Written Public Comments Received 3-7-2023 — Richmond City Council, March 7, 2023

From: Amanda Le Gaux
To: City Clerk Dept
Subject: RE: 1 public comments – Open Session prior to Closed Session CORRECTIONS Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 1:15:42 PM
Good Evening City Clerk, Council Members, and Mayor.

My name is Amanda Y. Le Gaux, a member of the SEIU negotiating team. I am an Admin Aide for the Richmond Police Department and have been working for the City of Richmond for almost 13 years.

I have to cross the bridge every day because as an employee of this city I cannot afford to live in the city I work in. Gas prices have gone up as well as the toll charges, this has impacted my finances negatively.

The recruiting and retention challenges have affected the entire city, the listed salaries are nowhere close to other cities in and around the County and the Bay Area. We have had recruits who have been given a conditional offer and jumped ship to another place of employment due to better salaries elsewhere. This has happened one too many times. The council has continued with wanting a better city for the residents but how can we begin to grant this when the employees who make the city better are in need and rightfully deserve better pay... Give us what we have worked hard for, give us the salaries that at minimum equally compare to the cities in and around the Bay Area so we can retain and recruit good quality people. How do you plan on keep the hardworking employees that you already have and how do you plan on recruiting more????? All of 1021 are THE backbone to this city. All of 1021 deserves more.

Best Regards,

Amanda Y. Le Gaux
Personnel & Training
Richmond Police Department
1701 Regatta Boulevard
Richmond, CA 94804-7409
Direct: 510-621-1548
[email protected]

From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- Open Forum
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 4:49:39 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.

Hello Mayor Martinez, Council Members and Staff,
I Have Some Comments for the Record

1. For the April 18th Agenda, The Council Should Consider Reinstating the Agenda & Rules And the Public Safety Standing Committees,

2. Also to Have Danny Wan To Provide a Presentation on How the Port of Oakland is Recovering from the Pandemic
Sincerely
Cordell
From: Debbie Rheuark
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: public comments-Open Forum
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 4:41:34 PM
Attachments: Screenshot Richmond High 2023 Chinese New Years Parade.png 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.

Hello,
I

would

like,

and

hope

that

the

city

council

might

join

me,

recognizing

the

Richmond
High

School

marching

bands

participation

the

2023

Lunar

New

Year

parade

last
month.

tardy

mentioning

this

had

taped

the

parade

and

not

watched

until
last

week.

I've

attached

snip

photo

from

the

You

Tube

video

that

starts

showing
the

band

37:00

minutes,

continuing

until

approx.

38:30

minutes.

The

KTVU
commentators,

Claudine

Wong

and

Mike

Mibach

were

very

complementary.

Very
nice

performance

they

should

proud

of,

and

hope

that

they

can

continue

for

many
more

years!
Thank

you!

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Stephanie Vollmer; Daniel Chavarria
Subject: Ortiz Family/8 Western Drive, Richmond/City Council Hearing March 7, 2023 Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:12:18 AM
Attachments: City of Richmond Letter March 6^LLJ 2023 #3.pdf 8 Western City Fence approval 2017.Exhibit A.pdf
8 Western Encroachment permit_filing.Exhibit B.pdf
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.

City Clerk’s Office:

Please see our office’s letter on behalf of the Ortiz Family, dated today, March 6, 2023, with regard to the Ortiz Family application for 8 Western Drive, on the City Council Agenda for tomorrow, March 7, 2023.

Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Law Office of Allan Moore, A.P.C.

Cell: (925) 963-3477
Email: [email protected]

March 6, 2023

Via Email
Attn: City Clerk
[email protected]

Mayor and City Council
City of Richmond
Attn: City Clerk
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804

Re: City Council March 7, 2023 Public Hearing, Agenda Item O 8 Western Drive, Richmond
Ortiz Family Encroachment Agreement

Dear Mayor Martinez and Council Members:

My law office represents Anna Ortiz, her husband James, and their daughter (the “Ortiz Family”) with regard to their request for a new encroachment agreement (“New Encroachment Agreement”) for their fencing (Fence) and improvements at 8 Western Drive in Richmond.

It has truly been a privilege to work with the Ortiz Family on this matter. They are a wonderful, hard-working Richmond family. As set forth herein, the Ortiz Family has done absolutely nothing wrong in this matter – the Ortiz Family purchased their home with the Fence already constructed, and with full City approvals of the Fence and a signed, City- approved earlier encroachment agreement.

The Ortiz Family has worked long and hard with Public Works, City Staff, and all City representatives with regard to this New Encroachment Agreement, and appreciates the City’s assistance. Similarly, my office appreciates the responsiveness of the City Attorney and Public Works in working with the Ortiz Family and our office during this process.

After all of this time and work, Public Works has issued a Staff Report (“Staff Report”) for the City’s March 7, hearing. In the Staff Report, Public Works sets forth a clear and unequivocal recommendation in favor of the New Encroachment Agreement.

Therefore, as set forth below, the Ortiz Family hereby agrees with the Public Works recommendation in favor of the Encroachment Agreement, together with the conditions of approval as set forth in the proposed Resolution.

Given the importance of the issuance of the Encroachment Agreement to the Ortiz Family, our office must necessarily set forth below:

(i) a brief, summary background of this issue, and

(ii) (ii) a brief discussion of the Ortiz Family’s legal rights.

With regard to our discussion of the Ortiz Family’s legal rights, please understand we are required by law to note any potential claims and to reserve the Ortiz Family’s rights prior to the City Council decision on this matter.

Stated another way, it is not our desire to challenge the City; instead, it is our sincere desire that the City approve the proposed Encroachment Agreement so that the Ortiz Family can continue to work with City.

I. Background1

A. The Fence was Constructed and Approved Prior to Purchase of the Residence by the Ortiz Family

The Ortiz Family purchased their home at 8 Western Drive on or about July 30, 2021.

At the time of their purchase, the sellers of the home (“Sellers”) had already constructed the subject fencing (“Fence”) on the property, pursuant to permit(s) issued by the City of Richmond (“City”).

Please see the City-documented timeline as follows:2`

The City issued the Fence permit on December 21, 2017. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a copy of the Fence permit, stamped twice as “APPROVED” by the City.

The Sellers constructed the Fence in February 2018, pursuant to the City approved permit.

Following a City determination that the Fence was in the City ROW, the City requested the Sellers to enter into the first Encroachment Agreement (“First Encroachment Agreement”). The Sellers submitted an application for the First Encroachment Agreement on or about March, 2021.

1 This Background is intended to be a brief summary only, and does not include all facts. The background facts of this matter can be found in the Ortiz Family’s consultant letter, dated February 7, 2023 , submitted by Milani & Associates.

2 This City timeline is confirmed by the Staff Report for the Council hearing, at pp. 2-3.

The City and the Sellers entered into the First Encroachment Agreement for the Fence on July 12, 2021. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a copy of the signed First Encroachment Agreement.

Stated another way, the Ortiz Family purchased their home on July 30, 2021, after the Fence permit and First Encroachment Agreement were already approved, and after the Fence was fully constructed.

The Ortiz Family, in purchasing their home, relied on the City- approved Fence permit (Exhibit A), and the City-executed Encroachment Agreement (Exhibit B).

B. City Confirms City Made Mistake

After the Ortiz Family purchased their home, the City determined it had made a “mistake” in issuing the Fence permit and in entering into the First Encroachment Agreement.

By letter dated February 7, 2022 to the Ortiz Family (“City Letter”), the City stated that the City entered into the First Encroachment Agreement pursuant to a Staff analysis that mistakenly referenced the front yard as a side yard.

Given this mistake, and after the Ortiz Family had purchased the property, the City Letter terminated the First Encroachment Agreement, and terminated the Fence permit.

The City Letter indicated that even if the Ortiz Family relied on the City approvals (under a legal term called “equitable estoppel”) such reliance does not apply here given the zoning and public rights involved. (Please see our legal response in “Section II, Legal Analysis,” below).

The City Letter indicated that the timing of the termination of the Fence permit and First Encroachment Agreement would be extended, to allow the Ortiz Family to file for a new Encroachment Agreement (“New Encroachment Agreement”), following adoption of a new encroachment agreement ordinance (“New Ordinance”).

The Ortiz Family, although significantly harmed by the City’s termination, elected to work with the City, and to “exhaust their administrative remedies,” and apply for a New Encroachment Agreement under the New Ordinance.

C. City adopts New Ordinance

The City adopted the New Ordinance on June 28, 2022. The Ortiz Family worked with the City, and submitted applications for a New Encroachment Agreement under the New Ordinance.

The Ortiz Family, in working with the City, spent thousands of dollars on consultants.

The Ortiz Family retained civil engineer Mike Milani of Milani & Associates to prepare, submit and process their new applications under the New Ordinance.

D. Ortiz Family Submits New Applications

The Ortiz Family, their attorneys and Milani & Associates worked with the City, and timely submitted their application for the New Encroachment Agreement on July 6, 2022. The Ortiz Family, their attorneys and Milani & Associates thereafter worked closely with Staff to comply with all aspects of the New Ordinance.

Pursuant to Staff request, Milani & Associates recently submitted an extensive supplemental information for the application on February 9, 2023.

E. Public Works Staff Report and Recommendations in Favor of Project

Based on the Ortiz Family’s applications, the Public Works Staff Report for the March 7 hearing clearly and unequivocally recommends approval of the Project.

The Public Works Staff Report confirms that all of the requirements and findings set forth in the New Ordinance can be made by the City Council, and recommends approval of the proposed Resolution.

F. Ortiz Family Agreement

The Ortiz Family concurs and agrees with the Public Works recommendation, and the proposed Resolution.

The Ortiz Family has one minor recommendation with regard to the conditions set forth in the Resolution. The Staff Report and the proposed Resolution indicate that the approval should be conditioned “to provide a four foot sidewalk with a protective curb” to the “satisfaction of the City Engineer.”

The Ortiz Family requests the City Engineer consider a crushed gravel sidewalk in this area, rather than concrete, as such material would be more consistent with the area (there are currently no sidewalks on either side of the Ortiz property frontage – so a concrete sidewalk would not connect with a similar concrete sidewalk.)

II. Legal Analysis

A. Overview

The Ortiz Family purchased their home in good faith reliance on (i) the existing Fence, and (ii) the Fence Permit and the First Encroachment Agreement. The City thereafter terminated the earlier approvals, indicating they (the City) had made a “mistake.”

The Ortiz Family, while hurt by the City’s position, chose to work with the City, to follow the City’s direction, and to “exhaust their administrative remedies.” The Ortiz Family worked hard with City Staff, and spent tens of thousands of dollars on consultants. The Ortiz Family thereafter filed a new application for a New Encroachment Agreement under the City’s New Ordinance

The result of all of the Ortiz Family work is the Public Works’ current strong and clear recommendation to the Council for approval of the new Encroachment Agreement at the March 7 City Council hearing.

At this point, after all this time, and after all the monies spent by Ortiz in good faith and reliance on the City, we respectfully believe it would be highly unfair and improper for the City to deny the new Encroachment Agreement application.

As stated, given all of these extraordinary circumstances, we are required by law to “reserve” our legal rights and we necessarily do so as set forth below.

B. Reservation of legal rights

(i) Equitable Estoppel

As stated above, the City’s February 7, 2022 letter (“City Letter”) terminated (with allowance for re-application under the New Ordinance) the earlier-granted Fence Permit and First Encroachment Agreement.

In the City Letter, the City indicated that the City had made a “mistake” in granting the earlier Fence permit and in entering into the First Encroachment Agreement.

In many cases, the Ortiz Family and other families are protected when such mistakes occur, under a principle called “equitable estoppel.” Equitable estoppel generally prevents one party (the City), from taking legal action the conflicts with previous promises or behavior.

Essentially, equitable estoppel prevents a party from “going back on his word,” or “not acting fairly.”

The City Letter, however, states that the Ortiz Family cannot rely on the City-approved Fence Permit and the First Encroachment Permit – because they were either “mistakenly or illegally” issued by the City. The City states that no rights were given to the Ortiz Family because the approvals were in conflict with public rights. The City Letter states that public rights cannot be violated by a city official. In this regard, the City letter cites the case Pettitt v.

City of Fresno (34 Cal.App.3d 813 (1973)).

Respectfully, we do not believe that Pettitt v. City of Fresno is the controlling authority here. In Pettitt, the Court ruled that the community interest in preserving the zoning laws outweighs the individual’s interest in relying on an invalid building permit. In Pettitt, however, the zoning violations were clear and significant — allowing the applicant to place a commercial establishment in a residential zone. The Court found a public interest in zoning laws intended to maintain the (residential) character of the area. (The Court left open whether the Pettitts could sue the City for damages).

In our case, the violations of the zoning ordinance are unclear at best—and in any event there are no strong zoning/policy reasons making it necessary to terminate the earlier City approvals. In our case, the Ortiz home, with or without the Fence, remains a residential use in a residential zone. The Fence does not change the character of the neighborhood.

More importantly, in our case, the Ortiz Family did not rely on a mere procedural “mistake” by a public official. The Ortiz Family also relied on a written contract signed by the City and the Ortiz Family predecessors (the First Encroachment Agreement). The First Encroachment Agreement was expressly binding on all legal successors. In our case, there are issues of contract law – not just zoning law.

With regard to equitable estoppel, our case is closer to the line of cases allowing a governmental agency to be estopped where injustice would result from a failure to uphold the estoppel. The injustice in our case, is clear. (See, for example, Anderson v. City of La Mesa (118 Cal. App. 3d 657 (1981), distinguishing Pettitt, and upholding estoppel even where there was a minor violation of a specific plan ordinance.)

ii. Due Process and Equal Protection

The California Constitution, Article I, Sect. 7, provides that “[A] person may not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” Generally, due process is a safeguard to ensure that rights are not taken by a city without a fair process or procedure.

In our case, the facts are extraordinary. Unlike the facts of Pettitt v. Fresno, there was no mere “mistake” by a local zoning official. The Ortiz Family relied on fully issued permits, and on the First Encroachment Agreement fully executed by the City. The City thereafter unilaterally terminated those approvals without a hearing.

The equal protection laws generally provide that the government should treat an individual in the same manner as others in similar conditions and circumstances.

If the Ortiz Family are now denied their New Encroachment Permit, they would be “singled out” for such denial and enforcement action. Everyone that has visited the Ortiz Family property has noted that other properties along Western Drive have similar encroachments in the City’s Right of Way.

We note, for example, the next door neighbors at 20 Belvedere Avenue appear to have placed significant rock boulders, tree stumps, structures, and related improvements within the same City Right of Way and right along Western Drive. The purpose of these boulders, tree stumps and related improvements is evidently to act as a “wall” or “fence” to keep folks from parking or walking up to the neighbor residence. (See also earlier Encroachment Agreement at 317 Western Drive granted by City of Richmond.)

Under these circumstances, we do not understand how the City could “deny” the Ortiz Family their proposed Fence because it partially encroaches within the City Right of Way – while allowing neighbors (and others) to construct improvements in the same City Right of Way.

iii. Health and Safety and Racial Issues

The Ortiz Family has previously appeared before the City Council, and has set forth certain health, safety and racial issues that they have been subjected to at their home.

Please see in this regard the Ortiz Family testimony at the City Council public hearings of January 18, 2022, and April 19, 2022. We would ask that the Ortiz Family testimony at those hearings be placed as part of the administrative record in this case.

With regard to health and safety, please note that the Ortiz property is directly across from the state Keller Beach Park (“Park”). The Park has a public shower and restroom in direct view of the Ortiz residence. Throughout the day, the general public, transients, and others utilize the Park and the facilities. When the Park closes, folks come across the street and camp and loiter – and they often find their way, even with the Fence, to the Ortiz Family front door – ringing the bell in the middle of the night. City Police officers have advised the Ortiz Family to “keep their Fence” to prevent these occurrences.

The Fence helps to protect the Ortiz Family from all such activity. The Fence further helps to protect the yard from dumping and blight from such activity.

With further regard to health and safety issues, property to the north of the Ortiz Family property appears to be advertised by website, and utilized as an “archery range” by the public and neighbors. The Ortiz Family has been subjected to arrows flying into their yard (one narrowly missing their daughter); and axe throwing all around the perimeter of their property. The Ortiz Family has timely notified the City and City code enforcement of these incidents. Again, we would request that notice of those complaints from the Ortiz family be placed in the administrative record in this matter. The proposed Fence helps provide protection from these dangers.

Finally, with regard to racial issues, the Ortiz Family has appeared before the Council on the referenced dates and indicated as follows: (i) people have driven by their house and called out racial slurs and sexist comments; (ii) someone threw beans and a small Mexican figure in a sombrero over their Fence; and (iii) similar incidents. Most recently, the Ortiz Family’s “Notice of Hearing” (placed by the Ortiz Family on their Fence as required by the New Ordinance) was defaced with a racial slur.

These issues all warrant the continued protection of fencing along the Ortiz Family border.

Conclusion

For all of these reasons, the Ortiz Family respectfully requests the City Council to approve the City and Ortiz Family to enter into a New Encroachment Agreement, as provided in the proposed Resolution.

Very truly yours,

LAW OFFICE OF ALLAN MOORE, A.P.C.

Allan C. Moore

Enclosures

Exhibit A Fence Permit

Exhibit B First Encroachment Agreement

cc: Stephanie A. Vollmer (Deputy City Attorney) (w/enc.)

Daniel Chavarria (Director of Public Works) (w/enc.)

EXHIBIT "A"

EXHIBIT "B"

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public comments agenda item O.1 for counsel meeting on 3/7/2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:44:44 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Good morning,

Please see the email below originally sent to Public Works employee Yader Bermudez at his request.

I would like the email to be entered as my comment on this matter.

Thank you.

Benjamin Zicherman, Esq.

Law Offices of Benjamin Zicherman
Tel: (510) 542-6227
Fax: (415) 236-6187
Bayareadefenselaw.com

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, February 4, 2023 12:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: 'Chloe Aftel' <[email protected]>
Subject: Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western Drive

Good afternoon Mr. Bermudez,
I am in receipt of your letter of January 20, 2023 regarding the encroachment at 8 Western Drive. As the previous owner of 8 Western, I feel that it is important to tell you the history of this dispute as it happened.

My wife Chloe, who is copied here, and I bought 8 Western in 2013. When we purchased the property as part of a probate sale, we believed that the property in front of 8 Western was part of the parcel, and that the parcel went all the street. There were steps leading down to western where there was a driveway which could fit two cars, the mailbox as well as a place to store the trash and recycling bins for the house. This is also the only entry point for the property from Western Drive.

There is only one property adjacent at 24 Belvidere, where Richard Katz and Claire Brown live. They can be generously described as eccentric. Given that they seemed strange, we bent over backwards to have good relations with them, and we did. We went to their holiday parties, helped with their house when they were on vacation, helped them with neighborhood projects such as installing a fire hydrant. Richard often played with our then 2 year old son. When a separate neighbors tree fell and did damage, I helped them bring a small claims suit. We were always on good terms with them.

In 2017 we applied for a permit to enclose the front of the house so that we could park securely there, as car break-ins did happen in the neighborhood. The permit was granted and we constructed the fence in 2017. No one said anything about the fence when it was being constructed or afterwards.

In approximately September 2020, we were contacted by an inspector for the City who told us that there had been an anonymous complaint about the fence being on city land. This was the first we had ever heard about part of the property being public land. A survey that we paid for revealed that the land where the driveway was in fact city property. Given that we had relied upon the permit in building the fence, the permitting department began working with us in securing an encroachment so that the fence could remain. This process took more than a year and a half. During that time, more and more anonymous complaints began being made, but the city could not reveal the source.

We were told by city personnel that at times these complaints were multiple times a week. It is also of note that during this time, the tenor of the complaints changed. Initially, the complaints were just about the fence being on city land, but after a few months, the complaints claimed that the fence was dangerous to pedestrians. No one had ever complained about any hazard in the previous 4 years, and there had never been an accident in front of the property.

In November of 2020, Chloe had become pregnant with our second child, and 8 Western was just too small for a family of four. We began looking for a new home and readied 8 Western for sale.

We moved out in April of 2021. It is of note that Richard and Claire seemed saddened by us moving and promised to come visit us in the future. The property went into coming soon status in May of 2021. Shortly thereafter, Claire stopped in front of the property, told a potential buyer that they loved the house, but that they didn’t like the fence which is why they complained to the city.

When we were told, we were flabbergasted. We had never had any conflict with the neighbors, and they had certainly never brought up the fence with us. Not once had they ever voiced any concerns about safety. If fact, a few months after the initial anonymous complaint was made, I asked Richard in person if he had made the complaint. He denied making the complaint and instead blamed another neighbor, Don Lewis, who had nothing to do with it. To this day, they have never had the basic civility to discuss the fence situation with us. The cowardice of Claire and Richard is profound and cannot be understated.

It between May and August, the complaints from Richard and Claire intensified, where they were calling the permitting department and even showing up in person multiple times a week. They were so disrespectful with the staff that they were told only to deal with supervisors. At one point, Claire called a city employee in permitting a “bitch”. This was of course over the phone. They also tried to have permitting employees fired. As I have said, Richard and Clare are underhanded, skullduggerous and cowardly. Around this time, they also made other code violation complaints that were completely unfounded and intended only to harass us. Strangely, they expressed an interest in buying 8 Western. After we quoted them an offer, Richard showed up at our door, quite drunk, tearfully complaining that they could not buy the house as Claire told him he was not competent to manage the property. Please bear in mind that we were never anything but kind to these people.

During this time, we were working diligently with the city on the encroachment. After surveys, inspections and a tremendous amount of paperwork, the encroachment was granted by the city on July 12, 2021 and subsequently recorded. We were told by zoning and permitting personnel that there were more than a dozen identical encroachments for fences throughout point Richmond. All of those encroachments were granted through the same process and under the same authority that our encroachment was granted.

It was at this point when the situation went from an abuse of the system by entitled neighbors to completely surreal. Shortly after the encroachment was granted, the then mayor of Richmond, Tom Butts got personally involved. he began taking pictures of the fence, and posting about it on his online “eforum.” In these posts, Butts doxxed us by disclosing our new address, posted pictures of my wife and then 2 year old son, and made wholesale, and I believe intentional, misrepresentations about the history of the fence and how the encroachment came to be. My favorite misrepresentation was that we built the fence to enrich ourselves during the sale, even though he knew we bult the fence years before we planned to move. He also claimed that I abused my being an attorney to accomplish this. I am a criminal defense attorney and I have no experience with land use or zoning law. It was shocking. I would have been more upset, but no one outside of Point Richmond cares what Tom Butts thinks, and certainly no one reads his eforum. I decided to stay above the fray.

We also learned that from city employees that Butts was putting direct pressure on the permitting department to rescind our encroachment (and none of the others in the Point), and was trying to divert the matter to the zoning board, where one of his sons sat. we were also told that Butts was blocking many of the complaints against Claire and Richard, who had built on the same city land that we had, but without a permit. Richard also has built an archery range behind the property where he shoots compound bows and throws axes. It is incredibly dangerous, illegal and a nuisance, but Butts apparently blocked complaints about the archery range as well.

Butts repeatedly brought up our fence at city council meetings and I was told Richard appeared and slandered us with the knowing falsehoods Butts has put online. In or around October, Butt’s other son Andrew who is an attorney, brought suit against the city to invalidate the encroachment. The suit repeated the falsehoods perpetuated by Butts. I expected to be able to set the record straight when I was deposed in the case. Initially, the city counsel approved funding to fight the case, but later relented and submitted on the suit. The decision was made to rescind the encroachment and allow the new owner of 8 Western to reapply. Apparently this agreement was part of some kind of political horse trade between Butts and the counsel.

That brings us to where we are now. I believe that this whole situation has been an abuse of the system from the beginning. the involvement of a mayor of a sizable city is unprecedented. We do not know why the former mayor was involved, or the nature of his entanglement with Claire and Richard, but I have never heard of him taking an interest in fence disputes or having his son bring suit against the city for resident living in the Iron Triangle. I do not know if Mr. Butts is corrupt, but his actions certainly bear the appearance of absolute corruption and abuse of office.

It is also worth noting that the new owners have been consistently harassed by Claire and Richard, been subject to threats, and have been victims of racism since buying 8 Western.

This fence was legally permitted and built, stood for years without issue, and then was granted an encroachment after extensive investigation by the City. It should be allowed to remain. All of the above can be verified by city personnel.

Please let me know if I can provide you any documentation relating to the above, and please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions.

Best Regards,

Benjamin Zicherman, Esq.

Law Offices of Benjamin Zicherman
Tel: (510) 542-6227
Fax: (415) 236-6187
Bayareadefenselaw.com

From: Carlos Balladares
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Pubic Comments Agenda item # O.1
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:41:04 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.

My wife and I walk on Western Drive frequently and enjoy Keller Beach across from this house.

We are in support of this encroachment/fence staying where it is, as it prevents blight and dumping in a beautiful section of Richmond. It prevents city land encampments which would more than likely pop up in front of it if the fence were gone - given its immediate proximity to Keller Beach's public toilet and shower.

From there, the encampments could likely proliferate up Western and Bishop and on throughout Point Richmond. It's happening now as it is off of Dornan Drive, and it's only growing.

We have followed along with what has occurred here. Honestly, I am disappointed that the city did not grandfather this encroachment. The new encroachment ordinance should apply to new requests moving forward; it should not have been imposed on this house, as you already approved an encroachment in 2021. It is unjust to the new owners regardless of how folks tried to spin it. If you made them reapply, all other encroachment holders should also have to reapply under the new rules. I am requesting you also take a look at all property lines and possible encroachments on Western, Bishop, Belvedere, and Crest, if not throughout all of Point Richmond, as there are likely many fences, signs, objects, etc., that are encroaching on city land that is not permitted to. If you impose this on one property, you must equally do it for all of them.

Many of us have been discussing and are curious about why it took so long for Clair Brown to complain about it. The fence has been there since 2018, yet there were no complaints to the City or Code Enforcement until three years later. All that time to call the City, yet no neighbors ever did. Why now? What made it safe from 2018 - 2020 but "unsafe" in 2021 when a new family moved in? What if the city approves and signs off on a new deck or room addition for a resident? Then three years later, a neighbor complains. Will the city make them tear it out and lose the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars they invested in their improvements based on the city's approval; because a neighbor decides years later that they have an issue? That would be wrong and unjust, as in this situation.

Again, please leave this alone as it betters the neighborhood and community. We would like to see additional fencing along the remainder of Western across from Keller to protect pedestrians from the numerous dangerous items in the city right of way to the left of this house. We request the Mayor and City Council members focus their valuable time and attention on the real issues our great city faces daily.

Respectfully,
Carlos Balladares
From: Cecil Calban
To: City Clerk Dept User; Doria Robinson; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Melvin Willis; Robert Armijo; Soheila Bana
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive Council meeting March 7 in support of issuing an encroachment
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:12:31 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.

From: C Calban
Date: March 7, 2023 at 12:54:03 PM PST
To: Daniel Chavarria <[email protected] >, Lina Velasco
<[email protected]>, [email protected] Cc: Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>,
[email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], City Clerk Dept User <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive Council meeting March 7 in support of issuing an encroachment

Dear City Staff, Mayor Eduardo and Council members,
Please, please, please do the right thing, and let that poor woman at 8 Western renew her encroachment permit.

How horrible for a working class family to scrimp and save, buy a house, do all their homework- And then find out that their life is torn up, their property devalued-
And make them spend thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars in legal fees and hiring professional experts.

Where is the social justice in that?
If the city staff in the planning department messed this up - Why don’t you dock their salaries for the tens of thousands of dollars that taxpayers might be on the hook?
My understanding is that over 25 million dollars of my taxpayer money has gone to lawsuits in the last five years or so. Why does this keep happening?
If it was done wrong or done, right- It’s done- Please leave that poor family alone and see if you can avoid another expensive lawsuit.

Lastly, my family has lived in my house for 60 years and I have been up and down Western Drive and Belvedere a thousand times.

It’s always been dangerous, and that lady’s driveway is the only place a pedestrian can safely step off the road. Where the heck are you when that guy put all those giant boulders and metal monstrosities on the roadside? Please do the right thing and let sleeping dogs lie .

Cecil Calban
--
Cecil Calban
From: Pamela Christian
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: FW: Mr. Milani"s false rendition of the history and reasons for the 8 Western Fence Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 1:57:10 PM

From: Clair Brown <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 11:20 AM
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Dave Aleshire <[email protected]>; Pamela Christian <[email protected]>
Cc: Don Lewis <[email protected]>; Dr Lesli Handmacher <[email protected]>; Datenkale <[email protected]>; Julia BADER <[email protected]>; Rosemary Corbin <[email protected]>; Rodrick Satre <[email protected]>; jonathan livingston <[email protected]>; Sandra Beyaert: <[email protected]>; Kenneth Washburn <[email protected]>; Julie Nestingen <[email protected]>; Donna Stoneham <[email protected]>; Tom Piazza ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: Mr. Milani's false rendition of the history and reasons for the 8 Western Fence

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

Dear City Council Members and City Attorney:

I am writing to summarize a phone conversation that Don Lewis, a neighbor on Western Drive, had with Mr. Milani, who filed the application for an Encroachment agreement for the 8 Western fence that currently encloses almost 1600 sq ft of the public right of way.

Don Lewis is unable to co-sign this message with me, because he suffered an unexpected, life- threatening health crisis a week ago and remains in intensive care. Our neighborhood is focused on helping care for Don's wife and family, who have gathered to be with Don at the hospital. Don has been our Community Emergency Response Team Rep [REACT-CERT] for many years, and we have relied on Don, along with Richard Katz, to help keep our neighborhood safe, and to help people when they needed an extra hand.

So with a heavy heart, I am writing this message by myself, and cc the neighbors who agree with Don that the City Council should deny the 8 Western encroachment application.

On Feb 14, Don made a phone call to Mr. Milani to ask about the encoraching fence because Don was concerned about the public safety hazard caused by the fence along 8 Western Drive. Don was visiting us when Mr. Milani returned his call, and so I [and my husband] could hear the call. I took some notes, and Don and I went over my notes when the call ended.

Mr. Milani had erroneous information about important basic facts [I am using his wording to the extent possible]:
1) Milani stated that the current owner Ortiz had to build the fence in order to protect the improvements made on the city property over 10 to 12 years ago. The only problem was that the neighbors objected to the fence.

The facts: the previous owner built the fence in 2017 without a permit. The large enclosure of public land provided an enclosed private parking space in what had previously been a "no parking" zone for the public to use to load/unload cars then visiting Keller Beach and to enjoy while walking along Western on the open space. The owner also started to landscape the city property that had become his front yard, as he prepared to sell his Richmond house and move to Orinda.

2) Milani stated that the owners received an encroachment permit 10-12 years ago for a retaining wall and improvements.

The Facts: No such permit is listed on the public records.

3) Milani stated that the owners had made "many improvements to the public street and on the right-of-way on Western on vacant land that was not being used". At one point, Milani called this "improvements on excess land".

The Facts: the main "improvements" are a gravel space for private parking that is very unsafe when the car is backing out onto the narrow Western Dr with a blind hill so that on-coming cars cannot see a car in the middle of the street while the driver gets out to close the sliding gate and lock it. The owners also put up a large planter that is 5' tall against the fence on the inside of the encroaching fence. The enclosed public land did not require a retaining wall, and it was used by pedestrians as part of the walkway along Wester Dr. This land was not "excess"; it was being used constantly by the public.

As Don Lewis has said to Clair and others, "Lots of people were enjoying this public land. Also most of the homeowners along Western take pride in planting and maintaining the right-of-way for the public to enjoy as they walk along with kids and dogs." Don also pointed out that now only two people can enjoy their landscaping, while the public faces a public safety hazard trying to walk along 8 Western Drive.

4) Milani referred to the homeless on the beach, and mentioned the need for safety.

The Facts: Our neighborhood enjoys the families visiting the beach. Most property owners have fences along their property lines. A fence along the property line at 8 Western would provide any protection needed.

Don also pointed out that the neighbors know about the safety hazard caused by the fence and find it stressful to walk by and they are cautious. However the public visiting Keller Beach doesn't know about the safety hazard, and we see kids almost hit by cars while going to and from Keller Beach. This has the neighbors especially upset and concerned.

5) Milani stated that when the owners met with Joe Leach, he stated that the fence did not cause a safety problem and there were no impediments on the Road.

The facts: Joe Leach did state this also to the 13 concerned neighbors who met with him in front of 8 Western, sitting on the guardrail. The neighbors disagreed with him, pointed out the blind hill and the narrow street with no public right-of-way resulted in no way for pedestrians to safely walk by. One neighbor wondered if there was any money changing hands. Another neighbor asked Leach what was the benefit to the public of the encroaching fence, and he said, "None. Letting homeowners enclose public land does not require that the public benefit. Allowing people to enclose public land for their own use seems to be a tradition in Point Richmond." When he was asked to point out other examples of homeowners taking over 1600 sq ft of public land and causing a safety hazard, he said he didn't have examples handy, but we could go look them up on public records.

As you can see, Mr. Milani does not have the facts straight, including who built the fence and when, the lack of any permits, the reason for the fence being built, and how the city benefits from the fence.

We know this story with all these falsehoods is being repeated. We ask the City Council to review the facts and the history, and deny the application for the 8 Western encroachment for the safety and wellbeing of Richmond's residents.

Sincerely,
Clair Brown and Don Lewis [nearby neighbors]

From: Clair Brown
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Fwd: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive, City Council meeting March 7, 2023 Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 12:37:44 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. ---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Clair Brown <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Mar 6, 2023 at 11:35 AM
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive, City Council meeting March 7, 2023
To: Soheila Bana <[email protected]
>, Claudia Jimenez
<[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>, Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>, Doria Robinson <[email protected]>, Melvin Willis <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, <[email protected]>
Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western Drive.

As I have written to you before, the encroachment upon a large tract of heavily used public pedestrian right-of-way at 8 Western is causing a public hazard for pedestrians and vehicles. The stockade fence has closed off the public land so that only the owners can enjoy it. The encroachment agreement supported by the City Attorney and staff will make this 1600 sq ft into private property forever, with nothing in return for the City of Richmond and its people. The people are left with a public hazard and no safe walkway, or place to load and unload cars for going to the beach, or even stop to enjoy watching Keller Beach and the Bay. Vehicular traffic has safety problems because of the blind hill and the narrow street with no shoulders.

Neighbors have sent emails to the City staff with information about the 8 Western illegal fence that is causing the safety problems and also concerns that public property that was enjoyed by all has become private property for the benefit of the owners only.

Here is a Google Doc that contains much of the correspondence between the City Staff and neighbors since 2020:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VUEpn844v2FuaBtxE_uGX4SM0tOGEDp5hwg1YptATJ8/ This is a long document because there is a long history of the illegal encroaching fence at 8 Western. There has never been a permit issued for the 6' fence that encloses the public right-of-way.

When an official complaint was filed, the City Staff stonewalled and did not take any action until a lawsuit was filed.

The documentation shows that the City Staff is giving you bad advice to:
"ADOPT a resolution to approve an Encroachment Agreement Application for private landowner fence encroachment into the unimproved public right-of-way at 8 Western Drive; and DIRECT City staff to enter into an Encroachment Agreement regarding same to be recorded on the landowner’s property title."
The staff reports makes false statements, has not followed the Richmond Code, and has omitted and ignored important facts. In giving away the public land to the owners of 8 Western with nothing in return, the staff report is also not enforcing the state constitution.

I am unable to be present at the public hearing to make comments on Tuesday evening because of health problems. This is also true of many of the neighbors, because many of us are seniors.

Please read our messages carefully, and DENY the 8 Western Encroachment application.

Sincerely,
Clair Brown
20 Belvedere, Richmond
--
May we heal the earth as we heal ourselves, for the benefit of all.

Projects: https://irle.berkeley.edu/center-for-work-technology-and-society/ My book: Buddhist Economics: an enlightened approach to the dismal science, Bloomsbury Press,2017.

Book trailer (2 min): https://youtu.be/88RX5A2iezs
http://buddhisteconomics.net/
Follow on https://twitter.com/BrownClair
--
May we heal the earth as we heal ourselves, for the benefit of all.

Projects: https://irle.berkeley.edu/center-for-work-technology-and-society/ My book: Buddhist Economics: an enlightened approach to the dismal science, Bloomsbury Press,2017.

Book trailer (2 min): https://youtu.be/88RX5A2iezs
http://buddhisteconomics.net/
Follow on https://twitter.com/BrownClair
From: Donna Stoneham
To: Julie Nestingen
Cc: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Re: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive, City Council meeting March 7, 2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:10:50 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear City Council Members,
My wife, Julie Nestingen, sent her email to you re: approval of encroachments at 8 Western Ave. I am reposting it here as they are my sentiments as well as an owner on Belvedere Ave who frequently uses Western Ave, to walk our dogs.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Dear City Council Members,
I am very concerned about the precedence of approving Encroachment Agreements by the city. I like to think that our elected officials are there to protect the public from actions that benefit one at the expense of the community. We can't have a city where anyone can decide to usurp public lands for their own gain without reproach.

The Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western is particularly risky as it is a very well- traveled route for pedestrians strolling through our neighborhoods, people going to our Keller Beach and the park, and is often used as a way for cars to circumvent getting stuck behind the trains crossing the downtown tracks. Bluntly speaking, it is a busy road for all modes of transportation.

There is very little room for people walking, cyclists, dog walkers, people with mobility challenges traveling in by wheelchair, etc to get out of the way of two-way traffic. Cars leaving the tunnel turn right onto Western at crazy speeds and their line of vision is obstructed by the hill and blind curve ahead. The fence coming over to the ROW adds to the treacherous conditions.

I am equally concerned about the upcoming years of work on the sewer main along Western Drive, which will crowd this narrow street even more, making it more precarious than ever to walk or bike along it. Walling off any public land along Western Drive at this corner puts the public at risk.

I don't fault the new owners and feel bad that they are caught in the greedy land grab of the previous owners. However, public safety cannot be overlooked for the benefit of one.

Thank you for listening to the voices of the residents when making this decision.

Best regards,
Julie Nestingen
Donna Stoneham

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 11:33 AM Julie Nestingen <[email protected]> wrote:

I don't fault the new owners and feel bad that they are caught in the greedy land grab of the previous owners. However, public safety cannot be overlooked for the benefit of one.

Thank you for listening to the voices of the residents when making this decision.

Best regards,
Julie Nestingen
From: Pamela Christian
To: Sabrina Lundy
Subject: FW: Email Message in Support of 8 Western Encroachment Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2023 3:59:05 PM
Attachments: IMG_1602.HEIC

From: Accounts Payable <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2023 4:44 PM
To: Pamela Christian <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin
<[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>
Subject: Email Message in Support of 8 Western Encroachment

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

Dear Ms. Christian, Mayor Martinez, Vice Mayor McLaughlin and City Council Members:

I am sending this email in support of maintaining the encroachment at 8 Western Drive, which I believe is on the agenda for your next meeting.

As an avid walker and user of Keller Beach across the street from the subject property I have become aware of the issue going on in regards to it. I am in favor of allowing the property owners to maintain this encroachment and think it’s actually a win/win for local residents.

There is ample room to walk in front of the house (although, as with many small communities, so many folks in Point Richmond don’t always use their sidewalks). It keeps the liability of that area off of the City and, it prevents people in those haul trucks from dumping there (which is becoming an unsightly problem in the area.) As an aside—and maybe not a small one— maintaining the encroachment and fence would obviously help give the owners peace of mind from what I understand have been attacks made against them since this issue arose as a consequence of their neighbors filing a lawsuit against the City.

What has really surprised me and other people I have talked to, is what appears to be the obvious hypocrisy in this situation. I must assume you have been to 8 Western and have seen the house/property to the left of it? On what I understand is also a City right-of- way/encroachment, there are pieces of glass, wood, rusted metal and enormous chained up tree trunks (axe targets I was told). If one of those broke free, it could roll off and seriously harm a pedestrian or a vehicle. Also, anyone could easily trip and hurt themselves on one of the metal sculptures. Perhaps those owners should also put a fence up along their stretch of Western to protect passersby from all their items? My understanding is there is no call to have that property owner’s encroachment reclaimed or rescinded.

When you really look around the neighborhood it appears that almost everyone's property is encroaching in some way, shape or form. Is everyone now going to have to move their fences or carports because of this? I may not fully understand all the details of what the complete issue is here, but from a “reasonable person” perspective, it just doesn't seem right for the City to target one property unless all the houses in the same community are to be held to the same standard. Something doesn’t feel quite right about that. If you are rescinding one encroachment you should rescind them all. But I strongly hope you do not. I think the City has more important things to focus their energy on than fighting over this issue. The City originally approved the encroachment and it actually beautifies and keeps clean what was once an unsightly spot.

Thank you for your attention to my opinion,
Louise M. Gori

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This E-mail message and any attachments are intended only for the use of the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If the reader of this message is neither the intended recipient, nor the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this information is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this message by error, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the message and deleting it from your computer.

Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
From: Pamela Christian
To: Sabrina Lundy; Jasuara Castaneda; Ursula Deloa
Subject: FW: Deny the Encroachment request on 8 Wester Drive Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 6:27:12 PM

From: Erica Milsom <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 2:37 PM
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Christian <[email protected]> Subject: Deny the Encroachment request on 8 Wester Drive

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

Hi there Mr. Mayor and members of the council,
I don't know if y'all remember those crazy days of the early pandemic when EVERYONE was walking in Richmond. Families, old people, young people, me. My dog. Well - it changed a lot about my relationship to the city, and where I felt like I had the time and right to go hang out. And Miller Know park and beach were treasured places that I loved to visit. Parking close to the beach was tough, and that's okay, because it's a problem we shared in a friendly way. As citizens and neighbors.

And then I see this application for a personal 2 spot parking encroachment on an already crowded and busy beach.
8 Western Drive. ONe that the privileged homeowners just decided to build without permits or applications. They decided they could JUST TAKE THE STREET as parking for themselves.

And tell the rest of us that it's a no-parking zone.

What?

This is a taxpayer funded location that includes - an important beach (that they can enjoy as often as they like) but the rest of us may need to drive to.

A narrow street that should not be modified by any homeowner who thinks it's their right to do so.

And an issue with receiving amazon deliveries?

WHAT?
As elected officials for the entire community, not just the homeowners on 8 western drive, I believe it's your job to deny this encroachment and return the parking spaces to public use.

Thanks,
Erica Milsom
415-595-3267
From: Felicia Layser Robertson
To: City Clerk Dept User
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Cesar Zepeda; Melvin Willis; Claudia Jimenez; Doria Robinson; Soheila Bana
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item #O.1
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 7:03:10 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Mayor Martinez and Council Members,
I am writing to you to urge you to adopt the resolution to approve an Encroachment Agreement Application for the private landowner at 8 Western Drive.

As a Richmond homeowner and resident, I want to see your time spent on public safety and enabling homeowners to increase the value of their homes which thereby brings up the value of their neighbors' property, increasing property taxes for the betterment of our greater community.
8 Western Drive is across the street from Keller Beach, a public gem we should all be able to enjoy safely - I love to take my dog for walks along the Bay and I want to know we're safe while enjoying this activity. The fencing brings up the value of this property and also acts as a preventative to the houseless setting up camp, much like we saw at Rydin Road, and in other areas accessible to water all around the greater Bay Area. Pt. Isabel used to be a spot for us to enjoy walks in the fresh air, until it became a challenge to access it. As you are well aware, Rydin Road was cleared out last year and fencing now exists along the length of it in what I may assume as a preventative from the houseless returning. Pt. Isabel is once again accessible.

If you walk or drive along Western Drive, you will see 8 Western Drive stands out in how well it is kept. At a time when insurance companies are reducing the policies they will write in California, we want to see homeowners who care for their homes and property and who voluntarily abate possible wildfire hazards, such as brush, tress and bushes. Rather than detract from a home, reduce the value and ask homeowners to lose equity and the value they received when they purchased their property, we should be asking our homeowners to keep up their homes and landscaping for the safety of all in our neighborhoods. I believe you are setting dangerous precedent if you take away value from a home after it has been purchased by a new homeowner as well as 'undoing' the actions of our city departments.

I am not sure how this item became agendized, but as your constituent, I would ask that you promptly approve this application and move on to the work that we want you to focus on - getting our houseless they support they need to get them off the streets and into an environment that promotes their health, safety and wellbeing and reducing crime that makes many of our streets truly unsafe.

Thank you for your service - Richmond has a rich and robust history - let's build it back up to the gem we all know it is capable of being. Thank you for taking the time to hear my voice.

In Gratitude,
Felicia Robertson
From: Jeff Ritterman
To: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments Agenda Item 0.1 Encrochment 8 Western Drive.

Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 3:55:14 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear City Council members and mayor,
I urge you to not approve the Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western Drive.

First of all it basically amounts to theft

of city property and is a dangerous precedent.

How can the city permit public land to be walled off for private use especially without the consent of the neighbors.

Secondly it is opposed by many in the neighborhood.

Such a project should only be done with
the approval of those in the neighborhood.

Thirdly it is possibly a danger to pedestrians and others.

Respectfully,
Jeff Ritterman, MD
former city councilmember
Human Rights Commissioner
From: Julie Nestingen
To: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive, City Council meeting March 7, 2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:33:22 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

conditions.

Walling off any public land along
Western Drive at this corner puts the public at risk.

I don't fault the new owners and feel bad that they are caught in the greedy land grab

of the previous owners. However, public safety cannot be overlooked for the benefit of one.

Thank you for listening to the voices of the residents when making this decision.

Best regards,
Julie Nestingen
From: Karen Veitch
To: City Clerk Dept User; Pamela Christian
Cc: Eduardo Martinez; [email protected]; Gayle McLaughlin; Claudia Jimenez; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda
Subject: Public comments - Agenda item # O.1
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 11:22:35 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear Mr. Mayor, Vice Mayor and City Council,
I am writing to encourage you to maintain the fence at 8 Western Drive. The fence has been a win/win for the city for the past 5 years in that it has made the street look so much nicer and taken liability
off of the city for what was
once an easy spot for people to do drugs and to dump. There is clearly no safety concern as it has now been documented by three separate engineers as such. Additionally, it will hopefully
protect this family from further hate-
based crimes.

Leave well enough alone and please move on to the issues affecting the majority of your constituents.

Sincerely,
Karen Wilson
From: Pamela Christian
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: FW: 8 Western Drive-Request for Denial
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 4:34:10 PM

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, March 3, 2023 4:34 PM
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Christian <[email protected]> Subject: 8 Western Drive-Request for Denial

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

Richmond City Council,

As a resident of Richmond, I request that the City Council deny the requested encroachment agreement which has been in dispute for years. Please put this issue to rest by your denial for the following reasons:

The proposed encroachment is simply a grab of public property by a private property owner which has no support at all for this in the surrounding neighborhood and community.

Since there is no clear public benefit for transferring the use of public right-of-way to a private landowner, the request should be denied.

The purpose of the request is to clean up illegal fencing of public property to annex public property for the purpose of increasing the property square footage. Instead of granting the encroachment, require the homeowner to restore the property to its original size by removing the fence.

Best Regards,

Kathy Watson
510-234-1776
[email protected]

You don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important From: Pamela Christian
To: Sabrina Lundy; Ursula Deloa; Jasuara Castaneda
Subject: FW: 8 Western --plus
Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 6:24:59 PM

From: Margi Cellucci <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 10:35 AM
To: Pamela Christian <[email protected]> Subject: 8 Western --plus

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

Please ADOPT a resolution to approve an Encroachment Agreement Application for private landowner fence encroachment into the unimproved public right-of-way at 8 Western Drive and for others going forward.

Thank You
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Margi Cellucci
BayView Realty
(510) 685-2018 (mobile)
(510)237-0101 (Land Line)
[email protected]
BREr00894024

From: Margi Sullivan
To: Margi Sullivan
Cc: Daniel Chavarria; Robert Armijo; Dave Aleshire; Cesar Zepeda; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Eduardo Martinez; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; City Clerk Dept User Subject: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive
Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:56:05 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
Dear Director Chavarria, Deputy Director Armijo, and City Attorney Aleshire:

The LUDRC and PRNC are respectfully requesting that the City delay the Public Hearing to consider approval of an encroachment agreement application for 8 Western Drive, currently scheduled for the March 7, 2023, City Council meeting and revisit the fencing project at 130 East Scenic Avenue.

Since the PRNC and LUDRC did not receive the required written notice (see footnote, Ordinance 09-22) on either of these projects, we are respectfully requesting proper notification to allow all entities adequate time to perform appropriate community outreach, gather input, take a vote, and submit a summary of written advisory comments for City Staff and the City Council to consider.

The City Council adopted Ordinance 09-22 on June 28, 2022, which amended Richmond Municipal Code pertaining to encroachments and easements (https://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/2534/Street-Cut-Prohibition).

12.30.110 - Notice requirements.
(a) All encroachment permits and license (agreements) shall require notice as follows:
(1) Applications. For applications that propose an aboveground encroachment, City Engineer shall provide written notice by first class mail to occupants and to owners (as shown on the County Assessor's latest tax roll) of properties located within 300 feet of the proposed encroachment, and to the neighborhood council and any homeowners' association in the neighborhood of the proposed encroachment, advising of the filing of an application for approval of an encroachment into the ROW, describing the proposed encroachment and its location, and providing an opportunity to submit written comments regarding the application to the City Engineer within 15 days from the date of the letter and prior to the City Engineer's action on the application. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no notice shall be required for any application limited to installation of utility poles, anchors, or small cabinets less than four cubic feet in size or for any underground excavations or related work.

Margi Sullivan
From: Pamela Christian
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: FW: Fence at 8 Western
Date: Friday, March 3, 2023 12:19:32 PM

From: [email protected] <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 2, 2023 1:55 PM
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>
Cc: Pamela Christian <[email protected]> Subject: Fence at 8 Western

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

Dear Mayor Martinez and City Councilmembers:

I urge you to allow the homeowners/residents at 8 Western Drive to keep their fence.

For years, I’ve regularly walked past 8 Western Drive with my dog. I never thought about the fence until noticing hate speech/racial slurs posted on it. One said “No Western Wetbacks" and months earlier another said "Go Away PACO!"

Then Tom Butt’s email referred to a “land grab” and illegal fence. I am not sure of the fine print of the initial ordinance, agreements, etc., but immediately, upon recalling the hate speech written on an encroachment notice and another, a cartoon of a Mexican, I thought this was probably about more than a fence. I sought more information.

The owners are Latinx. I’m fuzzy on the all of the historic details, but have been told that prior to buying the house, they checked everything out and were told the prior owners sought and received permits. The fence was permitted, no one complained until years later after the fence was built. After this the City approved an encroachment agreement. Then, when threatened with a lawsuit that they didn’t want to spend money on, the city rescinded the original encroachment approval, and asked the new owners to reapply for it under a new encroachment ordinance that was created.

I don’t want to get lost in the weeds, but the hate speech concerns me. I certainly understand why the people who live there would want a barrier around their property for protection against further hate-based actions.

Again, please allow homeowners at 8 Western to keep their fence.

Thank you.

Mindy Pines
25 Idaho St
Richmond CA 94801

From: Pamela Christian
To: Sabrina Lundy; Ursula Deloa; Jasuara Castaneda
Subject: FW: Agenda Item X.3 - Encroachment Permit Application for 8 Western Drive Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 6:24:05 PM

From: pat <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, March 4, 2023 12:54 AM
To: Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Pamela Christian <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item X.3 - Encroachment Permit Application for 8 Western Drive

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

Dear Richmond City Council,
One thing I love most about my Point Richmond neighborhood is walking dogs around its lanes and down to Keller Beach. It's a short walk I do all the time while regularly dog sitting for neighbors. It's a fantastic way to meet people who need help, especially when they are newly moved in, such as the Ortiz family of 8 Western Drive across from Keller Beach.

Today I'm writing in support of the Ortiz family, who bought the house at 8 Western Drive in 2021, and have not gotten a warm welcome for a sad reason. A technical property dispute has blown up into a politicized power issue that turns their welfare into collateral damage. They inherited a tangle behind what looked like a smooth sale, and it shouldn't have gone as far as police calls about racist harassment they are receiving.

That's my opinion after reviewing both sides of the technical property dispute, and the larger moral issue of how to solve problems as a neighborhood. I'm just a local dog walker, but also familiar with legal disputes and speaking up on behalf of fairness even when it's inconvenient. It would be convenient to do nothing, but the Ortiz family seems disadvantaged as newcomers and deserve more supporters to speak up.

At the root of the issue is a fence permit approved for the previous property owner in 2017. From looking at the details, I see no evidence of special favoritism or intentional malfeasance, greed or systematic grabbing to take land in the public right of way; it looks like an oddly placed property (like many in the neighborhood) needed a simple fix and it just wasn't looked at any harder than many other instances. The previous owners then invested to upgrade access and security, and it stood that way for several years. When the issue came up later, steps were taken to get an encroachment permit. This was approved by the City.

I see that the City has now updated the encroachment process by passing a new 2022 encroachment ordinance. The squeaky wheels got the grease by bringing up the issue. Certainly, it's a good idea to formalize the process for everyone now; but for the Ortiz family, the previous encroachment should not have been revoked as it had already been approved by the City.

As a fellow Point Richmond resident, and stakeholder in the public interest issue, I find the implication of malfeasance to be cooked up without evidence on top of mere ambiguity. I welcome the Ortiz family to live here and enjoy their property as it stands, consider it better and safer that way, and see no way it affects me when walking dogs down to Keller Beach in the right of way.

Politicizing this encroachment can be seen in the context around the details:

The timing of complaints that came up after the fence was put in and had stayed at 8 Western Drive without problems for several years.

Placement of the fence at 8 Western Drive isn't unique; rocks, tree trunks and other obstacles take similar space on the adjacent property, so the complaints are inconsistent and targeted.

Real issues with blocking public right of way haven't come up; but without a fence the land poses liability to the city with dumping and security issues.

The Ortiz family were innocently caught up in a dispute that escalated into racist attacks like graffiti slurs on their fence, and physical threats crossing their fence, ironically making them now need said fence more than ever. Solving this dispute and maintaining their encroachment would only bring them the peace they deserve to enjoy their home without living in fear.

I'm asking the city council to support the Ortiz family morally because they did nothing wrong, and for their neighbors to cut them a break and welcome them so they can enjoy their place and be part of the neighborhood. We won't benefit by forcing them to take down a fence that now protects them and gives them peace of mind.

Patrick Lake
Point Richmond
From: Philip Rosenthal
To: Daniel Chavarria; Lina Velasco; Robert Armijo
Cc: Cesar Zepeda; Eduardo Martinez; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Gayle McLaughlin; Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive Council meeting March 7 in support of issuing an encroachment Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 12:54:27 PM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Dear City Staff, Mayor and Council members:

I write as a neighbor and taxpayer regarding the 8 Western Drive encroachment.

Although I can't opine on the legality of the project and the applicant's need to resubmit their application, I ask you to consider the following:
1) The current homeowner did due- diligence when closing on the property. The fence permit had been cleared and the encroachment issued. We can't be the city where you do everything right and then due to political infighting find yourself the victim of public doxing by city officials and a small fortune in legal and engineering fees.
2) The narrative that the driveway is more restrictive to pedestrians, bicycles and cars is false.There is equal or greater shoulder in front of the fence , and this shoulder is both wider and clearer that the encroachment on the two adjacent lots on Western, which have encroached with giant boulders and metal barricades for DECADES. The space between the fence and the street complies with the ordinance's 22 foot setback requirement, and in some places more. The previous public works director measured and confirmed this and spoke to this as a matter of public record. There is room for two vehicles (total 18 feet) with room for a four foot sidewalk or refuge. The homeowner has offered to work with the city to further improve pedestrian safety/refuge.
3) Narrative regarding the accessibility and safety of Belvedere is absurd. This is a small lane, ending in (an often) muddy , undefined cul-de-sac. Encouraging parking or further construction is reckless, particularly as it applies to emergency vehicles. 4) Fiscal responsibility. There will likely be lawsuits no matter what the council decides. Please consider the ramifications of legal fees compared to the benefit that would be gained if the project is reversed. Please consider that the previous mayor ( while in office and currently) publically doxed both the previous and current owners, and also doxed the previous owner whilst using language that indicated they were nefarious. This included doxxing and publishing on social media a photo of a mother with her young child and the address. This is morally reprehensible, and might open the city , and thus the taxpayers, to legal ramifications.

This project is a mess and was no doubt mishandled in the past, but there is a morally clear thing to do...Please leave the poor folks alone to live their lives.

Thanks for considering these points.

Philip Rosenthal
--
This message is intended to be confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete this message from your system and notify Philip Rosenthal immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or action taken or omitted to be taken by an unintended recipient in reliance on this message is prohibited and may be unlawful.

From: Rodrick Satre
To: Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User; Soheila Bana
Cc: Clair Brown; Richard Katz; Sandra Beyaert; Philip Rosenthal Subject: Re: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 8:20:49 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

There may be some confusion about this project and what I was relating to the Council.

Please note that the 8 Western Drive fencing off the public right of way was never brought before the PRNC nor the LUDRC.

Therefore there has never been any decision made on this subject at the neighborhood council level.

My comments are from me not from LUDRC or
PRNC.

As to the fact of this never being brought to LUDRC I can state that fact based on my experience with the LUDRC for the full time of the history behind the project.

I would much preferred that these items get resolved close to home at the neighborhood level than having to take up your valuable time which is finite.

Thank you for listening and for your dedication.

Regards,
Rod Satre

Sent from my Boost Samsung Galaxy A32 5G
Get
Outlook for Android
From: Rodrick Satre
Sent: Sunday, March 5, 2023 9:41:43 PM
To: Soheila Bana <[email protected]>; Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>; Gayle McLaughlin <[email protected]>; Doria Robinson <[email protected]>; Melvin Willis <[email protected]>; Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]>
Cc: Clair Brown <[email protected]>; Richard Katz <[email protected]>; Sandra Beyaert <[email protected]>; Philip Rosenthal <[email protected]> Subject: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive

Dear City Council and Honorable Mayor;
I have been the chair of the local Point Richmond Neighborhood Council Land Use Design Review Committee or a member of the LUDRC since 1995.

I am still the Chair of the LUDRC
and confirm that the above fence encroachment and installation at 8 Western Drive was NEVER brought by any applicant to the PRNC LUDRC, even now with this elevated to a City Council hearing.

That fact alone is in violation of the Ordinance 09-22 N.S. section 12.30.110 NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.

I caution the City Council to enact ordinances and then within a year, totally act in violation to those very ordinances.

In this present item, the former land owner
knowingly took a sizeable chunk of real estate from the public right of way and fenced it off for personal use and gain, and in order to sell the land shortly thereafter for over $1.3million.

I've attached aerial photos and the county records of the subject property of 8 Western Drive [you will also note that the fence as installed is set outside of its owned property and takes land from APN 5561700715 thus the City of Richmond is asking Council authorize a taking of land from other property owners without notice or compensation] which shows substantial land accessible for parking from Belvedere Drive as well as an existing parking structure located above the present home of 8 Western Drivee

The Western Drive street views show both how
narrow this street already is and how restricted [if not impossible] two way traffic is due to this present fence encroachment.

IF the project had been presented to the community, it would most likely been heavily challenged by those most impacted individuals and by other persons that wish to travel our paved streets safely.

I request the City Council deny the encroachment agreement and seek recourse from the owner to have this unsafe fence, which is also 6 feet tall, another violation, removed.

Regards,
Rod Satre, Chair LUDRC

From: Sandra Beyaert
To: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive Date: Sunday, March 5, 2023 3:50:17 PM
Attachments: PastedGraphic-2.tiff
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 Martinez and City Councilors,
Please do not approve the Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western Drive. Allowing this 27 to 39 feet encroachment on public right-of-way would set a terrible precedent in at least two respects.

First, it would reward those taking unlawful possession of public property. Second, it would tell Richmond residents, especially in Point Richmond, that it is fine to wall in public streets by encroaching on the public right-of-way. Please look at the photo below and visualize how narrow Western Drive would be walled in if residents located on both sides of the streets were allowed to erect six foot high front yard fences within three feet of the pavement’s edge.

Approving this encroachment would set things in motion for a wall of high fences along public streets in Point Richmond. How could I walk safely, getting out of the path of oncoming trucks and cars near my home where there are narrow streets lacking sidewalks????

Sandra
_____________
Sandra Beyaert
73 Belvedere Ave., Richmond
[email protected]
Tel. 510-235-2835

From: Tom Piazza
To: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive
Date: Monday, March 6, 2023 10:18:37 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.
(Note: This is the same email sent on Feb. 14, with a new subject line) Dear Council Members:

This saga of the Encroachment reminds me of the situation in developing countries, where people routinely construct things without permits, expecting that eventually they will receive an amnesty.

Has Richmond now sunk to that level?
Certain facts are indisputable:

No permit was ever obtained for the construction of that fence on public land.

It interferes with walkers and is potentially dangerous.

Granting a permit now will set a precedent for others to exploit later,.

Although we can all sympathize with the current owners, they should seek recourse from the sellers who misrepresented the boundaries of the property and the lack of permits.

It is not acceptable to present an illegal encroachment as a fait accompli and expect that everyone will simply waive any legitimate concerns. I hope that the Council will act to preserve the integrity of the permitting process.

Sincerely yours,
Thomas Piazza
55 Crest Ave.

Richmond
From: Vivien Feyer
To: Soheila Bana; Claudia Jimenez; Eduardo Martinez; Gayle McLaughlin; Doria Robinson; Melvin Willis; Cesar Zepeda; City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments - Agenda Item O.1 Encroachment 8 Western Drive, City Council meeting March 7, 2023 Date: Tuesday, March 7, 2023 10:09:15 AM
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

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

Soheila Bana <[email protected]>, Claudia Jimenez <[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez
<[email protected]>, Gayle McLaughlin
<[email protected]>, Doria Robinson
<[email protected]>, Melvin Willis <[email protected]>, Cesar Zepeda <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> Dear City Council Members,
Please do not approve the Encroachment Agreement for 8 Western Drive.

I would like to join the many Richmond residents who have been voicing concern about what seems to be a very serious and dangerous mistake.

I worry about the safety of pedestrians, bicyclists and drivers at this very dangerous corner. Also of the wheelchairs and baby strollers that I see in that area frequently - and of their precious occupants. And of course also the dogs and dog walkers! I worry about safe access to the main entrance to one of RIchmond's most beautiful parks.

I also worry about the precedent that this approval might set, allowing residents to wall in public land?
Not only does this seem to be a very bad idea, but the potential future narrowing of Western Drive, in particular, could cause a huge cascade of problems in the future.

Fire safety is of course a primary concern. We are also looking at many years of work on the sewer main along Western Drive, which will necessitate more space than ever for vehicle parking along the already very narrow road. Permitting the walling off any public land along Western Drive, especially at this corner, and at this time, seems to be a clear error.

Thank you for taking the concerns of all our neighbors seriously, and for looking closely at all of the complicated history on this issue before making a decision that could have devastating consequences.

My heart goes out to the new owners of this property, but I believe that there are much better ways to resolve the situation for all involved.

With big appreciation,
Vivien
Vivien Feyer, EdM, CAS
Richmond resident, Western Drive
PPE For All - Founder / Project Manager
[email protected]
From: Cordell Hindler
To: City Clerk Dept User
Subject: Public Comments- P.1 Budget Session
Date: Thursday, March 2, 2023 5:02:12 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.

Hello Mayor Martinez, Councilmembers and Staff,
I am Asking that the Council To Approve the Resolution as Presented by Staff Sincerely
Cordell

Richmond City CouncilMarch 7, 2023

Richmond City Council
March 7, 2023