From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public Comments- open forum
Date: Thursday, November 17, 2022 9:50:31 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Good Evening Mayor Butt, Council and Staff,
i have some comments for the Record
1. For a future Agenda, the Council should invite Danny Wan to provide a presentation on how the port of oakland is recovering from the pandemic
2. Also to have Segal Consulting on the Class and comp study Sincerely
Cordell
From: Don Lau
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments-Open Session Prior to Closed Session Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 11:18:25 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor and Councilmembers:
I would like to express my support for the City to extend the SOS contract which is on the agenda tonight. As someone who has partnered with SOS, both individually and with the Richmond Rotary Club, I have seen the positive work they are doing with trash pick up, their shower power program, employing homeless workers, and working on moving the unhoused into housing. I support the City renewing the contract for SOS.
Don Lau
17 Powder Bowl Ct
Richmond, CA 94803
510-813-5170
From: Brian Lewis
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Brian Lewis; Lina Velasco; James Atencio; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; Nat Bates; Shasa Curl; Karen R. Becker; Hector Rojas; Tom Butt - external; Gene Scott, PhD; Susan Hubbard; Jeffrey Vines; Mike Lederer
Subject: Public Comments agenda item #Q.3. Nov 22 City Council Meeting Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 2:25:47 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor Butt and Council Members,
Below are our comments on the upcoming agenda item Q3.
1) The City's land use process, including the Design Review Board, Planning Commission and City Council is being taken out of sequence in a rush to approve this project. The project was missing information and the DRB meetings had to be postponed and the applicant resubmitted material. The DRB could not fully evaluate the project and it is going back for further review, which is backwards. The public review has been limited by not seeing the project fleshed out before City Council is voting on the project. It seems Due Process has been interrupted. Not having the Resolution available 72 hours before the meeting may be a violation of the Brown Act.
2) There is a binding agreement that must be followed.
a) Our agreement includes figures that address height and density. The new project changes the positioning of units and increases the height of some units. I believe our agreement needs to hold to the height limits in the attachments. For example, two story homes in our agreement now plan to be three story homes. In addition, the new project requires fill that will further increase the height. We are especially concerned with the massing of the project along the eastern border with the Richmond Yacht Club. Having structures up to 45 feet in the new plan where the old plan had two and three story structures seems to conflict with our agreement.
b) In addition, funding should be earmarked for the Retaining Wall and Security Fence (item 3).
c) Also the Rental Restrictions (item 5) need to be included in the LDA. d) Parking, item 2. No reduction in the number of parking spaces from the 2016 design.
The community feels there is not enough parking in the new design. 3) The Developer contributes a fair share for street maintenance caused by project development. This is inadequate. Two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) needs to go towards rebuilding the Western portion of the road (Mallard to just past Pelican) which should be dedicated to the city after development of Terminal One. 4) Payment for maintenance of the Park needs to be done by the HOA. If a Utility district is created, it should only include the City and the HOA formed by this project. Surrounding HOAs already have been paying for lighting, maintenance and landscaping. 5) The limitations to parking will restrict the public to the park. Parking around the new development will go to the homeowners and their guests and park users will not be able to park. It seems unfair to the Richmond Community to have restricted parking near a park.
Sincerely, Brian Lewis, Brickyard Alliance for Responsible Development and Steering Committee
From: Bruce Beyaert
To: Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Shasa Curl; Lina Velasco; Dave Aleshire; James Atencio; Daniel Chavarria; Jose Urquilla; Patrick Phelan; Bruce Brubaker
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item Q.3 - T1 Disposition Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 2:19:07 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor Butt and City Councilors,
TRAC, the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, would like to offer recommendations for the Terminal 1 Project Land Disposition Agreement and Community Benefits.
Land Disposition Agreement: Please ensure that current LDA Sections 6.6 Project Phasing and 6.8 Operations and Maintenance Funding Plan are retained in the revised LDA. Section
6.8 provides for maintenance of the Bay Trail and Wharf Park by “CFO/Assessment District and/or Home Owner Association funding”. Section 6.6 Project Phasing states in part:
"Developer shall include in the initial phase of the Project all of the Offsite Improvements. In addition, the Parties agree to work cooperatively to explore the feasibility of constructing certain of the Offsite Improvements either in advance of Phase 1, or as an accelerated component of Phase 1, with the focus of this cooperative effort to be on those particular Offsite Improvements the earlier completion of which would benefit the Project, the surrounding community, and the City.” Offsite Improvements are defined to include the San Francisco Bay Trail and Wharf Park.
Community Benefits
: TRAC requests that community benefit funds be used to help implement the following two nearby projects planned by the City’s Public Works Department:
1. New lighting for the Ferry Point Tunnel - In response to concerns about pedestrian and bicyclist safety, Public Works is designing a new, energy-efficient LED lighting system for placement on the tunnel wall above the Bay Trail passing through the tunnel.
The working old sodium vapor lights on the ceiling provide very dim Illumination, and many do not function at all.
2. Protected bikeway on Dornan Drive - Under contract to Public Works, Alta Planning + Design has prepared a conceptual design and preliminary cost estimate for providing a protected two-way bikeway on the southern side of Dornan Drive between Brickyard Cove Road and the Point Richmond Tunnel. This will improve cyclist safety, especially northbound approaching the elevated Bay Trail in the tunnel, at an estimated cost of $1.085 million.
In summary, please ensure that current LDA Sections 6.6 Project Phasing and 6.8 Operations and Maintenance Funding Plan are retained in the revised LDA and use Community Benefits funds for the listed nearby pedestrian and cyclist safety projects.
Bruce
____________
Bruce Beyaert, TRAC Chair
[email protected]
tel. 510-235-2835
http://www.pointrichmond.com/baytrail/
http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/109/TRAC
Photos: https://sfbaytrailinrichmond.shutterfly.com/pictures/5 .
From: Isabella Silverman
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Pamela Christian
Subject: Fwd: Public Comment Item Q.3: Terminal One Disposition Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 7:06:58 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear City Clerk,
I would like to formally submit the below comment for the written public record and supplementary minutes for this evening’s council meeting regarding Item Q.3.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
I. Silverman
Begin forwarded message:
From: Isabella Silverman <[email protected]>
Subject: Public Comment Item Q.3: Terminal One Disposition Date: November 22, 2022 at 6:55:32 PM PST
To: Tom Butt <[email protected]>, Nat Bates
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>, Melvin Willis
<[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], Dave Aleshire
<[email protected]>, Shasa Curl
<[email protected]>
Cc: Lina Velasco <[email protected]>, Roberta Feliciano <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor, Councilmembers, City Attorney and City Manager - I am writing in strong opposition to the Notice of Sale of Terminal One to avoid the Surplus Land Act.
As a long-term resident of Brickyard Cove and Richmond, it saddens me to watch how City Staff, and apparently the Council in closed session, have been actively working to thwart the public review process for Terminal One.
The community very much wants to see Terminal One developed.
However, the manner in which you are going about this is wrong, further destroys public trust, and is a 180 degree about face from some of the key reasons RPA Councilmembers stated for being opposed to the Point Molate development by SunCal and Winehaven, LLC.
First: I am very proud of the Planning Commission, who last night unanimously voted to deny Laconia’s application. There were ~ 22 speakers and numerous letters speaking out against the current project as proposed. The speakers were unified, clear, and on point.
All of the Commissioners felt the process was being rushed and not following public due process. Items were being proposed & considered in the wrong order with the City Council and City Staff agendizing two items before the Planning Commission had even formally reviewed the project:
1) tonight’s “notice of sale” agenda item; and
2) a city council agenda item on December 6th to review and approve the development proposal.
The title of the Staff Report is: "2022-11-15(sr)(reso)Terminal One - Notice of Sale to HCD and Community Benefits(1)"
This is wrong, and signaled to the public and their own Planning Commission that they were prepared to proceed despite any potential objections from the public and Commissioners. This conveys a message that if they didn’t approve the project, all the Developer who have to do is appeal the Planning Commission decision, that you would overturn it on appeal and approve the project because you appear desperate for the $9.5M that Laconia would pay upon the sale of the land. If I were a Planning Commissioner, I would have felt disrespected and manipulated.
This further erodes any sliver of remaining public trust that the City and majority council will rightfully follow public due process, let alone with public land.
While Director Velasco asked the Planning Commissioners to identify a couple reasons why they were denying the application, it was abundantly clear to all who watched the meeting that each Commissioner had several legitimate objections. The Commissioners were asked to identify some reasons while Ms. Feliciano quickly
scrolled through the agenda
report on her screen, which no one could properly read.
This by no means meant that the Commissioners didn’t have many other concerns and objections with other items on the application, so the Council should not assume otherwise. They merely tried to address Director Velasco's request after over four hours of testimony, all of which was captured on video and the public record.
Second: It is noteworthy that when one of the commissioners asked Staff if Laconia’s proposal violated the settlement agreement with the Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development (BCARD), that Staff stayed silent and allowed the Developer to state their opinion. Mr.
Menzies stated on the record that BCARD's binding settlement agreement does not apply anymore since this is a new project. BCARD’s representative Mr. Lewis doesn’t agree with the Developer’s interpretation.
I found it rather unsettling that the City allowed a Developer to address questions asked of City Staff by the taxpayers.
Third: Tonight’s meeting is in violation of the Brown Act. The Agenda Report ends by stating,
“Attachment 3 - HCD Resolution (to be provided at Council meeting) This is a clear violation of the Brown Act as the document was not available for public review at least 72 hrs before the meeting.
Fourth: This one is the most disheartening. The RPA Councilmembers stopped Point Molate development in large part because they said it would expose taxpayers to the cost of maintaining the infrastructure.
Yet, we found out last night that the same Councilmembers and Staff have been secretly discussing in closed session an option to impose Brickyard Cove residents with a community/facility district tax to pay for the maintenance of a public park.
Both Point Molate and Terminal One are public land. Why the disparate approach in protecting Point Molate and Richmond residents but not Brickyard Cove residents?
One of the Planning Commissioners commented on this very point last night, and stated that she had concerns about passing on the costs of maintaining infrastructure to the HOA and/or Brickyard Cove residents when this is a public
park.
The City has never reached out to ask any of Brickyard Cove residents and businesses if we even want another public park let alone be “willing” to pay to maintain it. By the way - we’re not.
The people who would use this park would be the same people who frequently visit and utilize Miller Knox Park and Ferry Point. It is a public park and if the City can’t afford to maintain it, then why are you approving it be built?
Each development in Brickyard Cove already has to pay to support public infrastructure within their development, including the bay trail.
Why do you even think we can afford yet more taxes?
By the way - most
of us over here cannot and we’re tired of being characterized as rich when the majority of us are far from it.
Is the city going to take all public access infrastructure in Brickyard Cove, besides the road once the City finally takes it over 17-years late, and split it fairly across all HOAs and businesses?
This would be a
new tax that was not covered in our CC&Rs and other
agreements. As such, shouldn’t that necessitate voter approval? At the end of the day, this is public land and should be treated the same way they did Point Molate and protecting all taxpayers from the cost of maintaining public infrastructure, especially one they did not request.
Please do not proceed with selling this land to Laconia. The project is not worthy of this beautiful and unique public land, and deserves the same attention, support and advocacy you paid to Point Molate.
Sincerely,
I. Silverman
From: Kathryn Dienst
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments – Agenda Item Q3 Terminal One LDA Revision, heard at CC 11/22/22 Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 11:37:27 AM
Attachments: Dienst to City Council.docx
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
TO: City Council, Mayor Tom Butt
Planning: Lina Velasco
Legal: James Atencio
SJ: public comments – Agenda Item Q3 Terminal One LDA Revision, heard at CC 11/22/22 FM: Kathryn Dienst
A. The amended LDA should address use or return of Petromark soil cleanup funds a. Richmond transferred site cleanup funds to the developer, yet the site has not been cleaned up. i. Resolution 16-7 (Dec. 20, 2016) transferred $2,645,380. These fees were a Petromark lawsuit settlement for soils contamination and were to be used for soil and groundwater cleanup.
ii. In total, more than $6M of Richmond funds have been transferred to the developer. iii. There should be a complete accounting of public funds transferred to the developer, and their usage before any extension is signed.
b. Revised LDA should reflect a range of outcomes:
i. If Laconia FAILS to develop Terminal One, public funds need to be returned to Richmond. ii. If Laconia SELLS Terminal One, public funds need to be returned to Richmond.
B. The proposal extends the look of recent approvals in Richmond (ex: townhomes on Wright Ave or Quarry) -- adequate not a showpiece. Regardless, LDA needs to ensure that the project is actually completed.
C. Despite an extraordinary time in review, Laconia remains vague on important issues. The LDA should set a maximum review timeline -- after which the property reverts to Richmond.
1. Currently, it is a toss-up as to whether development criteria have been met. Draft Resolution 22- lists 13 “conditionally satisfied” criteria and only 17 “criteria satisfied”.
2. Details about fill, final grading, and transport need to be revealed before CEQA can be completed. The developer has resisted all requests, despite fill being a key component of the proposal. a. CEQA Analysis 4-5 soils section has general credibility issues. i. All are “less than significant” (as they were for the 2016 proposal). Yet problematic soils are the MAIN reason Laconia modified their design. Even the 2012 RFP noted that the site has a high water table and problematic soils.
b. CEQA Analysis 4-6 deletes 2016 wording on minimizing truck trips and imported/exported soils. i. Yet, there is almost discussion about the increased fill, construction impacts of this fill (on air quality and surrounding roads), alternatives for fill transport (ex: barge). Also, what is the impact on soil stability, flooding and drainage on the Bay Trail and neighboring properties. During months of DRB review, the public has repeatedly asked for this information.
3. The 89 Conditions of Approval also offer more insight into unresolve issues:
a. Condition 14 clarifies that Richmond expects to be sued, yet again. It seems inevitable with so much unresolved.
b. Conditions of Approval 64, 71 and 72 shown concern about this development on neighbor RYC. c. Condition 73 suggests that DRB considers the design unfinished. d. Condition 12 casts doubt that the fill resolves site flooding issues, shifting the responsibility to future homeowners. And 16, 41, 50,51,53 suggest inadequate storm water plans were reviewed.
e. Condition 56 – Is this a refusal statement by Richmond to assume responsibility for assuming Brickyard Cove Road (which is more than a decade overdue)? Neighbors are very firm on this.
From: Annette Segal
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 11:16:26 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
HELP! We need safer streets! Another Key St. and Barrett accident in which 2 cars were totalled! REALLY?
And cars flying down Barrett at high speed where children (and pets) live? IT'S IMPERATIVE to fix this problem now - not next year or even next season! A. Segal
453 Dimm St.
From: elizabeth kudo
To: PCcomments; City Clerk Dept User
Cc: East-Richmond-Neighbors; Dimm-Key Neighborhood Watch; Jim Hanson; Claudia Jimenez Subject: Public Comments - Open Forum
Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 10:57:50 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
From: Elizabeth Kudo [email protected]
November 21, 2022
Dear City Council,
As you already know, the neighbors who surround the Key and Barrett intersection and beyond had gathered last spring to voice our concerns for neighborhood safety. We had petitioned the Council for the need for a roundabout.
The subsequent months have seen many continuing side show violations, many calls to the police, and emails to the City Council. I am hopeful that the devastating accident last week that totaled two cars will underscore the need for immediate action. I am asking you, members of the City Council, to please finalize plans and funding for building a roundabout or, immediately install one of the various temporary solutions presented by Fehr&Peers, the traffic consultants.
I so appreciate our council representative, Claudia Jimenez, who consistently kept us updated and informed.
Also, the presentation in September by Patrick Phelan and the traffic consultants were very informative. I am most disappointed that our concerns are not addressed in today’s agenda and hope that in the very near future you will seriously help our community solve our safety issue at Key and Barrett. The threat to our safety and the safety of the many new families with small children, looms large. The violations of speed and sideshows continues to grow.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Kudo
5104 Barrett Avenue
Richmond
Sent from Yahoo Mail for iPad
From: Madison Semler
To: Tom Butt - external; Eduardo Martinez; Nat Bates; Claudia Jimenez; Demnlus Johnson; Gayle McLaughlin; Melvin Willis; Dave Aleshire; Shasa Curl; Daniel Chavarria
Cc: City Clerk Dept User; Pamela Christian
Subject: Public Comment, Item Q.5, Traffic Safety Implementation Stratgey Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 10:29:03 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Mayor, Vice Mayor, Councilmembers, and City Staff -
Many neighborhood councils and residents have submitted traffic safety concerns to various staff and council members over the past several years, yet they’re concerns have largely remained unanswered.
When former Director Joe Leach left public works and city staff earlier this year, many neighborhoods councils stated they would wait for the new director to start before they re-submitted their requests and concerns to be considered as part of this “equitable” process.
I believe Director Chavarria just started on October 31st, and many of us were hopeful he wouldn’t proceed with this controversial item until he had performed appropriate outreach and made neighborhoods aware of the process and timeline for a fair and equitable plan under his oversight and with accountability.
However, Footnote 1 states: "This table includes all projects tracked via this effort as of Thursday, October 27, 2022.
"
That staff has only provided 37 projects underscores the public’s legitimate concerns that their requests were going into the ether, for lack of a better term, such that they are now “lost” from this list. We know that there are several more projects that have been requested, many numerous times, to staff and council, over the past few years.
This is disheartening to hear.
I appreciate that Director Chavarria and staff have tried to put criteria in place to help with prioritization. However, we now see that the new project prioritization once again puts politics over public safety.
In Table 3, there are 17 projects prioritized estimating a cost of $745K.
Twelve of those 17 projects or 70% will be in RPA Councilmembers Martinez, McLaughlin and Jimenez’s districts 5 and 6.
Four of the remaining 5 projects (16/17 total = 94%) reside in districts 1 & 3, which are or will be represented by RPA councilmembers.
Per slide 17 in the Powerpoint presentation:
$525K of the $745K (70%) is being allotted to RPA Councilmembers Martinez, McLaughlin and Jimenez’s districts 5 and 6.
Another $130K ($655K/$745K = 88% total) will be allocated to projects in districts 1 & 3, which are or will be represented by RPA councilmembers.
I see that others in the community who expressed in July that the RPA councilmembers were politicizing our public safety were correct. And sadly, it appears concerns that the new Public Works director would not be allowed to operate independently and in the public’s best interest have also been validated.
It’s a sad day for Richmond.
Madison
From: Rosario Ysip
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda item #5
Date: Tuesday, November 22, 2022 1:03:25 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Richmond City Council:
We are Richmond residents and have resided on 479 Key Boulevard off Barrett Avenue since late 80s.
We love our neighborhood, and have come to know several of our neighbors. We’ve seen frequent walkers, bicyclists, joggers, and seniors on motorized wheelchairs.
The incident on Monday (Nov. 14) at around 7:45pm when a 2-car accident on Key resulted 2 totaled cars due to another night of donuts. One of the cars was our neighbor who had parked the car on the street in front in their house. Our door camera caught the moment of collision — it was alarming to watch the violent impact. We are thankful no
one was injured, and
property damaged. We shudder at the thought that, had our neighbor not parked the car on the street, the driver might have hit the telephone pole!!!
We’ve observed increased traffic, speeding cars, reckless drivers who do not STOP or YIELD to pedestrians at the 4-Way Stops at the corner of Key Blvd/Barrett Ave, and at Key Blvd/Macdonald Ave.
We hope the City Council will find safety remedies to Key Blvd area and prevent anymore incidents like we had on the night of Nov 14. Keep us safe.
Regards,
Rosario Ysip and Patrice Chung
From: Sandra Gracia
To: City Clerk Dept User; Nat Bates; Tom Butt - external; [email protected]; Gayle McLaughlin; [email protected]; Melvin Willis; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Public Comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session; Open Forum; or Public Comments agenda item #Q.5 Date: Monday, November 21, 2022 10:19:44 PM
Attachments: Ring Clip Barrett-Key Accident 11-14-22.mov This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Council Members Bates, Butt, Martinez, McLaughlin, Willis, Johnson, and Jimenez; and Trina Jackson;
Thank you for allowing me to bring the
Barrett and Key
traffic safety problems
to
your attention once again.
Since our last meeting my neighbors and I have
experienced several
more sleepless nights of speeding, engine revving, and
doughnut spinning cars, and one episode on Nov. 14,2022 resulted in two cars getting
totaled and the 18 yr old teenage
driver possibly injured.
I do not know if the police were called to write a traffic collision report concerning the degree of property damage but I do know it was considerable.
Both cars had to
be towed.
Had my neighbor's blue car not been parked in front of his house there is little doubt the teenager would have hit the house.
Thankfully, there were no
children inside the parked car and my neighbors were not hurt.
From what I
understand though the teenager was hurt.
He almost passed out after getting out of
his car and other neighbors had to give him support to walk away from his totaled vehicle.
Later his father arrived to deal with the accident because the teenager was incapable.
Attached you will find a short video clip taken by a neighbor's "Ring" doorbell which depicts a motorist yielding to a car spinning doughnuts at the intersection (out of frame).
The next thing you see is a white car (doughnut driver) coming from the opposite direction and speeding
past the motorist.
What is also not in
frame is the resulting serious accident where the teenage driver crashed into my neighbor's parked car and totaled
both vehicles.
Attached is a photo of the
damage
to the teenager's car.
This accident is just an example of the intrusion and threat my neighbors and I are under. It honestly feels like a war zone that goes completely unchecked but could be resolved easily by placing a small planted circle in the middle of the street.
I
also attach a photo of a modest plant circle and signage I saw in Berkeley.
I do not
understand why something like this wasn't put in place years
ago as we have been
complaining about this for
4-5 years now.
Apparently, we were contacting the
wrong agencies to get the needed action.
Please give this intersection your consideration and approve the requested safety improvements to resolve our safety issues.
Thank you for your consideration in
this
matter.
Respectfully submitted,
Sandra Gracia, 486 Key Blvd., Richmond,CA 94805