 /i255/4/1/12 /13 /14 /12 /15 /10 /11 /i255/4/1/12 /13 /i255 /11 /0 /15 /6 /10 /16 /5 /0 /11 /15 /11 /1 /5 /6 /i255 /10 /11 /0 /15 /11 /13 /17 /1 /2 /i255 /16 /12 /15 /6 /i255 /18 /i255 /9 /1 /6 /15 /12 /i255 /0 /13 /16 /5 /0 /11 /i255 /19 /20 /21 /22 /i255 /24 /25 /i255 /26 /20 /27 /28 /29 /24 /30 /31 /32 /i255 /19 /33 /i255 /i255
/34 /35 /36 /37 /24 /30 /38 /34 /22 /39 /40 /40 /41 /31 /i255 /19 /24 /30 /37 /42 /36 /21 /20 /30 /39 /i255 /33 /37 /37 /24 /27 /20 /40 /21 /35 /37 /i255 /43 /30 /27 /44 /i255 /45 /i255 /20 /i255 /i255
/i255
/i255
/0 /47 /48 /49/50/51/52 /53 /i255 /9 /47 /54 /55 /56 /i255/4/47/57 /58 /14 /12 /59 /55 /56 /i255/4/47/57 /58 /i255 /11 /54 /59 /52 /55 /60 /51 /54 /56 /59 /56 /47 /51 /52 /i255 /10 /56 /54 /59 /56 /58 /61 /47 /48 /i255 /16 /57 /59 /52 /i255 /9 /47 /52 /59 /57 /i255 /0 /58 /60 /51 /54 /56 /i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/i255
/9 /58 /62 /54 /63 /59 /54 /64 /i255 /65 /66 /67 /68 /i255 /i255
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /3 /6 /i255 /8 /9 /10 /i255 /11 /12 /11 /8 /0 /1 /2 /3/4/5/6 /7 /i255/9/10/11 /11 /6 /10 /12 /12 /i255 /13 /14 /15 /1 /11 /i255 /16 /1 /12 /1 /5 /6 /i255 /17 /11 /15 /6
/18 /19 /20 /21/22/23/24 /25 /26 /i255/28/29
Marina Bay, Richmond BART Station
and Richmond Kaiser Permanente
Medical Center. Using the Pedestrian
Plan and Bicycle Master Plan as a
foundation, the plan proposes a series
of bicycle enhancements and pedestrian
amenities that work in tandem with
the city’s existing infrastructure.

First Mile/Last Mile
Transportation Strategic Plan
The 2017 Richmond First Mile/Last Mile
Transportation Strategic Plan provides
an assessment of existing conditions
and recommended projects addressing
first mile/last mile gaps to ultimately
connect the city’s varied transit services
and enhance its transportation network.

The plan identifies barriers in bicycle,
pedestrian and transit networks leading
up to the Richmond Ferry Terminal and
the Richmond BART Station. With a set of
prioritization criteria that include safety
based on collision history, the study
recommends ten priority projects that will
help to facilitate easy, safe, and efficient
access to Richmond’s transit hubs.

Harbour Way Complete Streets
A concept for a two-way separated cycle
track and pedestrian improvements
was first developed in 2018 as part of a
California Active Transportation Program
grant application. Since then, the concept
has been expanded and updated as part of
the Ferry to Bridge to Greenway Complete
Streets Plan. Now, a quick-build design
for the Complete Streets improvements
on Harbour Way from the ferry terminal
to Hoffman Boulevard is funded and
will be constructed in 2021 along with
a coordinated complete streets project
on Hoffman and Cutting Boulevards.

Ferry to Bridge to Greenway
Complete Streets Plan
The Richmond Ferry to Bridge to
Greenway Complete Streets Plan
(F2B2G Plan, 2020) envisions valuable
connections for walking and bicycling to
and between the Richmond Ferry, the
Richmond-San Rafael Bridge Trail, and the
Richmond Greenway. The F2B2G Plan,
when implemented, will provide a balance
of permanent regional connections and
local safety improvements for people
of all ages and abilities, including those
in disadvantaged and traditionally
underserved areas of the City including
the Marina Bay, Santa Fe, Iron Triangle,
and Point Richmond neighborhoods.

Chapter 4: Existing Efforts
16 BART Walk and Bicycle
Network Gap Study
The BART Walk and Bicycle Network
Gap Study (2020) evaluated potential
improvements to the pedestrian network
within a half-mile of 17 focus stations. The
study summarizes outcomes and near- to
mid-term recommendations from a series
of stakeholder walk audits that took
place over three years. For the Richmond
BART station, recommendations include
improvements on Nevin Avenue to the
west of the station, safety upgrades at
Barrett Avenue and Marina Way, safer
crossings and bike lane gap closures
on Barrett Avenue, and pedestrian
improvements along 19th Street between
Macdonald and Barrett Avenues.

Engagement
The City of Richmond is currently
conducting a citywide planning and
engagement effort called Travel Safe
Richmond. The goal of TSR is to create
unified policies and infrastructure
recommendations for improving roadway
conditions and safety throughout the
City of Richmond for all users: people
walking, biking, rolling, and driving. Travel
Safe Richmond includes two concurrent
planning efforts: this Local Roadway Safety
Plan (LRSP) and a separate Bicycle and
Pedestrian Action Plan. Input from City
stakeholders and community members
is a critical component of both planning
efforts. A community workshop was
hosted by the City on December 8, 2021,
to share information with the public
about Travel Safe Richmond and gather
feedback on where the City should
make infrastructure improvements. Two
workshops scheduled for spring 2022
will provide additional opportunities
for information sharing and feedback
while a project website and interactive
map allow for ongoing solicitation of
comments from the Richmond community.

Virtual Community Open House
Travel Safe Richmond
Richmond’s approach to improve roadway
safety and make it easier to walk and bike
WE NEED YOUR INPUT!
Please join us for a community
open house and share your
thoughts and concerns about
roadway safety in Richmond.

Date:

Wednesday December 8, 2021
Time:
5:30 - 7:00 PM
Location: Virtual Zoom Meeting
Visit TravelSafeRichmond.org and click on
the “Events” tab to access
the direct link to the meeting
Contact:

Lydia Elias
Planner, Planning and Building Services
[email protected]
/0 /1 /2 /3 /4 /5 /i255 /7 /2 /8 /4 /i255 /9 /10 /11 /12/13/14/15 /16 /i255
/1 /2 /3 /4 /i255/5/6/7 /8 /i255 /6 /9 /10 /i255 /1 /11 /12 /13 /12 /7 /14 /i255 /15 /14 /16 /17 /18 /19 /8 /i255 /20 /6 /21 /i255 /22 /16 /23 /10 /13 /i255
/i255
/25 /26 /27 /28 /i255 /29 /30 /29 /30 /i255
/i255
/32/33 /22 /32/15/i255/34/i255/35/32 /4/36/15/33/37/i255 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /27 /41 /42 /43 /39 /44 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /46 /i255 /47 /27 /48 /45 /39 /43 /27/49/28/27 /44 /40 /50 /i255 /51 /i255 /52 /39 /53 /40 /27 /i255 /54 /50 /40 /27 /27 /45 /27 /55/i255/i255/i255/40 /27 /56 /i255 /i255
/45 /27 /i255 /40 /41 /41 /43 /57 /45 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /i255 /58 /45 /44 /59 /i255 /54 /40 /39 /45 /41 /45 /i255 /38 /39 /40 /27 /41 /42 /43 /39 /44 /40 /44 /45 /43 /27 /i255 /60 /43 /27 /41 /26 /50 /44 /45 /27 /55

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
17 Enforcement
Since 2020, the Richmond Police
Department has leveraged one or more
Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grants per
year to bolster its capacity to enforce
traffic policies. Grants have primarily
focused on addressing driving under the
influence, but also address traffic safety
issues such as distracted driving and
bicycle and pedestrian safety enforcement
operations. The City’s Engineering and
Capital Improvement Projects department
is charge with conducting speed surveys
and performs or manages updated studies
on an approximately 5-year cycle. Speed
surveys inform ongoing programmatic and
infrastructure improvements throughout
the City. These and other City of Richmond
departments collaborate on planning and
engineering efforts to mitigate persistent
hazards in the public right-of-way and seek
to reduce the occurrence of sideshows
and other unsafe driving practices.

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
18 This broad collision
assessment for the City
of Richmond will inform
the project prioritization
and countermeasures
for the City

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
19 Safety Analysis
Chapter 5
The City investigated collision records
on local roadways and expressways
from 2015-2019 to describe historic
collision trends and identify high-risk
locations. This information acts as a
primary resource for the Richmond
LRSP, providing the underlying
data to support key analyses.

The data-driven process included:
• Collision Trends: Review of
collision statistics to evaluate
when, where, and why collisions
occur and who is involved.
• High Injury Network: Identification
of corridors with the highest
concentrations of fatal and
serious injury collisions.
• Collision Profiles: Combination
of collision factors to identify 8
prevalent collision types.
• Countermeasure Toolbox: Identification
of effective, nationally proven
countermeasures applicable to different
collision profiles (see Chapter 6).
• Priority Project Locations: Identification
of 4 priority project locations based
on collision density and community
verification (see Chapter 7).

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
20 Caltrans’ Local Roadway
Safety Manual (LRSM)
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ LRSM states
that safety practitioners should
“consider a wide range of data
sources to get an overall picture
of the safety needs” (p. 14).

Both collision data and contextual
data were collected and analyzed
as part of this plan.

Note: Collision data for 2018 and
2019 was considered provisional
and subject to change at the time
this analysis was conducted.

Collision Analysis Summary
Chapter 2 of Caltrans’ Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) instructs safety practitioners to “consider a wide range of data sources to get an overall picture of the safety needs.” Crash data and contextual data were collected and analyzed as part of this LRSP, as well as anecdotal input from City staff and community stakeholders. This analysis considers injury collisions from 2015 through 2019 available through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS) as of April 2021.TIMS reports injury collisions from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS).

Collision databases have been found to
have certain reporting biases, including:
• Collisions involving people walking,
on bicycles, or on motorcycles
are less likely to be reported than
collisions involving people driving
• Property damage collisions are less
likely to be reported compared
to more severe collisions
• Y ounger victims are less
likely to report collisions
• Alcohol-involved collisions
may be under-reported
Race, income, immigration status,
and English proficiency may also
impact reporting, but there is limited
research on these factors. With
those caveats in mind, this analysis
identified several collision trends and
risk factors in Richmond, including:
• People walking and biking
are more likely to be fatally or
severely injured in a collision
• Unsafe speed is the most
frequent factor listed for fatal
and severe collisions
• Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
that a collision will be more severe
• A large share of injuries to
people walking occur when
people are walking in the road
or crossing not in a crosswalk
• A larger share of collisions where
someone was killed or severely injured
(KSI collisions) occurred at night

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
21 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Collisions by Y ear and Mode
Table 1 provides a summary of collisions
by mode and severity within the 5-year
dataset. From 2015 to 2019, there were
1,670 total injury collisions, and 142
collisions where victims were killed
or severely injured (KSI). On average,
six people were killed each year in
Richmond due to traffic collisions.

People walking and biking are involved
in 20 percent of all injury collisions, but
39 percent of KSI collisions. People
walking are particularly over-represented
in KSI collisions, as they are involved in
only 13 percent of all injury collisions,
but 30 percent of KSI collisions.

The number of collisions for each year
by mode is shown on Figure 3. The
number of collisions per year is on an
overall upward trend through 2019.

This is in line with national trends of
increasing traffic injuries and fatalities.

Collision Type
The three most common collision types
in Richmond are Broadside (39%), Rear
End (17%), and Vehicle/Pedestrian (12%),
as shown in Figure 4. For KSI collisions,
Vehicle/Pedestrian collisions are most
common (28%), followed closely by
Broadside collisions (27%), and with Hit
Object and Head-On collisions being tied
for third-most common (13%). This further
illustrates the disproportionate share
pedestrians make of KSI collisions in the
City. It also shows that Hit Object collisions
are more likely, compared to other collision
types, to result in a fatality or severe injury.

Table 1. Collision Summary
INJURY COLLISIONS (CITY OF RICHMOND, 2015-2019)
Vehicle-Only
Bicycle-
Involved
Pedestrian-
Involved Total
Total 1,342 115* 216* 1,670
Fatal or Severe 87 12 43 142
* Three non-severe injury collisions involved both a bicyclist and a pedestrian.

Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Number
of Injury
Collisions
Figure 3. Injury Collisions by Y ear and Mode (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Figure 4. Injury Collisions by Collision Type (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Broadside Rear
End
Vehicle/
Pedestrian
Head-
On
Sideswipe Hit
Object
Not
Stated
Overturned Other
Killed or
Severely
Injured in a Collision
Severe injuries resulting
from a traffic collision
can result in a number
of catastrophic impacts,
including permanent
disability, lost productivity
and wages, and ongoing
healthcare costs.

Throughout this plan, the
acronym KSI is used to
denote collisions where
someone was killed
or severely injured.
500
400
300
200
100
0 Vehicle Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Bicycle Collisions

Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
22 25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
100%
50%
0%
Primary Collision
Factor (PCF)
A primary collision factor (PCF) is the
one element or driving action which, in
an investigating officer's opinion, best
describes the primary or main cause
of a collision. In Richmond, the most
common PCFs are Vehicle Right of Way
Violation (23%), Unsafe Speed (18%),
and Traffic Signals and Signs (16%).

For KSI collisions, the most common
PCFs are Unsafe Speed (20%), Traffic
Signals and Signs (15%), and Pedestrian
Violation (13%). Figure 5 compares the
cited primary collision factors for all
injury collisions versus KSI collisions.

The Pedestrian Violation PCF indicates
that the pedestrian violated a rule of
the road, such as crossing outside of a
crosswalk, as opposed to the Pedestrian
Right of Way Violation PCF, where the
vehicle violates the pedestrian’s right of
way. The Pedestrian Violation category
overrepresentation in the data may be
reflective of lack of clear information
related to collision circumstances.

Driving Under the Influence
Drugs or alcohol increase the likelihood
that a collision will be more severe in
Richmond. While 10 percent of all injury
collisions involve drugs or alcohol, 25
percent of KSI collisions and 35 percent of
KSI pedestrian-involved collisions involve
drugs or alcohol, as shown in Figure 6.

These percentages reflect the portion of
collisions involving one or more parties
determined to be under the influence
of drugs or alcohol. Driving under the
Vehicle
Right of Way
Violation
Unsafe
Speed
Traffic
Signals and
Signs
Improper
Turning
Driving or
Bicycling
Under...

Pedestrian
Right
of Way
Violation
Wrong
Side of
Road
Following
Too Closely
Pedestrian
Violation
Unknown Other
Violation
All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Figure 5. Injury Collisions by Primary Collision Factor (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

Figure 6. Collisions Involving Drug or Alcohol Impairment (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021.

All Injury Collisions Pedestrian-
Involved Injury
Collisions
KSI - All Collisions KSI - Pedestrian
Collisions
No Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved or Unknown
Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved (Non-Driver)
Drug or Alcohol Impairment Involved (Driver)

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
23 Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. influence may not always be listed as the
primary collision factor even if a driver
is found to be under the influence.

Pedestrian Location
As shown in Figure 7, collisions with
people walking frequently involved
pedestrians crossing not in a crosswalk
(31%), or walking in the road, including
the shoulder (19%). For KSI collisions,
pedestrians crossing not in a crosswalk
are an even higher percentage (37%),
again followed by pedestrians in the
road, including the shoulder (29%).

People crossing the street outside of
crosswalks and walking in the road
may indicate that there are unmet
pedestrian desire lines, and could be
evaluated to identify potential locations
for new crosswalks and sidewalks.

Lighting Conditions
A larger share of KSI collisions occur at
night. Collisions between 6PM and 6AM
are 37 percent of all injury collisions, but
54 percent of KSI collisions. Nighttime
crashes also disproportionately affect
people walking, with 47 percent of
pedestrian injury collisions occurring
between 6PM and 6AM. Figure
8 shows the distribution of injury
collisions by mode and time of day.

Nighttime collisions are
more likely than daytime
collisions to result in a
fatality or severe injury.

Figure 7. Pedestrian Actions Preceding Injury Collisions (City of Richmond, 2015-2019)
Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
All Injury Collisions
KSI Collisions
Crossing in
crosswalk at
intersection
Crossing not in
crosswalk
In Road,
Including
Shoulder
Not in Road Crossing in
Crosswalk Not
at Intersection
Figure 8. Injury Collisions by Time of Day and Mode (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
12AM -
3AM
3AM -
6AM
6AM -
9AM
9AM -
12PM
12PM -
3PM
3PM -
6PM
6PM -
9PM
9PM -
12PM
All Injury Collisions
Pedestrian Collisions
Bike Collisions

Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
24 Victim Profile
Fatal and severe collisions are
disproportionately affecting young adults
(ages 15-34). People between the ages
of 15 and 34 are 30 percent of the City’s
population but represent 44 percent
of all injury crashes and 46 percent of
KSI crashes. The age distribution of
collision victims is shown on Figure 9.

Vulnerable age groups (under 15
years old and 65 or older) have not
experienced a disproportionate share
of crashes in Richmond. People under
the age of 15 are 18 percent of the City’s
population but represent less than
10 percent of all injury and KSI injury
crashes. People 65 years and older
are 13 percent of the City’s population
but represent 7 percent of all injury
crashes and 9 percent of KSI crashes.

Compared to other age groups, young
adults (15-34) are more likely to be
involved in collisions with driving under
the influence cited as the primary collision
factor. The 25-34 age group has the
highest percentage of collisions involving
unsafe speed as a primary collision
factor. Figure 10 shows the distribution
of five common primary collision factor
violations across all age groups.

Figure 9. Collision Victim Age Distribution (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Under 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
All Victims
KSI Victims
Total Population
(Richmond)
Figure 10. Primary Collision Factors by Age Group (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Under 15 15 - 24 25 - 34 35 - 44 45 - 54 55 - 64 65+
Unsafe Speed
Driving or Bicycling Under the
Influence of Alcohol or Drug
Traffic Signals and Signs
Vehicle Right of Way Violations
Pedestrian Violation

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
25 As shown in Figure 11, people identified
as Black or “Other” race are over-
represented in crashes. It is important
to note that race is determined at the
discretion of the reporting officer and is
only reported at the party level. If people
of multiple races are present in a vehicle,
only the driver’s race will be reported.

People identified as Black represent 32
percent of victims, but only 20 percent of
the population of Richmond. As noted at
the beginning of this chapter, race, income,
immigration status, and English proficiency
may impact collision reporting, but there
is limited research on these factors.

Figure 11. Collision Victim Race Distribution (City of Richmond, 2015-2019) Source: American Community Survey 5-Y ear Estimates (2015-2019), Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), 2015-2019; Fehr & Peers, 2021. 45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
All Victims
KSI Victims
Total Population (Richmond)
Asian Black Hispanic White Other

Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
26 Systemic Analysis
Systemic analysis is a proactive
safety approach that focuses on
evaluating an entire roadway network
using a defined set of criteria. It
looks at collision history on an
aggregate basis to identify high-risk
roadway characteristics in addition
to looking at high collision locations.

By merging adjacent road and
intersection features with collision
data, relationships can be uncovered
between contextual factors and
the risk of frequent and severe
collisions. This systemic process
relied on mapping all Richmond
collisions, identifying the City’s
High-Injury Network, and identifying
key safety issues and locations.

High-Injury Network
The City developed a High Injury Network
(HIN) which identifies the corridors with the
highest levels of fatal and serious crashes
for pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists.

There are 257 total roadway miles in
the City of Richmond, but KSI crashes
do not occur on the majority of those
roads. By developing the HIN, the City
is able to focus safety improvements on
priority corridors where the most serious
crashes happen with the most frequency.

Richmond’s HIN accounts for 63% of
all crashes and 74% of KSI crashes,
which occur on just eight percent (22
miles) of Richmond’s roadway network.

When looking at mode-specific HINs,
the motor vehicle specific HIN is shown
to cover eight percent of Richmond’s
roadway network, while the pedestrian-
and bicycle-specific HINs have an even
smaller footprint and cover a mere five
percent of the City’s roadway network.

The HIN map at right shows the the City's
HIN for all modes combined and indicates
where mode-specific pedestrian, bicycle,
and vehicle HIN deviate from the all-
modes network. Separate mode-specific
HIN maps are included in Appendix A.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
27 High Injury Network
·123
%&580
!"80
Hilltop Dr
Richmond Pkwy
Cutting Blvd
Robert Miller Dr
Rheem Ave
Klose Way
Garvin Ave
Barrett Ave
7th St
23rd St
Harbour Way S
Marina Way S
22nd St
San Pablo Ave
26th St
MacDonald Ave
13th St
Carlson Blvd
Lincoln Ave
Roosevelt Ave
Harbour Way
San Pablo Dam Rd
0 0.5 1 1.5 20.3
Miles
High Injury Network
Multimodal
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained
facilities
Multimodal
Multimodal High
Injury Network
Corridor opportunities on
non-city maintained facilities
·123
%&580
!"80
Cutting Blvd
San Pablo Ave
Barrett Ave
Rheem Ave
Blume Dr
23rd St
Hilltop Dr
7th St
MacDonald Ave
Harbour Way
Ohio Ave
Roosevelt Ave
21st St
Atlas Rd
Richmond Pkwy
High Injury Network
Figure 5High Injury Network
Multimodal
Pedestrian
Corridor opportunities on
non-city-maintained facilities
0 0.7 1.3 20.3
Miles
Multimodal High
Injury Network
63% of all crashes occur
on the City’s multimodal
High Injury Network, which
accounts for just 8% of
Richmond’s roadways

Chapter 5: Safety Analysis
28 Collision Typing
In developing systemic analysis, it is
important to understand the relationship
between collision characteristics and the
contextual characteristics of the collision
location. A systemic matrix was developed
to identify the number of collisions for
a given collision characteristic (e.g.
location of pedestrian) and a contextual
characteristic (e.g. posted speed limit
of the roadway). Each combination of a
collision characteristic and a contextual
characteristic represents a collision type.

The highest occurring collision types and
collision types with the largest share of
severe collisions were considered for
further study. This process evaluates
risk across the entire roadway system,
rather than only managing risk at certain
locations where collisions have occurred.

From these matrices, the most frequent
and most severe collision types across
a broad range of roadway and land use
contexts within Richmond were identified.

Collision Profiles
The collision typing and stakeholder
and community feedback informed the
development of eight main collision
profiles. These collision profiles are
listed below, with an explanation of
what makes each a key safety issue.

Unsafe speeds
These collisions occur when vehicles are
traveling at speeds above the posted
speed limit or above an appropriate
speed given environmental conditions.

Traveling at an unsafe speed reduces the
time available for drivers or other roadway
users to maneuver and avoid a collision
and increases the physical consequences
of a collision. This is the top violation for
citywide vehicle-only KSI collisions and
is involved in mid-block collisions with a
fixed object and non-severe rear ends
at or near intersections. Unsafe speeds
are implicated in 25% of pedestrian
and 26% of vehicle KSI collisions.

Driving under the influence
When the driver of a vehicle is under the
influence of alcohol or drugs they may
have impaired judgment, elicit erratic
driving behavior, and exhibit increased
response times to the unexpected
presence of other roadway users or
hazards. Many collisions where someone is
driving under the influence include hitting
fixed objects or parked cars and driving the
wrong way and often result in a fatality or
severe injury. Driving under the influence
is implicated in 16% of pedestrian and 14%
of vehicle KSI collisions in Richmond.

Collisions Involving the
15-24 Age Group
Y oung adult victims, aged 15 to 24 years
old, are the most overrepresented age
group in Richmond KSI collisions. This
age group is more likely to be involved
in collisions involving vehicle right-of-
way violations and driving under the
influence. Highlighted in stakeholder
outreach as a key demographic to
consider in LRSP development, this age
group is involved in 19% of pedestrian
and 23% of vehicle collisions (as drivers
and passengers), respectively, but
represent only 13% of the population.

Stop Sign Violations at Stop-
Controlled Intersections
These violations occur when one party
fails to stop at an all-way or two-way stop-
controlled intersection. This violation is
implicated in 37% of all injury collisions but
42% of KSI collisions indicating collisions
resulting from this violation tend to be
more severe than those occurring at
other intersection types in Richmond. By
mode, this violation is implicated in 13%
of all bicycle collisions and 14% of vehicle
collisions. Furthermore, all violations in
which a driver failed to yield at a stop
sign resulting in a KSI collision occurred
near a school. Six out of seven of the
KSI collisions with this violation occurred
at side street stop intersections.

Left Turns at Signalized
Intersection
This collision occurs when left-turning
vehicles strike pedestrians or other
vehicles at signalized intersections. The
collision often occurs where a driver fails
to observe a pedestrian crossing parallel
to the vehicle’s initial position when the
driver initiates a left turn during the green
signal phase. This action is implicated
in 11% of all pedestrian collisions and 7%
of vehicle KSI collisions in Richmond.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
29 Pedestrian ROW Violations
at Uncontrolled Crossings
This collision occurs when a driver
violates the pedestrian right-of-way at
uncontrolled crossings such as at two-
way stop-controlled intersections and
mid-block crossings. This is the top
violation for pedestrian-involved injury
collisions, implicated in 21% of pedestrian
KSI collisions. Of these violations, 44%
occurred at nighttime and all took
place on multilane roadways (with more
than one lane in each direction).

Pedestrians Crossing Outside
Crosswalk or Legal Crossings
This violation occurs where pedestrians
cross outside a marked crosswalk or legal
crossing. A legal crossing may include
both marked and unmarked crosswalks
at intersections and marked mid-block
locations. This violation accounts for
approximately 16% of pedestrian KSI
collisions with the majority of these
violations (71%) occurring midblock
where pedestrians are crossing outside
of a crosswalk or else walking in the
roadway, including the shoulder.

Contraflow Bike Riding
This violation occurs where bicyclists travel
in the opposite direction of vehicle traffic,
either in the roadway or on a sidewalk,
often where there are no dedicated
bicycle facilities. This violation presents
safety concerns because motorists do not
anticipate seeing or yielding to bicyclists
traveling against traffic which leaves
both parties susceptible to collisions, for
example when a driver is pulling out of a
driveway. Furthermore, when contraflow
riding leads a cyclist to travel toward
rather than away from a vehicle or other
bike moving with traffic, the gap between
parties closes more quickly leaving
less time for maneuvering and collision
avoidance. This is a top violation for bicycle
collisions implicated in 17% of bicycle
KSI collisions, occurring most often on
roadways with a speed limit of 30-35 mph
and that lack dedicated bicycle facilities.

Chapter 2: Vision and Goals
30 This plan’s focus on the Safe
System approach helps to
provide alignment with current
LRSP guidelines, but also
sets the City of Richmond up
for success in recognition of
emerging safety best practices

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
31 Countermeasure Toolbox
Chapter 6
The full set of countermeasures
recommended for implementation in
Richmond are listed on the following
pages categorized by focus area.

The toolbox containing detailed
descriptions of each countermeasure
along with relevant cost and
implementation characteristics
is included in Appendix B. Note,
approximate countermeasure
costs are categorized as low
($10,000), medium ($10,000-
100,000), and high (greater than
$100,000) for general planning
purposes. Additional considerations
for equitable implementation
of these countermeasures are
noted throughout the chapter.

W
YO

HERE ARE
ONTHE
SAFE S
U
YSTEMJOURNEY ?
Implementing the Safe System approach is our shared responsibility, and we all have a role. It requires shifting how we think about transportation safety and how we prioritize our transportation investments. Consider applying a Safe System lens to upcoming projects and plans in your community: put safety at the forefront and design to accommodate human mistakes and injury tolerances. Visit safety.fhwa.dot.gov/zerodeaths to learn more.

Making a commitment to zero deaths means addressing every aspect of crash risks through the five elements of a Safe System, shown below. These layers of protection and shared responsibility promote a holistic approach to safety across the entire transportation system. The key focus of the Safe System approach is to reduce death and serious injuries through design that accommodates human mistakes and injury tolerances.

The Safe System
approach addresses
the safety of all road
users, including
those who walk,
bike, drive, ride
transit, and travel by
other modes.

Vehicles are
designed and
regulated to
minimize the
occurrence and
severity of collisions
using safety
measures that
incorporate the
latest technology.

Humans are unlikely
to survive high-speed
crashes. Reducing
speeds can
accommodate human
injury tolerances in
three ways: reducing
impact forces,
providing additional
time for drivers to
stop, and improving
visibility.

Designing to
accommodate human
mistakes and injury
tolerances can greatly
reduce the severity of
crashes that do occur.

Examples include
physically separating
people traveling at
different speeds,
providing dedicated
times for different
users to move through
a space, and alerting
users to hazards and
other road users.

When a person is
injured in a collision,
they rely on
emergency first
responders to quickly
locate them, stabilize
their injury, and
transport them to
medical facilities.

Post-crash care also
includes forensic
analysis at the crash
site, traffic incident
management, and
other activities.

Safe Road
Users
Safe
Vehicles
Safe
Speeds
Safe
Roads
Post-Crash
Care
THE SAFE SYSTEM APPROACH VS. TRADITIONAL ROAD SAFETY PRACTICES Traditional
Prevent crashes
Safe System
Prevent deaths and serious injuries
Improve human behavior Design for human mistakes/limitations Control speeding Reduce system kinetic energy
Individuals are responsible Share responsibility
React based on crash history Proactively identify and address risks Whereas traditional road safety
strives to modify human behavior
and prevent all crashes, the Safe
System approach also refocuses
transportation system design and
operation on anticipating human
mistakes and lessening impact
forces to reduce crash severity
and save lives.

SAFE SYSTEM ELEMENTS Figure 12. Safe
System Elements
Source: Fehr & Peers for FHWA
The safety strategies in this chapter
also cover the five elements of a Safe
System, as shown in Figure 12.

California is in the process of adopting
the Safe System approach and a
focus on equity as part of its Strategic
Highway Safety Plan. This plan’s focus
on the Safe System approach helps to
provide alignment with current LRSP
guidelines, but also sets the City of
Richmond up for success in recognition
of emerging safety best practices.

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
32 Summary of
Countermeasures
Indicates a countermeasure identified
in the Local Road Safety Manual
Bikeways
• Bicycle Crossing (Solid Green Paint)
• Bicycle Ramp
• Bicycle Signal/Exclusive Bike Phase
• Bike Box
• Bike Detection
• Class II Bike Lane
• Extended Bike Lane to Intersection
• Floating Transit Island
• Green Conflict Striping
• Class IV Separated Bikeway
• Mixing Zone
• Parking Buffer
• Two-State Turn Queue Bike Box
• Extend Green Time for Bikes
• Bicycles May Use Full Lane Sign
Intersections & Roadways
• Rumble Strips
• All-Way Stop Control
• Centerline Hardening
• Close Slip Lane
• Directional Median Openings
to Restrict Left Turns
• Guardrail
• Median Barrier
• Roundabout
• Signal
• Intersection Reconstruction
and Tightening
• Lane Narrowing
• Left Turn Enhanced Daylighting/
Slow Turn Wedge
• Paint and Plastic Median
• Paint and Plastic Mini Circle
• Partial Closure/Diverter
• Protected Intersection
• Raised Crosswalk
• Raised Intersection
• Raised Median
• Refuge Island
• Reduced Left-Turn Conflict Intersection
• Road Diet
• Speed Hump or Speed Table
• Splitter Island
• Straighten Crosswalk
Other
• Access Management/Close Driveway
• Intersection Lighting
• Segment Lighting
• Curbside Management
• Far-Side Bus Stop
• Delineators, Reflectors, and/
or Object Markers
• Median Guardrail
• Speed Limit Reduction
• Relocate Hazardous Utility Poles
• Remove Obstructions For Sightlines
• Upgrade Lighting to LED
• Red Light Camera

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
33 Pedestrian Facilities
• Audible Push Button Upgrade
• Add Sidewalk
• Install/Upgrade Pedestrian
Crossing at Uncontrolled Locations
(Signs and Markings Only)
• Co-Locate Bus Stops and
Pedestrian Crossings
• Curb Extensions
• Extended Time Pushbutton
• High-Visibility Crosswalk
• Pedestrian Countdown Timer
• Pedestrian Hybrid Beacon
• Landscape Buffer
• Leading Pedestrian Interval
and Pedestrian Recall
• Pedestrian Detection
• Removing Crossing Prohibition
• Restripe Crosswalk
• Upgrade Curb Ramp
• Widen Sidewalk
• Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacon
Signals
• Retroreflective Tape on Signals
• Supplemental Signal Heads
• Advanced Dilemma Zone Detection
• Extend Pedestrian Crossing Time
• Extend Y ellow and All Red Time
• Flashing Y ellow Turn Phase
• Pedestrian Scramble
• Prohibit Left Turn
• Prohibit Turns During Pedestrian Phase
• Protected Left Turns
• Prohibit Right-Turn-on-Red
• Separate Right-Turn Phasing
• Shorten Cycle Length
• Signal Interconnectivity and
Coordination / Green Wave
• Speed Sensitive Rest in Red Signal
• Upgrade Signal Head
Signing & Striping
• Advance Stop Bar
• Advance Yield Markings
• Flashing Beacon as Advance Warning
• LED-Enhanced Sign
• Painted Centerline and Raised
Pavement Markers at Curves
on Residential Streets
• Speed Feedback Sign
• Speed Legends on Pavement
at Neighborhood Entries
• Striping Through Intersection
• Time-Based Turn Restriction
• Upgrade Intersection
Pavement Markings
• Upgrade Signs with
Fluorescent Sheeting
• Upgrade Striping
• Upgrade to Larger Warning Signs
• Wayfinding
• Yield to Pedestrian Sign

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
34 Engineering
Crosswalk Policy Best Practices
Uncontrolled pedestrian crossings occur
where sidewalks or designated walkways
intersect a roadway at a location where
no traffic control (e.g., traffic signal or
stop sign) exists. This crossing type
occurs at intersections (marked or
unmarked) and at mid-block locations
Figure 13. Application of Pedestrian Crash Countermeasures by Roadway Features Source: FHWA
(where they must be marked). Research
has demonstrated the importance of
marking uncontrolled crossings to
facilitate access to key destinations
while ensuring that additional safety
treatments are applied at these locations
if they have higher traffic speeds and
volumes. The FHWA Guide for Improving
Pedestrian Safety at Uncontrolled Crossing
Locations proposes countermeasures
based on road conditions, crash
causes, and pedestrian safety issues.

Figure 13 summarizes recommendations
from the guide, includes a comprehensive
matrix and list of FHWA-approved
pedestrian crash countermeasures
suggested for application at
uncontrolled crossing locations per
roadway and traffic features.

Signifies that the countermeasure is a candidate treatment at a marked uncontrolled crossing location. The absence of a number (#) signifies that the countermeasure is
generally not an appropriate treatment, but exceptions
may be considered following engineering judgment.

Signifies that the countermeasure should
always be considered, but not mandated or
required, based upon engineering judgment at
a marked uncontrolled crossing location.
#

POSTED SPEED LIMIT AND AADT
Vehicle AADT
<9,000
Vehicle AADT
9,000-15,000
Vehicle AADT
>15,000
Roadway Configuration ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph ≤30 mph 35mph ≥40mph 2 lanes
1 lane in each direction
1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes

WITH RAISED MEDIAN
1 lane in each direction
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 5 5
7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 9
3 lanes

WITHOUT RAISED MEDIAN
1 lane in each direction with a two-way left-turn
lane
1 2 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
4 5 6 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 4 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 9 7 9 9 7 9 7 9 9 7 9 9 9
4+ lanes

WITH RAISED MEDIAN
2 or more lanes in each direction
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
4+ lanes

WITHOUT RAISED MEDIAN
2 or more lanes in each direction
1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 3
5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6
7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 8 9
Signifies that crosswalk visibility enhancements
should always occur in conjunction with
other identified countermeasures.

Key
1 High-visibility crosswalk
markings, parking
restrictions on crosswalk
approach, adequate
nighttime lighting levels,
and crossing warning signs
2 Raised crosswalk
3 Advance “Yield Here
To (Stop Here For)
Pedestrians” sign and
yield (stop) line
4 In-street pedestrian
crossing sign
5 Curb extension
6 Pedestrian refuge island
7 Rectangular rapid-
flashing beacon (RRFB)*
8 Road diet
9 Pedestrian hybrid
beacon (PHB)*
*It should be noted that
the PHB and RRFB are
not both installed at the
same crossing location

ENGINEERING

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
35 Demand Considerations
for Crosswalks
Uncontrolled and mid-block crossings
should be identified as a candidate for
marking if there is a demonstrated need
for a crosswalk. Figure 14 provides a
protocol for deciding if a crosswalk is
appropriate. Engineering judgment should
ultimately be used to select locations
appropriate for a marked, uncontrolled
crossing. Enhanced treatments beyond
basic striping and signing should be
considered for uncontrolled locations,
as shown on the facing page.

OR
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

FEASIBLE
OR
25 20 pedestrians per hour
cross (in any two hours,
not necessarily
consecutive)
Location connects two
pedestrian generators such
as a school, park, bus stop,
hospital, neighborhood
serving commercial center,
or multi-family residential
Insufficient need to justify
marked crossing
Nearest appropriately
marked or protected
crosswalk is at least
300 /f_t or more away
Low speed (posted or
prima facie 25 MPH),
2-lane roadway
Direct pedestrians to the
nearest marked or
protected crossing
Pedestrians can be easily
seen from a feasible
stopping sight distance
It is feasible to remove
sight obstruction or lower
the speed limit
Consider installing a stop
sign, signal, or grade
separation
Use Crossing Guidance to
determine treatment
options
Should a crosswalk be installed?
Figure 14. Samples of Decision Tree for Marking Crosswalks Source: Fehr & Peers

ENGINEERING

Chapter 6: Countermeasure Toolbox
36 ENGINEERING Crosswalk Markings
Crosswalk markings help drivers know
where to expect pedestrians and provide
guidance for pedestrians crossing the
roadway by defining and delineating
paths on approaches to uncontrolled
and mid-block locations. The use of high
visibility striping is appropriate at both
uncontrolled crossing locations, and
signalized locations as traffic volumes,
speeds, and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts
require. There are several treatments
for high visibility markings, including the
continental and triple-four (also called
double continental) markings, shown in
Figure 15. The City of Richmond should
choose a preferred style to use, so it is
Triple-FourContinentalStandard
consistently applied. The City may also
want to adopt a policy of using high
visibility markings at all marked crosswalks
when intersection upgrades occur.

Continental striping is often chosen to
communicate sensitive pedestrian crossing
areas as the designated high visibility
tool. Research shows that continental
crosswalk markings are more visible
to drivers at night than parallel line
markings.
9 Crosswalks with longitudinal
lines parallel to traffic flow allow drivers
to see the marked crosswalk from a
greater distance, when compared with
standard markings. This increased visibility
distance gives drivers more time to safely
stop for a pedestrian waiting to cross.

Additional Resources
9 Fitzpatrick, K., S. Chrysler, V. Iragavarapu, and
E.S. Park. Detection Distances to Crosswalk
Markings: Transverse Lines, Continental Markings,
and Bar Pairs. Transportation Research Record:

Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2250. Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, DC, 2011.

Figure 15. Crosswalk
Marking Examples
Source: Fehr & Peers
Triple-four markings include two
dashed lines on the outside with
a clear space in the center to
direct pedestrian traffic and are
often enhanced with outer rows
of raised pavement markers.

They may be less costly to install
and maintain as they require
less paint than a standard
high visibility crosswalk.

Richmond Local Roadway Safety Plan
37 Education
Traffic safety education plays an important
role in shaping and shifting behavior.

Many cities, such as Seattle, Oakland, and
Los Angeles, are including community
engagement and education to make
streets safer for all. Education on traffic
safety requires a collaborative process
among many stakeholders to achieve
the goal of increased safety. Targeted
education can be directed at vulnerable
populations, with the help of local partners,
and at certain behaviors of drivers,
pedestrian, and bicyclists to deter specific
collision types. Such programs can be
structured classes, such as road school for
cyclists, or outreach campaigns, such as
signs that discourage distracted driving.

Public Education
Media Campaign
A public education media campaign
focused on discouraging drinking and
driving and/or speeding, along with
encouraging increased awareness
of pedestrians and bicyclists at night
and appropriate crosswalk behaviors,
can help promote behavior change.

Messages about safe and responsible
driving, moving over for EMS vehicles,
awareness of bicyclists and pedestrians,
and increasing visibility at night can help
promote behaviors that prevent fatal
and severe collisions. As an example,
collaborating with local radio stations
can help spread the message to drivers.

Richmond can develop targeted outreach
education campaigns that focus on
the common violations that lead to
fatalities and severe injuries. Based on
collision profiles developed for this LRSP,

EDUCATION
education and outreach campaigns
may include the programs listed here.

Partner with Local Schools
on Traffic Safety
Local schools can be partners in promoting
safe driver behavior during school pick-
up and drop offs. Education campaigns
can involve students promoting safer
driving to their parents, such as holding
signs during pick-up and drop offs that
encourage safer driving. Educational
campaigns that involve both students
and parents can be more impactful as
they involve parents, who are actually
driving, and students, who may not only
remind their parents but also retain safe
driving behavior if they eventually drive.

Culturally Relevant Engagement
Community engagement is not a
one-size-fits-all model as different
communities have different needs. By
developing culturally relevant engagement
strategies, all participants are invited into
conversations about safety. Culturally
relevant engagement strategies can help
education and programming around traffic
safety reach a larger audience and be
more impactful. For example, including
cultural markers of a local community, such
as contracting with popular local food
vendors to cater engagement activities,
can be a creative and welcoming way
of engaging residents. Meeting people
"where they are" to gather input on
safety issues at local parks can more
effectively engage parents and children
rather than expecting families to attend
a meeting at a government building.

For drivers this may include:
• Education campaign that emphasizes
that speeding is deadly because unsafe
speeding caused 19 percent of crashes
and 20 percent of KSI crashes.
• Education campaign around
driving under the influence, as 10
percent of Richmond KSI crashes
involve drugs or alcohol.
• Education campaign encouraging drivers
to be aware of left-turn conflicts and
pedestrians in the road because left-
turn vehicle right-of-way violations are
responsible for 2 percent of all KSI and
pedestrian right-of-way violations at
uncontrolled crossings are involved in 15
percent of bicycle and pedestrian KSI.

For people biking:
• Classes that teach bicyclists how to
use on-street bike facilities, especially
for those facility types that are new to
or relatively uncommon in the City.

For people walking:
• Education campaign encouraging
crossing in crosswalks because 10
percent of bicycle and pedestrian
KSI occurred when a pedestrian was
crossing not in a crosswalk. However,
other approaches are also needed to
mitigate pedestrian crashes because
many pedestrian crashes occurred when
a pedestrian was using a legal crossing.

Figure 16. Community
Engagement Examples