Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 08152000 - SD2 TO: Board of Supervisors ;l Contra FROM: Supervisor John Gioia, District 1 Costa Id 7 County DATE: August 15, 2000 SUBJECT: Status on North Richmond Collaboration SPECIFICREQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. CONSIDER a report on the status of County efforts working on collaboration with the City of Richmond to address quality of life issues in the North Richmond Community. 2. CONSIDER the actions that, through the leadership of the Board of Supervisors, have resulted in steps taken by the Sheriff-Coroner, District Attorney and the Directors of Building Inspection, Public Works, Housing Authority, Health Services, Redevelopment and Environmental Health to put into place programs and initiatives to assist the residents and businesses of North Richmond. 3. ACKNOWLEDE that the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County have worked together and expended a great deal of energy and resources toward programs to improve the quality of life in the North Richmond community. 4. ENDORSE the efforts of the COMET II team, a City of Richmond/County staff group who have been working in a cooperative spirit to design programs designated to benefit residents in North Richmond. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: 2L YES SIGNATURE ACTION OF BOARD ON APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X $THE-R VOTE OF SUPERVISORS 1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND X UNANIMOUS (ABSENT . CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Supervisor Gioia (510/374-3231) John Gregory (925/335-1039) ATTESTED PHIL BATCHELO&, CLIOR�MK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY , DEPUTY CC: Sheriff-Coroner, Redevelopment, Public Works, Housing Authority, City of Richmond, City Manager, City of Richmond Mayor N. RECOMMENDATIONS (conM 5 ACKNOWLEDGE that several County departments are currently proceeding towards implementation of items listed in the attached matrix. This list of objectives contained in the matrix was decided by the County and City of Richmond Departments Heads at an all day retreat on October 18, 1999. BACKGOUND/REASON(S) FOR RECOMMENDATION(S1 On October 18, 1999, a daylong city/county strategic planning and team building retreat was held at the EBMUD facility in Orinda to discuss various needs in the North Richmond community. The meeting was attended by Supervisor John Gioia, Mayor Rosemary Corbin, County Administrator Phil Batchelor, Chief Assistant County Administrator Scott Tandy, City Manager Isiah Turner and City and County department heads and staff members. The meeting resulted in development of six (6) goals and a series of six month objectives. The goals were: • Development with the community a coordinated economic development strategy for North Richmond • Improve communication among, city county and community • Develop with the community a Community Action Plan that reflects both the city and county portions of North Richmond • Enhance and coordinate activities which improve the physical condition of North Richmond • Develop and begin to implement a coordinated system of workforce development • Enhance and coordinate activities that improve the public safety of North Richmond A monthly monitoring matrix was prepared to provide stakeholders a monthly update regarding implementation of programs. One of the major goals was to "Develop with the community a Community Action Plan that reflects City and County portions of North Richmond." More specifically, the goal called for update and revisions of the community action plan prepared in the early 90's. This goal was deemed to be a major step in the revitalization of efforts to focus attention and resources on the needs of the community. The update and revision of the community action plan has been completed (Attachment B). The creation of this plan involved the use of a facilitator, a 25 member North Richmond Resident Steering Committee and a series of 8 focus groups. Highlights of the North Richmond Community Action Plan include: MISSION STATEMENT: The purpose of the North Richmond Community Action Plan is be a blueprint to improve the quality of life and revitalize the community. VISION STATEMENT: North Richmond will be a national example of a vibrant, multi-cultural, unified community that takes pride in its safe, clean environment and educational opportunities where people want to live. Many efforts have been undertaken by various County departments throughout the years the North Richmond community. Other activities which include the Center for Health and the new senior complex, have been implemented with high praise from the community. With the cooperation ofthe community, the leadership which has been shown by the Board of Supervisors, the most recent involvement of the North Regional Task Force and the dedication of involved County department heads and their staff; positive change is taking place in North Richmond. �d�r Attachment A `"'�°' Part 2 To: Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors City of Richmond City Council From: Jim Kennedy, Redevelopment Director, Contra Costa County David Thompson,Redevelopment Director, City of Richmond Date: June 14, 2000 Re: THE CITY/COUNTY INITIATIVE—NORTH RICHMOND: A FINANCE STRATEGY FOR INFRASTRUCTURE/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INTRODUCTION Infrastructure, the basic framework for economic development, includes a wide variety of facilities including: • Roads/Streets 0 Curbs ■ Bridges ■ Water & Wastewater Storage & ■ Sidewalks Treatment ■ Street Lights ■ Solid Waste, Sewage, & Storm Drain ■ Pedestrian Lights Systems ■ Traffic Signals ■ Landscaping ■ Pathfinder Signage ■ Parks & Community Facilities Public improvements may be financed by development fees, exaction's, and/or the use of tax-exempt financing mechanisms. The use of tax-exempt financing mechanisms allows public facilities to be financed and paid for while being used. This contrasts with fee based programs which require account balances to increase before the improvement can be constructed. By virtue of their tax-exempt status, this financing tends to have lower cost. See Appendix A for a matrix of commonly used tax-exempt financing mechanisms and summary of their advantages and disadvantages, and Appendix A-1 for a matrix of the types of facilities they may finance. MONITORING GOALS AND OBJECnas (MATRIX TASKs) A goal of the City/County Planning Initiatives for North Richmond is to, "Develop with the community a coordinated economic development strategy for North Richmond". Two strategic objectives that will implement the goal are: #1, Initiate a public/private partnership to fund infrastructure needs for employment- generating land uses and report to the City/County Planning Team; and #4, Conduct and identify funding sources to fund an inventory infrastructure needs assessment (e.g. drainage, curbs, gutters, sidewalks) in North Richmond. As indicated in this report, these tasks are being performed under the direction of the City/County Redevelopment Directors. ACTI4Ns To DATE Meetings have occurred between the City and County as well as inter jurisdictionally. The topics discussed include; ■ Land use- Build-out assumptions (necessary for determining financing capacity) Listing of economic development/Infrastructure needs and costs ■ Financing- Analysis of Redevelopment Agency Financing capacity Analysis of land secured financing capacity Financing gap (infrastructure cost minus financing capacity) INFRAsTRUCTuRE EDwicIlNG CAPACITY A. Redevelopment Agencies The County Redevelopment Agency has issued approximately $4.9 million of redevelopment tax allocation bonds to date for the North Richmond area. The proceeds of these bond issues have been used to finance both infrastructure and housing projects. Examples include Brookside Drive improvements, Parkway Estates, and Senior Housing. A projection of redevelopment revenues for the County's North Richmond Redevelopment Project Area indicates future bonding capacity of$5.2 million for infrastructure projects and $ 1.7 million for housing projects over the next 5-10 years. (See Appendix B for projections) This bonding capacity is constrained by the tax increment limit of$60 million contained in the currently adopted County Redevelopment Plan for North Richmond. The fiscal cap would be reached in 2026.1 Redevelopment laws permit this cap to be amended if determined necessary to address area blight. The City of Richmond Redevelopment Agency's financing strategy reflects the merger of the entire City's Redevelopment project areas as opposed to individual project areas. If the City issues tax-exempt bonds, it would be for a greater area than North Richmond. Thus, the proceeds potentially available for North Richmond improvements are unknown at this time. However, the City has, and will continue, to fund many projects in North Richmond through a variety of funding mechanisms. Both the City and County have adopted implementation plans for their respective redevelopment areas, which specify potential projects and financing mechanisms for a five year(2000-2004)period. For a more detailed list of bond expenditures, financing mechanisms, and City and County projects, including infrastructure and housing projects that have been funded through non-bond proceeds is available from either the Contra Costa County or the City of Richmond Redevelopment Agencies. B. Assessment or Mello-Roos Financing Capacity. Assessment bonds or Mello-Roos bonds are a mechanism for perfecting a public-private partnership to addressarea needs. Annual assessments or special tax payments made by property owners secure these types of debts. No existing assessment or Mello-Roos bonds are known to exist on properties in the North Richmond area. The County Board of Supervisors, consistent with industry standards,has established a limit to the "overlapping" debt burden on any parcel of 2% of the assessed value i.e., the maximum annual property owner burden for property taxes plus assessments/special taxes should not exceed 2% of assessed value. It is important to note that the maximum 2% tax burden will absorb all bonding capacity for agencies i These numbers are estimates based on approximate buildout.True development patterns may be different than what has been assumed. 2 providing services within the taxing area (i.e. city, county, school districts, sanitation districts, BART, etc.). As noted in Appendix A, Mello-Roos bonds require a special election with 2/3-voter approval, which can be landowners in substantially unoccupied areas. The analysis set forth is for the non-residential portion of unincorporated North Richmond comprised of the employment generating land uses. The staff does not believe that establishment of an occupied special tax district, with a 2/3-voter approval, is a viable alternative. Because of the political and economic implications of Mello-Roos bonds, it is difficult to assess the area's financial capacity without further discussion with property owners and the community=-at-large. However, for discussion, the non-residential assessed values and tax rates for the County portion of North Richmond were used to provide potential range of financing capacity. Using a constrained debt model, it suggests a revenue generation of approximately $6.74 million of bond proceedS2. The North Richmond area is not, however, a static area. New investment by property owners in the non-residential area is expected and encouraged to occur. This new investment will increase the assessed value of the area, and will increase the future debt bonding capacity. i2ESOU7RCEs REQiTiitETp` A. Estimate of Community Infrastructure It has been estimated that upgrading the North Richmond community infrastructure for economic development that are eligible for bond proceeds will require $23,000,000 as follows in the below table. This cost has not been formally presented to the North Richmond MAC, city Neighborhood Council or area businesses. This list also excludes bond eligible projects in the residential area of North Richmond; non- bond eligible projects that are a priority for the community. A full discussion with community groups must occur in order to set desired goals and determine a complete project list (i.e. both bond and non-bond eligible). It is also imperative to assess the applicability ofFederal/State funds and developer fees as projects move towards implementation. Bond Eligible Project Description Preliminary Cost Est. Drainage Drainage for area North of Parr to Richmond Pkwy $4,000,000 Traffic Circulation Extension of Pittsburg Ave.from 3rd to 7th or Soto $10,000,000 Open Space&Paths Along Wildcat Creek&Bay $1,500,000 Road Extension Extending 7th or Soto for Traffic Congestion $7,500,000 Total $23,000,000 B. Comparison of Financing Capacity to Financing Needs A partnership of public and private funding of community infrastructure needs is going to be required. The following table suggests a funding gap will exist using the County as an example. 2 A constrained debt model limits the overlapping debt burden to 1.5%of assessed value.A maximum debt model with a 2%overlapping debt burden suggests revenue generation of approximately$13.9 million 3 - 7 SUMMARY OF COUNTY PORTION OF NORTH RICHMOND INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING REQUIREMENTS AND DEBT CAPACITY Revenue Economic Development Debt Capacity: County Redevelopment[1] $5,220,000 City Redevelopment To Be Determined Mello-Roos Bonds[2] $6,740,000 Total $11,960,000 Costs Economic Development Oriented Community Infrastructure Capital Requirements Total $23,000,000 Capital Financing Surplus/Gap(-) -$11,040,000 N +.XT STEPS • Initiate discussion with North Richmond MAC, Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council and area business to develop full list of projects. ■ Develop project prioritization with above parties. ■ Discuss funding strategy for priority projects;both bond eligible and non-bond eligible projects. ■ Initiation of property owner discussion regarding Mello-Roos bonds and other funding mechanisms. ■ Assess if County fiscal cap needs to be adjusted. ■ Identify Federal/State and other possible funding programs that may be available. Timm FRAME There is not an established completion date for this project because it is an on-going and working process until its completion. However, there are several projects that are currently being assessed for their implementation feasibility. Two of these are the North Richmond Drainage North of Parr Blvd. and the Extension of Pittsburg Ave to Soto or 7th Street, of which their feasibility should be known in the next 12 to 18 months. Initial discussions on these projects have already occurred with some of the community groups and the businesses that are directly effected by the outcome. Future project components include assessing financial and environmental feasibility, defining projects with the community and affected property owners/businesses, and identifying the financing mechanisms necessary to complete the projects. [1]Assumes non-housing constrained tax increment only. [2]Assumes conservative method of estimating debt capacity with projected new development. 4 4,- APPFN iX A ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGE OF COMMONLY USED TAX-EXEMPT FINANCING MECHANISMS AUENDDLAA a .8lS-„'vnD FACILITIES AUTHORIZED TO BE FINANCED BY VARIOUS BUNDS Facilities Authorized to be General Assessment Mello-Roos Redevelopment Certificate of Reven Financed by Various Bonds O li on Bonds Bonds* Bonds Participation Bond nds Bridges X X X X X Building X X X X X Fire Stations X X X Hazard Abatements X X x Landscaping X x x X Libraries X X X x x Open Space X X X Parking Facilities X X X X X Parks X X X X X x Police Stations X X X Public Utilities X X X x Pump Stations. X X X X X Roads X X x X Schools X X X Sewers X X x X X Sidewalks X X X X Streets and Highways x x x X Street Lights x X X Storm Drains x X X x X Traffic Signals X X X Water Treatment Facilities X X X X x 7 L%z APPENDIX B ESTIMATE OF TAX ALLOCATION BOND CAPACITY- COUNTY'S NORTH RICHMOND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA Tax Increment Unconstrained Bonding Constrained Bonding Capacity(2) Capacity(2) Fiscal Year Assessed Housing Non- Housing Hon- Housing Non- Ending Valuation Housing(l) Housing Housing 2000 120,420,000 98,488 -63,447 2001 126,161,300 106,354 -38,866 2002 131,769,426 114,984 -11,499 2003 146,574,715 141,760 88,163 2004 157,547,332 160,903 156,997 2005 170,538,631 183,989 241,291 2006 181,074,304 202,164 305,622 1,130,000 2,990,000 950,000 2,540,000 2007 190,193,621 217,484 358,197 2008 199,622,394 233,362 412,655 2009 207,739,741 246,590 456,152 2010 219,894,139 267,748 530,991 2011 233,570,172 291,859 617,248 982,000 3,450,000 750,000 2,680,000 2012 247,866,476 317,137 707,771 2013 265,448,705 348,856 823,632 2014 279,732,579 373,989 912,707 2015 291,452,131 393,986 980,782 2016 302,906,073 413,394 1,046,023 2017 314,976,725 433,957 1,115,388 2018 328,901,159 458,121 1,198,643 2019 340,954,082 478,515 1,266,280 2020 355,140,993 503,061 1,349,97I 2021 361,868,713 512,781 1,373,775 2022 368,730,987 522,695 1,397,753 2023 375,730,507 532,807 1,421,897 2024 382,870,017 543,122 1,446,198 2025 390,152,317 553,642 1,470,646 2026 397,580,264 564,374 1,495,230 2027 405,156,769 575,320 1,519,939 2028 412,884,804 586,484 1,544,760 2029 420,767,401 597,872 1,855,082 2030 428,807,649 609,488 1,880,089 2031 437,008,702 621,336 1,905,167 2032 445,373,776 633,422 1,930,300 2033 453,906,151 645,748 1,955,472 2034 462,609,174 658,322 1,980,665 2035 471,468,258 671,147 2,005,859 2036 480,540,883 684,228 2,031,035 2037 489,776,600 697,571 2,056,172 Total 2,112,000 6,440,000 1,700,000 5,220,000 (1) Tax increment available after administration fees, adjustments, and existing debt service. (2) Net proceeds from bond issuance based on projections of tax increment unconstrained by fiscal caps. 8 f 4 i' Note: all bonding analyses were used on level debt service, no capitalized interest, 1.25% underwriter's discount, and interest rates of 4% in Year 1 escalating to 5.75% in Years 23+. For the unconstrained bonding capacity, 30 year debt service was used for the FY 2005/06 issuance, and 25 year debt service was used for the FY 2011/12 issuance. For the constrained bonding capacity (reaching increment cap in FY 2025/26, 21 year debt service was used for the FY 2005/06 issuance, and 16 year debt service was used for the FY 2011/12 issuance. 9 Attachment A Part 1 a. ov, U. •vroom c a � > Hz 12 g cn .0 E 0LU IL ru C > G W LLI 00 N t AW LU t3 Z = 0 gil Z Q 0 � 0 C3 Z 0 N �is �' tM ccs m Z 0 C �i � p, C C C 05 _ C C 22 GL = c !0 W O E m d 4[ p y C C 63 h C IOD qq r r y o G of) ji C3 >16 ID O �j fl � Mc`lu � { "✓ �[ Fri £ �° E cam-S c ;?,g orsE "era C c w � � a � = baa Eat- � ca Q 32� R W r$ boa` ra c� 7z �u (D e E 4 8C c: 00 E 79 8 0 ca CJ ' $ CA � o �y 2 .0 � U ca .i LL 0 SCI �y XI X1 Eo 0 r C Z 8 o 0 q =z C to "0 Z 1© ca E �d .. t C9 . ' toi3`3 � ` td . t�1 �y iLQi .� ' C C "O C r� +' c N +" C to Q w H E 0 ' E ca ' }— " c , C W ,�+ .t, > 0 0wtUOGo t3c�. t�s r- ,." 6. IV U� E 0 ea> acs CD 0 0 > tm z E 0 7s 4) 0 U. co 12 z 0 (D Z uyC C r_ ID a. c t a m co 4? 0r -E E E S CD .0 0 0 cc CL x x X1 x tz Ed cm W t)).— = c CLC c O 'D 4) :5 0 .0 -a iQC CL C0 >o— CLt. tx E Z�Z� E E 0 E In E 0 0) > Im r. 0 r m CL 0 CL u r_ 0) 0 0 c -E t3 eo 0 0 E I: ®'D c IX0 5 0 .0 a 2 62 Z, m CL= E E R 0 H as as as 0 at 0 E- E S E a. z Qy 2:, o =0 cc 2:, E 0 a CL M ru CD 0 > 0 0 0 0 Z U-1 3 a� ` c c to c c o cIv%. 0- S's 0 C)' 0 °gni 0 S� �'Cy �� o � 8 r y 0-0 ® ' $ v �• {y� � � c6 �,� � 8 U c N ON cs to ... • , ° cd S Ot�0 za 0 Sc Cgoo aL to 0 chi to *0to o ��� � * G AG � CL to � c ww a,ta O r. ✓o 0 c co � ' a•c e ori 41 IF 105 tf-� S t � o � ` + era e r� t" m 1 L 0 tm E a -E 2' 0 0 .0 CL > E c C" 0 r>_ > 0 Z UJ 0 0 V a r= C r- im -2 2 > 'S G 'o o E 012 "j C v E oy > = W IOL c CM 0 cm (6 -0 0 CL c 0 c :6 C 0 14) > Cu 0 0 0 w w cc Im cc :8 tm > 2 — c 0 0 IL z Uc CL U) cc 0 cc 0 0 uo) XI X1 E IM CL .c 0 ,g 0 R, t r o CL CIO 0 E 0 E r 0 *0 r Eat s- r- 0 CL:s -CIL CL M E o r- is M u M CL 0 1� ur 2 a = OM 0 O .S E E E t 0 cm 1- 4; N c 4) t .0 -e 0 a. LL M t 22) 4) (D 'ED L6LJ > 9 a- .— E- 5 a o m M E 4) 0) mo col m 5 C Lo — in 4) � u`° �_c" Ey E a0j5 .2L'VD : 0 -j co co 8 =0 U- ce CF 00 cs 0 C> cc 0- 0 0) m E 48- m 0 0 E c °' C,• w 0 ca E r- 4) w M (D E E .9 E :3 m E O 12 >, r- 'E 9.9? m o 9 a> m a m 3 = 0 O 1 e L 0 Ix Lu a. a- ro Ro a (0 W IN a � ss V sr .►� ti7 z " w Ct Ci CL e°iE $ � E C > C O ;1+ 0 _ 0} L. "0 E CL to G �+ E E CL 0 tdp 0 *0 C: r y B OG Im 0 C; , Q.G G E ... .� C � �• �' � � C�3 to ,� 0 Il s m02ISM E C3 � A9 co 1 zz � � to `+� oco CY• O1 o. 'L �y A j 01. W 'ct5 4y CO tl1 C to ASN •� rQ U7 N S3 1 ifs °' Sa C ul tt t2 t9 s o a ol o o .0 �U. 0 t0a 0 0 Sees 0 Ole � � 0 .y � o oNadas �ciso 't3 r. C) c cs' ,^ mo N '.0ul a� %^ o `� ��' 00 S z > 4) ® 15 :2 c ' iv E °c c c us � OS� > a;, Z' N 0 G c a CL a`s w aim :c c ° c E 0 .2 v CL z m E v (D +' •r �`� r ..... . 11780 San Pablo Ave., Suite D Contra Costa County .. . El Cerrito, CA 94530 Boa'rd of Supervisors John GioiiaPhone (510) 374-3231 d6 rtliie " '±: Fax (510) 374-3429 Supervisor, District I Attachment A Part 3 Community Action Plan Steering Committee Buford Williams Marena Brown Otherme Nelson P.O.Box 1076 Sheilds,Reid Neighborhood 1625 511,Street El Cerrito,CA 94530 Coordinating Council-Chair North Richmond,CA 94801 758-6198 1240 Leo Street 234-7143(hm) RESIDENT Richmond,CA 94801 235-4181 (hm) 2234579(hm) 215-4670(wk) De'Andre Wells 215-4670(wk) RESIDENT City of Richmond 215-9713 City Manager's Office RESIDENT Dola Mccaulay 2600 Barrett Street 320 Chesley Avenue Richmond,CA 94804 Joe Wallace North Richmond,CA 94801 620-6512 North Richmond 232-6438(hm) 620-6542(fax) MAC Chair 374-3473(wk) CITY STAFF 1753 First Street RESIDENT North Richmond,CA 94801 Leveron Bryant 374-3231 (hm) Tracy Dones City of Richmond 374-7308(fax) 32 Sanford Street,Apt B Assistant City Manager 234-7689(wk) North Richmond,CA 94801 2600 Barrett Street RESIDENT 235-1516(wk) Richmond,CA 94804 236-3690(wk) 620-6512 Corrine Sain 234-5174(hm) 620-6542(fax) 1330 Kelsey Street 236-3788(fax) CITY STAFF North Richmond,CA 94801 RESIDENT 235-3211 (wk) John Gregory RESIDENT Annie King-Merdith Contra Costa County 299 Verde Avenue Deputy County Fred Jackson North Richmond,CA 94801 Administrator 1852 3rd Street 236-9951(hm) 651 Pine Street,111h Floor North Richmond,CA 94801 374-7111 (wk) Martinez,CA 94553 235-9780(wk) RESIDENT 925/335-1089 235-7226(hm) 925/335-1098(fax) RESIDENT Zettie Roland COUNTY STAFF 235 Sanford Avenue Gayle Dart North Richmond,CA 948014 Rayne Martin 140 Malcolm Drive 235-7142 Supervisor John Gioia North Richmond,CA 94801 RESIDENT Chief of Staff 2374284(hm) 11780 San Pablo Avenue, 235-9780(wk) Margery Woodards Suite D RESIDENT 1758 Harold Street El Cerrito,CA 94530 North Richmond,CA 94801 374-3231 234-6259 374-3429(fax) RESIDENT COUNTY STAFF 5 Nate Evans Susan Howe -/ 208 Market Street Amigo Bag Beth Lee r , North Richmond,CA 94801 801 Chesley Avenue Contra Costa County 235-4665 Richmond,CA 94801 Redevelopment Agency RESIDENT 231-6816(ph) 925-335-1256 231-6810(fax) Lee Jones RESIDENT/BUSINESS 368 Silver Street Apt B North Richmond,CA 94801 Neighborhood House of 234-1997 North Richmond RESIDENT ATTN:Barbara Becnel 305 Chesley Avenue Shirley Wright North Richmond,CA 94801 251 Sanford Avenue 235-9780 North Richmond,CA 94801 232-3112(fax) 510/235-7472 NON-PROFIT RESIDENT Community Housing Florence Reid-Randle Development Corporation of 1355 Kelsey Street North Richmond North Richmond,CA 94801 ATTN:Donald Gilmore 233-3865 LaWana Jenkins RESIDENT 1452 Filbert Street North Richmond,CA 94801 Ms.Harris 412-9290 320 Sanford Avenue 215-9276(fax) North Richmond,CA 94801 NON-PROFIT 232-2831(disconnected number) RESIDENT Nang Boonpeng RESIDENT 1427 Filbert Street North Richmond,CA 94801 Martha Watson 510/374-7309 1255 Kelsey Street RESIDENT North Richmond,CA 94801 236-4163 Mayor Rosemary Corbin RESIDENT City of Richmond 2600 Barrett Aventine Rita Hunt Richmond,CA 94804 540 Alamo Avenue 510/6206503 North Richmond,CA 94801 232-5310 Laura Lucus RESIDENT 225 Alamo Street North Richmond,CA 94801 Reverend Inlays 415/3100450 Davis Chapel RESIDENT 369 Chelsey Street North Richmond,CA 94801 Keith Axtell 232-7892 US Department of Housing 232-6214 and Urban Development CLERGY 450 Golden Gate Box 36003 San Francisco,CA 94102 415/436-8414 ;;. pa � ra C3 Lm G�' yyrQQ tG G G 't G c0t� 3; ul j LS i� �� $ GCS• � to � � �� ��� � • •� test C 01 G t�5 to 4 G • r w to Isw c -C is s + X40 -� I� 1. 01, � "S �ul c r r � Y" co'o '� L 4i .r coa p ° may ° * py Lo 4 ' 0 O j� 4 ttl G rC C� 1y 4 4 iCl G W Cp��!!77 70 .� 3 0i t� C � 4 V 4 C gQ° � 4 � c`ov o rn 4 c j 13 o ' °> ra to CL > c I § i $ 4 F E ` � m 4Q' �[ -s a» $U qua (3rn o.8 « v, • a` x w W oaf w z 0 a x ar o 9 U � . E 3 E 0 .92-dag � �2 .. MAme .a 'cs E � C ? CL E E� � rs 18 0 Te Sora 6 Z Sc Som C�1 f 0 -6 z � o oases,-: {t 2 Em as c asoo �o � 0) 'umio. leE jo aoi o ` �,�'o 'LI � � E .2 o coo -o'O LDif! �* � � C � . ron£ CT M r- 3 2123 zi w Y ai U)z e 9s ,-fly o tm cc aca d'i c afi � �� c -- oQ. 75 8 0.2 �-off' > ` a c � a`s c o c N ami o $ .r ` V •^pO 9i g y�Y (7L]y CyS. (� ;U � •���`j (W- y(''3y E m -0 too m a c u o � ami l a E Of 0 Q d o tJC b tJi•t� c. rx z u1 cr+3 LJ w.2t� men m it x x + x w.0 Cc .9: 8c a ama :o Ln E cE� C) $� c it m i2 ct"g CL ctC FC. ' a css LO 79 S m oC� g a L z a �C3 3 v�-S o >, � :9 $ cars m ':» v` S cuVea` ccc3 9000 a 0 '> mzat gt3 n 0 LZ rC f�� m c� ,c ams c g c a,� E' c , t� o cmiL� �V t}t3° eh C21 -1m > r > I rs ua oa et c`a mL a`s L n to as 0% s d rG �� p � � G• G �tp G � � - n g sem" 146 cz 0 ri. m r $ o �- 0 V P _ .✓� GNU, ."�s '� G�� le �`. � {Jti12�' 8-5 to 52,0 p'G G 7" G t�.�y CO- p p p 7 a � � a t0 ' - �' � �' C7 i ii c `t5 p. S6 p �p. '.G a .,. '" -00 p G ffi✓ pr � p i , 0 p 8 �� � oy�� �s 011 v G �'i G c3 �'� G G p p C4 r y r c+'i l7 N