HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05212019 - Housing Authority
CALENDAR FOR THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS
BOARD CHAMBERS ROOM 107, COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
651 PINE STREET
MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA 94553-1229
JOHN GIOIA, CHAIR
CANDACE ANDERSEN, VICE CHAIR
DIANE BURGIS
KAREN MITCHOFF
FEDERAL D. GLOVER
FAY NATHANIEL
JANNEL GEORGE-ODEN
JOSEPH VILLARREAL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, (925) 957-8000
PERSONS WHO WISH TO ADDRESS THE BOARD DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR WITH RESPECT TO
AN ITEM THAT IS ON THE AGENDA, WILL BE LIMITED TO TWO (2) MINUTES.
The Board Chair may reduce the amount of time allotted per speaker at the beginning of each item
or public comment period
depending on the number of speakers and the business of the day.
Your patience is appreciated.
A closed session may be called at the discretion of the Board Chair.
Staff reports related to open session items on the agenda are also accessible on line at
www.co.contra-costa.ca.us.
ANNOTATED AGENDA & MINUTES
May 21, 2019
1:00 P.M. Convene and call to order.
CONSIDER CONSENT ITEMS: (Items listed as C.1 through C.4 on the following agenda ) -
Items are subject to removal from the Consent Calendar by request from any
Commissioner or on request for discussion by a member of the public. Items removed
from the Consent Calendar will be considered with the Discussion Items.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 1
DISCUSSION ITEMS
D. 1 CONSIDER Consent Items previously removed.
No items removed for discussion.
D. 2 PUBLIC COMMENT (2 Minutes/Speaker)
No public speakers.
D.3 CONSIDER accepting report concerning the rapid rise of Housing Choice
Voucher costs.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
D.4 CONSIDER accepting report on the status of the voluntary transfer of the
Richmond Housing Authority's housing choice voucher and project-based voucher
programs to the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
D.5 CONSIDER approving and authorizing the Executive Director of the Housing
Authority of the County of Contra Costa to submit a Section 18 application to the
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for the partial demolition
and total disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
ADJOURN
Adjourn at 2:10 p.m.
CONSENT ITEMS:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 2
C.1 ACCEPT the 3rd Quarter (Unaudited) Budget Report for the period ending
December 31, 2018.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
C.2 DENY claim flied by Carla Hammer.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
C.3 ADOPT Resolution No. 5223 certifying the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa as a High Performer under the Section 8 Management Assessment
Program, subject to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
confirmatory review, for the period of April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
C.4 ACCEPT report on the relocation status of the families at the Las Deltas public
housing development in North Richmond.
Commissioner John Gioia AYE
Commissioner Candace Andersen AYE
Commissioner Diane Burgis AYE
Commissioner Karen Mitchoff AYE
Commissioner Federal D. Glover AYE
GENERAL INFORMATION
Persons who wish to address the Board of Commissioners should complete the form provided for
that purpose and furnish a copy of any written statement to the Clerk.
All matters listed under CONSENT ITEMS are considered by the Board of Commissioners to be
routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items
unless requested by a member of the Board or a member of the public prior to the time the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 3
Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Persons who wish to speak on matters set for PUBLIC HEARINGS will be heard when the Chair
calls for comments from those persons who are in support thereof or in opposition thereto. After
persons have spoken, the hearing is closed and the matter is subject to discussion and action by the
Board.
Comments on matters listed on the agenda or otherwise within the purview of the Board of
Commissioners can be submitted to the office of the Clerk of the Board via mail: Board of
Commissioners, 651 Pine Street Room 106, Martinez, CA 94553; by fax: 925-335-1913; or via the
County’s web page: www.co.contracosta.ca.us, by clicking “Submit Public Comment” (the last
bullet point in the left column under the title “Board of Commissioners.”)
The County will provide reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities planning to
attend Board meetings who contact the Clerk of the Board at least 24 hours before the meeting, at
(925) 335-1900; TDD (925) 335-1915. An assistive listening device is available from the Clerk,
Room 106. Copies of taped recordings of all or portions of a Board meeting may be purchased
from the Clerk of the Board. Please telephone the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925)
335-1900, to make the necessary arrangements.
Applications for personal subscriptions to the monthly Board Agenda may be obtained by calling
the Office of the Clerk of the Board, (925) 335-1900. The monthly agenda may also be viewed on
the County’s internet Web Page: www.co.contra-costa.ca.us
The Closed session agenda is available each month upon request from the Office of the Clerk of the
Board, 651 Pine Street, Room 106, Martinez, California, and may also be viewed on the County’s
Web Page.
AGENDA DEADLINE: Thursday, 12 noon, 12 days before the Tuesday Board meetings.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 4
RECOMMENDATIONS
RECEIVE oral report discussing the rapid rise of Housing Choice Voucher costs.
BACKGROUND
Staff will discuss the rapid rise of Housing Choice Voucher costs with the Board of Directors.
FISCAL IMPACT
None. Informational item only.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
None. Informational item only.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
D.3
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:PRESENTATION ON SUBSIDY COSTS (HAP) VERSUS VOUCHER COUNT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 5
ATTACHMENTS
Contra Costa HAP Increases
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 6
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes7
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT an oral report on the status of the voluntary transfer of the Richmond Housing Authority's
housing choice voucher and project-based voucher programs to the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa.
BACKGROUND
Staff will provide an oral update on the status of the proposed transfer.
FISCAL IMPACT
The transfer of the Richmond Housing Authority's Voucher programs would increase the Housing
Authority of the County of Contra Costa's (HACCC) current contract with HUD from 6,996 vouchers to
9,000 vouchers. Should the transfer occur, it is anticipated that HACCC's projected voucher budget for
FYE 2020 would increase from $117 million to between $142 million and $150 million.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
None. Information item only.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
D.4
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:STATUS OF THE VOLUNTARY TRANSFER OF THE RICHMOND HOUSING AUTHORITY'S HOUSING
CHOICE VOUCHER AND PROJECT-BASED VOUCHER PROGRAMS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 8
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County of Contra
Costa (HACCC) to submit an application to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) for the partial demolition and total disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I (the Property).
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2013, the Board approved submission of two Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
applications for the conversion of 90 vacant public housing units at Las Deltas in North Richmond to RAD
project-based voucher (PBV) units that could be used to fund development of affordable housing
throughout the County. On March 30, 2015, HUD approved these two applications.
When staff submitted HACCC's RAD application in December 2013, the intention was to also submit a
Section 18 Demolition/Disposition (Section 18) application to HUD for the remaining, occupied units at
Las Deltas. The primary advantage of a Section 18 application was that it provided a better long-term
subsidy stream than the RAD program did. The disadvantages were that HUD had made it very difficult to
get a Section 18 application approved, the funding for replacement vouchers under such an application were
shrinking (meaning we may not have gotten any) and HUD did not provide replacement funding for vacant
units under a Section 18 application.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
D.5
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Application to HUD for the Partial Demolition andTotal Disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 9
BACKGROUND (CONT'D)
In discussions with HUD and others it became clear that it would be difficult to get a Section 18
application approved for Las Deltas and HACCC's best option was to submit a RAD application for the
remaining 124 units at Las Deltas in order to maximize the chances that the entire property can be
converted to project-based assistance that can be used to develop replacement housing elsewhere. As a
result, on August 18, 2015, the Board authorized submission of two more RAD applications to HUD
that would increase HACCC's previously approved applications for 90 vacant units to include all 214
units at Las Deltas in North Richmond.
On August 16, 2016, HUD approved the additional two applications for the remaining units to be
converted under the RAD program. In an effort to replace the units that would be lost at the Property,
HACCC committed 214 units of RAD PBV funding to non-profit housing developers in October of 2015
to 14 properties across Contra Costa County. Unfortunately, the rents associated with the RAD
assistance would not be sufficient to support the debt service these properties would incur as part of the
RAD rehabilitation process and HACCC had to commit additional regular project-based vouchers to
these projects.
Three of the 14 projects withdrew from consideration leaving 107 units of RAD assistance unallocated to
replacement projects. HACCC has been exploring other projects that may be able to utilize these 107
RAD vouchers but, to date, no entity has shown interest in the assistance. Per HUD regulations there are
two methods whereby a housing authority may dispose of public housing units - RAD or Demolition and
Disposition. HACCC approached HUD with the possibility of pursuing Section 18 Demolition and
Disposition for the remaining 107 unassigned units. HUD indicated that they were amenable to
re-visiting such an application for this property.
205 of the original 214 units are currently vacant at the Property. Many of the units are in advanced
stages of destruction from break-ins and vandalism. HACCC continues to incur annual costs of over
$300,000 to board up and secure the units that are in need of millions of dollars in rehabilitation and/or
are total losses. In addition, HACCC continues to incur utility costs for power and water at these vacant
and vandalized units. Once vacant, HUD ceases to provide funding for the units. Thus, while we
continue to explore development and replacement options for the Property, HACCC continues to incur
costs for which no funding is being provided. Demolition of the properties is critical to fiscal solvency at
the Property.
Partial demolition of the contiguous section of the property will not only eliminate the need for
incurring continued costs on these units, but would make the site more attractive for prospective
developers. In addition, by securing HUD approval to dispose of the entire property, it will enable
HACCC to sell off the 80 scattered-site units that pepper the surrounding neighborhood. The proceeds
of the sale of these units and sites are required to be re-allocated to other public housing purposes. It is
HACCC's intent to use these proceeds as pre-development funding for addressing the needs of other
public housing developments in its portfolio.
HACCC has met with the residents of the Property to discuss the possibility of a partial demolition and
total disposition application and has had several meetings with the Resident Advisory Board to discuss
its plans to pursue such an application as well. In addition, HACCC has discussed plans to demolish and
dispose of the Property with the local Municipal Action Committee (MAC), the Las Deltas Steering
Committee and this Board in the past. Moreover, HACCC has been actively working with the North
Richmond Planning Committee (NRPC). NRPC, led by Healthy Richmond, the Richmond
Neighborhood Housing Services and Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC), has been working
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 10
with numerous community leaders and residents to develop a comprehensive strategy that addresses
housing, safety, business opportunity and youth and education concerns in the neighborhood in an effort
to transform the neighborhood and community into the vibrant and desirable area that it once was.
These groups have contributed to HACCC's conceptualization of the demolition and disposition process
and have been amenable and supportive of HACCC's efforts to bring change to the Property.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding for the relocation of the families who reside(d) at the Property and partial demolition of the
Property are being paid from HACCC's approved annual Capital Fund Program (CFP) budget.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Should the Board of Commissioners not authorize the Executive Director of the Housing Authority of
the County of Contra Costa to submit an application to HUD for the partial demolition and total
disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I, HACCC will continue to incur costs for door and
window enclosures and paying for utilities at a predominantly vacant property that will continue to
attract squatters and criminal elements.
ATTACHMENTS
Board order- C139
Las Deltas Demo Dispo Application Cover Letter
Las Deltas Demo Dispo App. - 52860 - 4 Unexecuted
Las Deltas Demo Dispo App. - 52860-A Unexecuted
Las Deltas Demo Dispo Application Addendum Narrative
Las Deltas Demo Dispo Application Narrative
as Deltas Site Map - HUD 52860 - Section 5.3.
Las Deltas DOTs - HUD 52860 - Section 5.4
Las Deltas - Environmental Clearance RROF - Las Deltas Demolition
Demo Dispo Letter of Support - County Supervisors - Executed
HUD PIH Letter of Support for TPVs - Executed.
Las Deltas - Restricted Appraisal Report - All Properties
Las Deltas - Summary Appraisal Report - All Properties
HACCC - Las Deltas Relo Plan - June 2016
Email - Las Deltas Early Relocation
Email - RE_ (RAD) CHAP Awards - HACCC
Email - RE_ Early relocation 1
Email - RE_ Early relocation
FHEO A & R Checklist - CA0116 - 52 Units
FHEO A & R Checklist - CA0116B-86 Units
FHEO A & R Checklist - CA0117 - 38 Units
FHEO A & R Checklist - CA0117B - 38 Units
FHEO TOA Antioch A&R Checklist approval
Las Deltas Pictures
RAD Early Relocation Memorandum to HUD
RAD Early Relocation Request to HUD 6-22-17
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 11
RAD Memo Summarizing Monthly Call
Resident Demos - Summ of 95 on CHAP Approval
Resident Relocation Meeting Agenda - 7.21.2016
Las Deltas PNA - Obsolescence 12.14.2018
RAD Relo resident meeting Sign-In Sheet
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 12
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPROVE and AUTHORIZE the Board of Supervisors of Contra Costa County to provide
the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) with a letter of support to
submit an application to HUD for the partial demolition and total disposition of Las Deltas
and Las Deltas Annex I (the Property).
BACKGROUND
On December 17, 2013, the Housing Authority Board of Commissioners approved
submission of two Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) applications for the conversion
of 90 vacant public housing units at Las Deltas in North Richmond to RAD project-based
voucher (PBV) units that could be used to fund development of affordable housing
throughout the County. On March 30, 2015, HUD approved these two applications.
When staff submitted HACCC's RAD application in December 2013, the intention was to
also submit a Section 18 Demolition/Disposition (Section 18) application to HUD for the
remaining, occupied units at Las Deltas. The primary advantage of a Section 18 application
was that it provided a better long-term subsidy stream than the RAD program did. The
disadvantages were that HUD had made it very difficult to get a Section 18 application
Action of Board On: 05/07/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, District I
Supervisor
Candace Andersen,
District II Supervisor
Diane Burgis, District III
Supervisor
Karen Mitchoff, District
IV Supervisor
Federal D. Glover,
District V Supervisor
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on
the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 7, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Stephanie Mello, Deputy
cc:
C.139
To:Board of Supervisors
From:David Twa, County Administrator
Date:May 7, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Letter of Support on the Partial Demolition and Total Disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 13
approved, the funding available for replacement vouchers under such an application was
shrinking (meaning there was a high probability that HACCC would not have received any
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 14
BACKGROUND (CONT'D)
replacement vouchers) and HUD did not provide replacement funding for vacant units
under a Section 18 application (many of the remaining unit at Las Deltas were vacant at
the time).
In discussions with HUD and others in 2013, it became clear that it would be very
difficult to get a Section 18 application approved for Las Deltas and that HACCC's best
option to receive funding was to submit a RAD application for the remaining 124 units at
Las Deltas in order to maximize the chances that funding for the entire property could be
converted to project-based assistance that could then be used to fund the development of
replacement affordable housing onsite or elsewhere. As a result, on August 18, 2015,
HACCC's Board of Commissioners authorized submission of two additional RAD
applications to HUD that would increase HACCC's previously approved applications for
90 vacant units to include all 214 units at Las Deltas in North Richmond.
On August 16, 2016, HUD approved the additional two applications for the remaining
units to be converted under the RAD program. In an effort to replace the units that would
be lost at Las Deltas, HACCC committed 214 units of RAD project-based voucher
funding to non-profit housing developers in October of 2015 to fourteen properties across
Contra Costa County. Because the rents associated with the RAD assistance would not be
sufficient to support the debt service these properties would incur as part of their
development/rehabilitation, HACCC had to commit additional, regular project-based
vouchers to these projects.
Three of the fourteen projects withdrew from consideration leaving 107 units of RAD
assistance unallocated to replacement projects. HACCC has been exploring other projects
that may be able to utilize these 107 RAD vouchers but, to date, no entity has shown
interest in the assistance. HACCC approached HUD with the possibility to pursue
Demolition and Disposition for the unassigned units and HUD indicated that they were
amenable to re-visiting such an application for this property.
Of the original 214 units at Las Deltas, 208 are currently vacant. Many of the units are in
advanced stages of destruction from break-ins and vandalism and HACCC continues to
incur annual costs of over $300,000 on window and door enclosures to secure the units,
which need of tens of millions of dollars in rehabilitation to bring back to a livable
condition. Many units are beyond repair and would have to be completely reconstructed.
In addition, HACCC continues to incur utility costs for power and water at these vacant
and vandalized units. Once vacant, HUD ceases to provide funding for the units. Thus,
while we continue to explore development and replacement options for Las Deltas,
HACCC continues to incur costs for which no funding is being provided. Demolition of
the remaining buildings at Las Deltas is critical to HACCC's fiscal solvency.
Partial demolition of the contiguous section of the property will not only eliminate the
need for incurring continued costs on these units, but would make the site more attractive
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 15
for prospective developers. In addition, by securing HUD approval to dispose of the
entire property, it will enable HACCC to sell off the 80 scattered-site units that pepper
the surrounding neighborhood. The proceeds of the sale of these units and sites are
required to be re-allocated to other public housing purposes. It is HACCC's intent to use
these proceeds as pre-development funding for addressing the needs of other public
housing developments in its portfolio.
HACCC staff have met with Las Deltas residents to discuss a partial demolition and total
disposition application and have also held several meetings with the Resident Advisory
Board to discuss the plans to pursue such an application. Additionally, HACCC has
discussed plans to demolish and dispose of Las Deltas with the local Municipal Advisory
Council (MAC), the Las Deltas Steering Committee and its own Board of
Commissioners in the past. Moreover, HACCC has been actively working with the North
Richmond Planning Committee (NRPC). NRPC, led by Healthy Richmond, the
Richmond Neighborhood Housing Services and Local Initiatives Support Corporation
(LISC), has been working with numerous community leaders and residents to develop a
comprehensive strategy that addresses housing, safety, business opportunity and youth
and education concerns in North Richmond in an effort to transform the neighborhood
and community into the vibrant and desirable area that it once was. These groups have
contributed to HACCC's conceptualization of the demolition and disposition process and
have been supportive of HACCC's efforts to bring change to Las Deltas.
HUD's application for demolition and disposition requires that a letter of support from
the sitting Mayor be submitted with its application. Since Las Deltas property is in a
non-incorporated section of Contra Costa County, its jurisdiction falls within the purview
of the Board of Supervisors and its Chairperson. Thus, this request from HACCC for a
letter of support from the Chair of the Board of Supervisors.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no Fiscal Impact for providing HACCC with a letter of support for its
application for demolition and disposition of the Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I
public housing development in North Richmond, CA.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Should the Board of Supervisors not provide a letter of support to HACCC authorizing
the agency's Executive Director to submit an application to HUD for the partial
demolition and total disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I, HACCC's
application will be deficient and likely rejected. As a result, HACCC will continue to
incur costs for door and window enclosures and paying for utilities at a predominantly
vacant and unfunded property. In such a case, it can be expected that Las Deltas will
continue to deteriorate and attract squatters and crime.
ATTACHMENTS
BOS Letter of Support for Las Deltas Final
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 16
3133 ESTUDILLO STREET ● P. O. BOX 2759 ●CALIFORNIA 94553 ● PHONE (925) 957 -8000 ●FAX
(925) 372 -0236 TDD (925) 957-1685
www.contracostahousing.org
3113628.4 037386 FILE
HOUSING AUTHORITY
OF THE
COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
May 21, 2019
Jane Hornstein, Director
Special Applications Center
US Department of Housing and Urban Development
Ralph H. Metcalfe Federal Building
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Room 2401
Chicago, IL 60604-3507
RE: Application for Demolition and Disposition
Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I - CA011600000 and CA011700000
Dear. Ms. Hornstein:
This letter serves to update the application submitted on July 16, 2018.
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) applied to demolish and/or
dispose of 214 units at Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex I - CA011600000 and CA011700000.
CA0116 prior to any RAD conversions was comprised of two properties in AMP 6, property 9A
with 58 units in a contiguous series of parcels and property 9B with 80 scattered sites throughout
a forty square-block area. CA0117 prior to any RAD conversions was comprised of one
property in AMP 7 containing 76 units in a contiguous parcels. Both AMPs are located in
unincorporated North Richmond, CA.
Based on discussions with you regarding the application, it is revised to include only the
remaining units on these sites that have not been converted to RAD. The application is attached.
HACCC twice pursued HOPE VI funding for this project and pursued a demolition/ disposition
application in 2014, only to have HUD advise against Las Deltas’ suitability for eligibility. At
that time, crime analyses found the area to be one of the most crime-ridden neighborhoods in
California. It had been featured in a number of documentaries since 2012 on its suitability for
living due to the crime rates, the environmental conditions from the nearby refineries, the
dilapidated condition of the units and the isolated geographic location of the property.
RAD Status
Commitments to convert the units under the HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)
program were issued for all 214 units. Rather than attempting on-site replacement, the RAD
strategy was to place RAD units off-site in combination with non-RAD project-based vouchers
(PBVs) offered as inducement for developers to take RAD units. HACCC worked hard for three
years to convert all 214 units to RAD, but the low rents on the RAD units dissuaded developers
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 17
3133 ESTUDILLO STREET ● P. O. BOX 2759 ●CALIFORNIA 94553 ● PHONE (925) 957 -8000 ●FAX
(925) 372 -0236 TDD (925) 957-1685
www.contracostahousing.org
3113628.4 037386 FILE
and committing units to replacement projects was a challenge. Accordingly, the revised
application covers 107 units that will not be completed under RAD, including 87 in AMP 6 and
20 in AMP 7. Of these units, HACCC requests demolition and disposition for 75 contiguous
units and disposition only for 32 scattered-site units.
Urgent Relocation Efforts
Historically, HACCC has had great difficulty in leasing units at this property and has had to
endure vacancies in some cases that lasted over two years. Due to the severely distressed
condition of the property and the lack of adequate funding to repair the units for habitability,
units remain boarded up and families are subjected to deplorable living conditions. For these
reasons, HACCC was forced to pursue a plan of early relocation using the emergency provisions
in its Admissions and Continued Occupancy Policy to ensure the safety of the 95 residents that
remained in occupancy on the date of Commitments to Enter Into Housing Assistance Payments
(CHAPs) approval. The advanced dilapidated nature of the units required HACCC to expedite
its relocation of the families for health and safety reasons.
Tenant Protection Voucher (TPV) Request
Given the challenges of committing the RAD units to other PBV-assisted projects, HACCC
instead seeks TPVs for the 95 units for which HACCC started relocation. While only 8 units
remain occupied since our initial application submission in August of 2018 when 34 households
were in occupancy, HACCC’s efforts to remove families from dilapidated and unsafe housing
conditions forced earlier relocation and we request 95 TPVs to represent all households initially
eligible for relocation. This will mitigate the loss of deeply-subsidized units to the County.
Demolition and Disposition Urgency
The property is currently 3.7% occupied. The cost of maintaining the property is approximately
$1 million per year regardless of the number of households in place since the nature of the
neighborhood requires that all vacated units be secured with metal window and door covers that
HACCC is renting at a significant cost to the agency. In addition, HACCC has had to continue
to pay for local sheriff patrols of the property to disperse homeless and criminal elements from
squatting on the vacated property. The site is clearly a safety hazard.
HACCC has received a bid to demolish the contiguous units. Demolishing these units will save
costs and will alleviate serious safety concerns. In addition, a vacant series of contiguous parcels
will be easier to draw interest from potential development groups than a series of dilapidated,
boarded up and vandalized units.
HACCC's plan is to demolish 75 of the 107 units. The scattered-site units in Property 9B are
not projected to be demolished but, rather, sold to interested buyers. HACCC seeks disposition
approval for these units so that it can proceed with the process of selling the properties.
The remainder of the units have been or will be demolished or disposed of under RAD.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 18
3133 ESTUDILLO STREET ● P. O. BOX 2759 ●CALIFORNIA 94553 ● PHONE (925) 957 -8000 ●FAX
(925) 372 -0236 TDD (925) 957-1685
www.contracostahousing.org
3113628.4 037386 FILE
Potential Gains Going Forward
HACCC has leveraged the RAD assistance, coupled with regular PBV committed from its
voucher resources, to create new affordable housing throughout the County. 107 RAD units have
been committed to PBV transactions that have added 286 assisted units to the community for low
income families and enabled developers to add a total of 502 units of housing in Contra Costa
County. HACCC has been instrumental in making this happen through the use of replacement
RAD and regular PBV assistance and hopes to facilitate the creation of several hundred more
units through the use of tenant protection vouchers.
For these reasons and as further discussed in the revised application, HACCC requests prompt
approval of the revised demolition and disposition application and commitment of tenant
protection vouchers, Thank you for your continuing assistance,
Sincerely,
Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 19
Inventory Removals Application
HUD-52860
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB Approval No. 2577-0075
(exp. 01/31/2021)
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 1 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0075. There is no personal
information contained in this application. Information on activities and expenditures of grant funds is public information and is generally
available for disclosure. Recipients are responsible for ensuring confidentiality when disclosure is not required. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless
the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This general information is required to request HUD approval to remove public housing property (residential or non-residential) from public
housing requirements, including use restrictions imposed under the Annual Contributions Contract (ACC) and the Declaration of Trust
(DOT)/Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DoRC). PHAs may request such HUD approval under the following laws: demolition and
disposition (Section 18 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 970); voluntary conversion (Section 22 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 972);
required conversion (Section 33 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 972); homeownership (Section 33 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 906);
retentions under 2 CFR 200.311 (PIH Notice 2016-20 or subsequent notice); and eminent domain (PIH Notice 2012-8, or subsequent
notice).
Note: This form requests general information only and PHAs are required to submit an additional addendum for the specific type of
proposed removal. This form in addition to the applicable addendum are collectively known as the SAC application since these applications
are processed by HUD’s Special Applications Center (SAC). HUD will use this information to review PHA requests, as well as to track
removals for other record keeping requirements. Responses to this collection of information are statutory and regulatory to obtain a benefit.
The information requested does not lend itself to confidentiality. PHAs are required to submit this information electronically to HUD
through the Inventory Removals Submodule of the Inventory Management System/PIH Information Center (IMS/PIC) system (or a later
electronic system prescribed by HUD). IMS/PIC will assign each SAC application a “DDA” number.
This form does not apply to proposed removals (conversions) under HUD’s Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program; and the
instructions for RAD application submissions via IMS/PIC is provided and governed by a separate OMB-approved HUD form.
Section 1: General Information
1.Date of Application:
2.Name of Public Housing Agency (PHA):
3.PHA Identification Number:
4.PHA Address:
5.Contact Person Name at PHA:
6.Contact Person Phone No.:
7.Contact Person Email:
8.Is the PHA operating under any remedial order, compliance agreement, final judgment,
consent decree, settlement agreement or other court order or agreement, including but not
limited to those related to a fair housing or other civil rights finding of noncompliance?
If yes, attach a narrative description of explaining how the proposed removal is consistent with
such order, agreement or other document
Yes
No
Section 2: N/A
Section 3: PHA Plan, Board Resolution, Environmental Review and Local Government Consultation
1. PHA Plan:
Year of PHA Plan that includes the removal action and approval
date:
Year: Approval Date:
Attach evidence that the removal action is included in the approved PHA Plan and approval date
2. Board Resolution that approves the removal action; and PHA’s submission of removal application to HUD:
Board Resolution Number: Board Resolution Date:
Attach a copy of signed PHA Board Resolution
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 20
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 2 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
3.Environmental Review:
Check the box for the entity that conducted
the Environmental Review (ER):
HUD under 24 CFR part 50
Responsible Entity (RE) under 24 CFR part 58
Name of RE:
Date ER was conducted:
Attach a copy of HUD’s approval of the Environmental Review (i.e. HUD-7015.16). See instructions.
4.Local Government Consultation:
The PHA covers the following
jurisdiction(s):
5.Date(s) of letter(s) of support from (local) government officials:
Attach copies of all letters of support from local government officials, along with a narrative description of the PHA’s
consultation (if applicable)
Section 4: Description of Existing Development
1.Name of Development:
2.Development Number:
3.Date of Full Availability (DOFA):
4.Number of Residential Buildings:
5.Number of Non-Residential Buildings:
6.Date Constructed:
7.Is the Development Scattered Site? Yes No
8.Number of Buildings (single family, duplexes, 3-plexes, 4-plexes, other):
9.Number of Types of Structures (row houses, walk-up units, high-rise
unit):
10.Total Acres in Development:
11. Existing Unit
Distribution
General
Occupancy
Elderly/Disabled
Designated Units
Total Units Being Used
for Non-Dwelling
Purposes
Total Units in
Development
0 –Bedroom
1 –Bedroom
2 –Bedrooms
3 –Bedrooms
4 -+ Bedrooms
Total
Attach a description of the distribution of UFAS accessible units (bedroom size; unit type, e.g., mobility or sensory)
Section 5: Description of Proposed Removal
1.Type of Removal Action(s)
(e.g., Demolition, Disposition, Disposition to allow for Public Housing Mixed-Finance
Modernization, Demolition and Disposition, DeMinimis Exception under Demolition,
Voluntary Conversion, Required Conversion, Homeownership, Eminent Domain,
Retention under 2 CFR part 200)
2.Proposed Action by Unit Type (e.g. bedroom size)
Existing Unit
Distribution
General
Occupancy
Elderly/Disabled
Designated Units
UFAS
Mobility
Units
UFAS
Sensory
Units
Total Units Being
Used for Non-
Dwelling Purposes
Total Units in
Development
0 –Bedroom
1 –Bedroom
2 –Bedrooms
3 –Bedrooms
4 -+ Bedrooms
Total
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 21
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 3 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
3.Proposed Action by Building Type Buildings to be Demolished Only Buildings to be Disposed of Only
Residential Buildings
Non-Residential Buildings
Total Buildings
If the removal action is for only a portion of property at a contiguous site, attach a site map
4.Total Acreage Proposed for Removal (if applicable)
(a) Attach a description of the land (e.g. survey, copy of the legal description)
(b) Attach a copy of the recorded Declaration of Trust (DOT)/Deed of Restrictive Covenant (DoRC)
(c) If the removal action is for only a portion of property at a contiguous site, attach a site map.
5.Estimated Value of the Proposed Property $
(a)Was an independent appraisal conducted to determine the estimated Fair Market Value? Yes No
(b)If yes, date of appraisal and
name of appraiser:Date: Name:
(c)If not, describe other form of
valuation used:
Attach an executive summary of the appraisal or other form of valuation
6.Timetable
Activity Estimated Number of Days
After HUD Approval:
(a)Begin Relocation of Residents: N/A -if vacant or for non-dwelling building
(b)Complete Relocation of Residents: N/A -if vacant or for non-dwelling building
(c) Execute Contract for Removal
(d) Removal of the property
Section 6: Relocation
1.Number of Units Proposed for Removal that are Occupied as of the Submission Date of this
SAC application:
(Note: These numbers are not editable and automatically populated when application is submitted)
2.Number of individual residents that the PHA estimates will be displaced by this removal
action:
Attach a summary of the number of individual residents estimated to be displaced by race and national origin and a
summary of households estimated by be displaced by who have a member who is a person with a disability
3.Who will provide relocation counseling and advisory services to
residents?
PHA staff
Another Entity contracted by the PHA Describe:
Attach a description of the relocation counseling and advisory services that the will be provided to residents who will be
displaced by this action
4.What is the estimated costs of relocation and moving expenses
(including advisory services)? $
5.What is the anticipated source of funds for relocation
and moving expenses (including advisory services)?
Capital Funds Operating Funds
Funding Source Year:
Non-1937 Act Funds (describe: )
6.What comparable housing
resources does the PHA
expect to offer to
displaced residents?
Public Housing. If checked, number:
Section 8 HCV (existing resources. If checked, number:
Section 8 HCV (new award of TPVs) (see question #7).
If checked, number:
PBV Unit. If checked, number:
Other (attach description). If checked, number:
Attach a summary of the comparable housing resources that the PHA expects to offer to be displaced residents.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 22
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 4 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
7.Tenant Protection Vouchers (TPVs):
If the PHA is eligible to receive TPVs in connection
with the proposed removal action, how many TPVs is
the PHA requesting?
Yes - Replacement TPVs.
If checked, number:
Yes - Relocation TPVs.
If checked, number:
No TPVs will be requested
Attach a brief explanation supporting the TPV request. See PIH Notice 2017-10 and PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor
notices). If the PHA is a public housing only-PHA, the PHA must partner with a PHA that administers an HCV program.
Section 7: Resident Consultation
1.Will any residents be displaced or otherwise affected by the
proposed removal action? If yes, date(s) PHA consulted with
residents?
Yes No
Date(s):
Attach a narrative description of consultation process, along with supporting documentation (e.g., agenda, meeting
notices; sign-in sheets; meeting minutes, print-out of written or email consultation)
2.Is there a Resident Council (at affected development)?
If yes, name of Resident Council and dates PHA consulted it:
Yes No
Name: Date(s):
N/A to removal action
Attach a narrative description of consultation process, along with supporting documentation e.g. meeting notices; sign-in
sheets; meeting minutes, print-out of written or email consultation)
3.Is there a Resident Council (PHA-wide jurisdiction)?
If yes, name of Resident Council and dates PHA consulted it:
Yes No
Name: Date(s):
N/A to removal action
Attach a narrative description of consultation process, along with supporting documentation e.g. meeting notices; sign-in
sheets; meeting minutes, print-out of written or email consultation)
4.Date(s) PHA consulted with the Resident Advisory Board (RAB)
(as defined in 24 CFR 903.13)
Name of RAB:
Date(s):
N/A to removal action
Attach a narrative description of consultation process, along with supporting documentation e.g. meeting notices; sign-in
sheets; meeting minutes, print-out of written or email consultation)
5.Did the PHA receive any written comments from residents or
resident groups/organizations during the consultation process? Yes No
If yes, attach comments received, along with an evaluation by the PHA
Section 8: N/A
Section 9: PHA Certification of Compliance
Acting on behalf of the Board of Commissioners of the PHA, as its Chairman, Executive Director, or other authorized
PHA official, I approve the submission of this SAC Application known as DDA #for removing public
housing property from public housing use restriction, of which this document is a part, and make the following
certifications, agreements with, and assurances to the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in
connection with the submission of this SAC application and the implementation thereof:
1. All information contained in this SAC application (including all supporting documentation, attachments and required form
HUD-52860 addendums) is true and correct as of today’s date.
2. Resident demographic data in the IMS/PIC system is updated and current as of the date of the submission of this SAC
application.
3. The PHA will comply with all applicable fair housing and other civil rights requirements, including but not limited to HUD’s
general non-discrimination and equal opportunity requirements listed at 24 CFR 5.105(a), as well as the duty to affirmatively
further fair housing (AFFH) related to this SAC application. AFFH includes ensuring that the proposed inventory removal
development is not in conflict with fair housing goals and strategies in my agency’s PHA or MTW Plan, and is consistent
with my agency’s obligation to AFFH, certification and supporting activities. The PHA conducted the submission
requirements of this SAC application (including removal justification; resident consultation, etc.) in conformity with Title
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 23
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 5 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title II of the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, state or local accessibility requirements, and other applicable civil rights laws. If
HUD approves this SAC application, the PHA will carry out and implement this removal action (including relocation, if
applicable), in conformity with all applicable civil rights requirements. The requirements for AFFH can be found at 24
CFR §§ 5.150-5.152, 5.154, 5.156, 5.158, 5.160, 5.162, 5.164, 5.166, 5.168, and 5.169-5.180.
4. The removal action proposed in this SAC application does not violate any remedial civil rights order or agreements,
conciliation agreements, voluntary compliance agreements, final judgments, consent decrees, settlement agreements or other
court orders or agreements to which the PHA is a party. If the PHA is operating under such a document, it must indicate this
by uploading a document to the SAC application that provides a citation to the document and explains how the proposed
demolition or disposition is consistent with such document.
5. If the PHA is a non-qualified PHA under the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), it has complied with
the PHA Plan requirements regarding the proposed removal action at 24 CFR part 903 and the applicable statutory removal
authority. For instance, if the removal action is a demolition or disposition, the PHA must describe the demolition or
disposition in its PHA Plan or in a Significant Amendment to that PHA Plan and that description must be substantially
identical to the description in the SAC application. If the PHA is a qualified PHA, the PHA certifies that it has discussed the
removal action at a public hearing.
6. The PHA has conducted all applicable resident consultation and will conduct all relocation activities associated with this
SAC application in a manner that is effective for persons with hearing, visual, and other communication-related disabilities
consistent with Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (24 CFR 8.6) and with 49 CFR 24.5, and as applicable, the
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. The PHA will take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to their programs
and activities for persons who have limited ability to read, speak, or understand English – i.e., individuals who have limited
English proficiency (LEP).
7. The PHA will comply with all applicable Federal statutory and regulatory requirements and other HUD requirements,
including applicable PIH Notices, in carrying out the implementation this SAC application, as approved by HUD. The PHA
specifically certifies that the property proposed for removal in this SAC application is in compliance with Declaration of
Trust (DOT) or Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (DoRC) requirements.
8. The PHA will comply with the terms and conditions of any HUD approval that HUD may issue for this SAC application,
including requirements applicable to future use, record-keeping and reporting; and will specifically retain records of the SAC
application and its implementing actions of HUD’s approval of this SAC application for a period of not less than 3 years
following the last required action of HUD’s approval. The PHA further certifies that it will make such records available for
inspection by HUD, the General Accountability Office and the HUD Office of Inspector General. If the PHA wants to make
any material changes from what it described in its SAC application and/or HUD’s approval of the SAC application, it will
request HUD approval for such changes, in accordance with applicable HUD guidance.
9. The PHA will not take any action to remove or otherwise operate the property proposed for removal outside of public housing
requirements until it receives written approval of this SAC application from HUD.
10. If any units proposed for removal by this SAC application are subject to an Energy Performance Contracting (EPC), the PHA
agrees to comply with additional instructions provided by HUD regarding the EPC and will not take any steps to implement
this SAC application (if approved by HUD), without receiving confirmation from HUD that all applicable EPC requirements
are satisfied.
11. If any units proposed for removal by this SAC application are subject to a Capital Fund Financing Plan (CFFP) or other
Section 30 debt, the PHA agrees to comply with additional instructions provided by HUD regarding the CFFP or other
Section 30 and will not take any steps to implement this application (if approved by HUD), without receiving confirmation
from HUD that all applicable CFFP or other Section 30 requirements are satisfied.
12. If the PHA is in the process of removing all of its public housing units from its ACC low-rent inventory through this or other
SAC applications and/or other pending removal actions, including the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program, the
PHA agrees to comply with additional instructions provided by HUD regarding the close-out of its public housing portfolio.
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment
herewith, is true and accurate.
Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C.
1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official
Official Title:
Signature:
Date:
Form HUD-52860 Instructions
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 24
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 6 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
Refer to SAC website at www.hud.gov/sac for more information
This form request general information from PHAs about proposed removal actions under the following laws: demolition and disposition
(Section 18 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 970); voluntary conversion (Section 22 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 972); required
conversion (Section 33 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 972); homeownership (Section 32 of the 1937 Act and 24 CFR part 906);
retentions (PIH Notice 2016-20 and 2 CFR 200.311); and eminent domain (PIH Notice 2012-8, or replacement notice). This form is
the first part of a SAC application that must be submitted via the fields in the Inventory Removal Submodule of IMS/PIC (or replacement
system).
PHAs must complete the sections of this form where there is no field in the IMS/PIC SAC application for the requested information.
PHAs must then upload this form and other supporting documentation requested by this form to the IMS/PIC SAC application. PHAs
must label that supporting documentation by section number of this form and/or by name (e.g. Resident Consultation). PHAs must
complete and submit applicable addendums as indicated below as part of a SAC application. PHAs must refer to the applicable
regulations, PIH notices and other program guidance noted above for detailed requirements on the submissions required for the specific
removal action proposed in the SAC application at SAC web site.
Proposed Removal Action Additional HUD Form Required
Section 18 Disposition and/or Demolition HUD-52860-A
Section 18 Demolition Rehab Needs and Cost-Test HUD-52860-B
Section 32 Homeownership HUD-52860-C
Section 33 Required Conversion HUD-52860-D
Section 22 Voluntary Conversion HUD-52860-E
Eminent Domain HUD-52860-F
Part 200 Retention HUD-52860-G
NOTE: The removal of public housing units from the PHA’s inventory through these actions will impact (decrease) the PHA’s
Operating and Capital Fund subsidy from HUD. See 24 CFR 990.190 and PIH Notice 2017-22 (or successor notice) for impacts on
Operating Fund. Capital Funds for units will terminate at the time the units are removed from ACC via IMS/PIC. However, PHAs
may be eligible for Demolition Disposition Transition Funding (DDTF) pursuant to 24 CFR 905.400(j).
Section 1: General Information
Some fields will automatically populate from IMS/PIC. If not, complete all fields.
Section 2: N/A
Section 3: PHA Plan, PHA Board Resolution, Environmental Review and Local Government Consultation
Refer to the regulation, PIH Notice or other HUD guidance document for guidance on these requirements for the specific removal action
proposed, but generally the following apply:
PHA Plan: PHAs must include the removal action in their approved PHA plan for all SAC applications.
Board Resolution: PHAs must obtain a board resolution approving the removal action for all SAC applications. For demolitions and
dispositions proposed under 24 CFR part 970, the board resolution must be dated after the date of resident and local government
consultation.
Environmental Clearance: HUD will not process or approve a SAC application without evidence that the proposed removal action has
received Environmental Clearance. This evidence will generally be a copy of a HUD signed Authority to Use Grant Funds (HUD-
7015.16 form or subsequent form) for the proposed removal action (including future use, if known) to evidence an environmental review
acceptable to HUD was completed under 24 CFR part 58. In some instances, evidence of Environmental Clearance may be a letter
from the Responsibly Entity stating the activity was exempt or categorically excluded under 24 CFR part 58. The only exception to
obtaining Environmental Clearance under 24 CFR part 58 is if HUD, in its sole discretion, decides to complete the environmental
review itself under 24 CFR part 50. In this case, the applicable local HUD Office of Public Housing must have actually completed the
environmental review and determined the action has Environmental Clearance before HUD will process or approve a SAC application.
Local Government Consultation: PHAs must consult with their local government officials and obtain a letter of support for all SAC
applications (except for eminent domain and homeownership). For demolitions and dispositions proposed under 24 CFR part 970,
PHAs must include a narrative description of its consultation with local government officials.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 25
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 7 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
Sections 4-9 must be completed and submitted separately for each Development covered by this Application
Section 4: Description of Existing Development(s)
Most information should automatically populate from IMS/PIC information, except for Section 4, Line item 10 (Total Acres of the
Development) which the PHA must complete. If line 10 is not completed or less than proposed for disposition under Section 5, PHA
will not be able to fill in Section 5, line 4. The development number should be the HUD development number. All development
numbers are at least 8 characters long (and may be up to 11 characters for AMP developments).
Section 5: Description of Proposed Removal
Unlike section 4, this information will not automatically populate. PHAs must complete the fields of this form where there is no field
in the IMS/PIC SAC application for the requested information (i.e. UFAS information).
Removal Action Type: PHAs must select removal action type as the first step to creating the electronic SAC application in IMS/PIC.
Property description (Unit, Building, Acreage): PHAs identify the property by development number(s) and buildings by their IMS/PIC
building PHAs provide the total acreage (refer to instructions for Section 4, line 10) and physical address of the property proposed for
removal. If the removal action includes land (i.e., not just buildings), PHAs should attach a description of the land (e.g. survey, copy
of the legal description), along with a copy of the DOT/DoRC that is recorded against the property, if available. If the proposed removal
action (including demolition) is for only a portion of the property at a contiguous site, PHAs must attach a site map.
Estimated Value of Property: Attach an independent appraiser’s appraisal summary or other valuation method.
Timetable: PHAs indicates the number of days after HUD approval of a SAC application that they estimate they will complete these
activities.
Section 6: Relocation
PHAs complete this section for all proposed removal action where relocation will be required. PHAs may be required to complete
additional relocation information in the applicable addendums (e.g. right of first refusal for homeownership applications; evidence of
compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws for eminent domain actions).
For question #3, the summary of the type of counseling and advisory services should include a description of how the services will
promote fair housing, including but not limited to how they will assist residents in obtaining housing in opportunity areas.
For question #6, the relocation summary should provide sufficient detail about the comparable housing that the PHA will offer to the
displaced residents (i.e. based on available resources and resident preferences)Indicate how the PHA will identify and offer comparable
housing to (a) displaced residents who have a family member who is a person with a disability; and (b) displaced residents who are not
eligible for Section 8 HCV assistance (e.g. because they are over-income).
Note that a PHA’s eligibility to receive TPVs is based on statutory Appropriations laws, and other HUD guidance, including but not
limited to PIH Notice 2017-10and PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor or replacement notices).
If the PHA is a public housing only-PHA and will partnering with a PHA that administers an HCV program for the TPVs, the partnering
PHA must have jurisdictional authority and administrative capacity to administer the TPVs. PHAs should contact their local HUD
Office of Public Housing for more information.
Section 7: Resident Consultation
Refer to the regulation, PIH Notice or other HUD guidance document for guidance on resident consultation for the specific removal
action proposed.
Section 8: N/A
Section 9: PHA Certification of Compliance
The Executive Director, Board Chairperson, or other authorized agent of the PHA, should complete, sign and date the Certification and
submit it (as a scanned PDF file) as part of its submission of the SAC application.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 26
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments Page 8 of 8 form HUD-52860 (04/2018)
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply
Previous versions obsolete
De Minimis Demolition
PHAs do not need HUD approval to demolish units under Section 18 de minimis authority. PHAs do need to submit information to
HUD described at 970.7(a)(1), (2), (12), (13), and (15), which includes PHA plan, description of the property, board resolution, and
environmental requirements. Thus, for purposes of de minims demolitions, PHAs are submitting information and not a SAC application
through this form.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 27
Demolition and Disposition Addendum
HUD-52860-A
U.S. Department of Housing
and Urban Development
Office of Public and Indian Housing
OMB Approval No. 2577-0075
(exp. 01/31/2021)
All attachments must reference the Page 1 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned OMB control number 2577-0075. There is
no personal information contained in this application. Information on activities and expenditures of grant funds is public information
and is generally available for disclosure. Recipients are responsible for ensuring confidentiality when disclosure is not required. In
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Section 1. Demolition
1. Does the removal action include the
demolition of all or a portion of a
development (AMP) or other public housing
property?
Yes No
If yes:
All units at a development site
A portion of units at a development site
Non-dwelling property at a development site
Non-dwelling property not at a development site (e.g. central PHA
administrative building)
If yes, complete questions 2-6 of this section. If no, move on to section 2.
2. What is the estimated demolition cost? $
3. What is the anticipated source of funds for the
demolition cost?
Capital Funds CDBG
Operating Funds
Fiscal Year: _________
Non-Public Housing Funds (describe: )
4. What is the justification for the
demolition?
Obsolete - Physical Condition
Obsolete - Location
Obsolete - Other Factors
De Minimis Demolition (the lesser of 5 units or 5 percent of the total public housing
units in any 5-year period)
Attach a narrative statement describing the justification for demolition, along with other supporting documentation, in accordance
with 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice). If the demolition is for a portion of a development, the
narrative statement must specifically address how the demolition will help to ensure the viability of the remaining portion of the
development.
5. Cost-test: The PHA must certify and present supporting evidence that no reasonable program of modifications is
cost-effective to return the public housing development (or portion thereof) to useful life.
Attach a completed HUD-52860-B, narrative statement, and other supporting documentation as described in the
instructions
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 28
All attachments must reference the Page 2 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
Section 2. Disposition
1.What is the
justification for
the disposition?
Conditions in Surrounding Area: 24 CFR 970.17(a)
Health and/or Safety
Infeasible Operation
More Efficient/Effective Low-Income Housing: 24 CFR 970.17(b)
Best Interests of PHA and Residents & Consistent with PHA Plan & 1937 Act: 970.17(c)
The Non-Dwelling Structure or Land Exceeds the Needs of the Development (after Date of Full
Availability “DOFA”)
The Disposition of the Non-Dwelling Property is Incidental to, or does not Interfere with, the
Continued Operation of the Remainder of the Development
Attach a narrative statement describing the justification for disposition, along with other supporting documentation, in accordance
with 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice 2018-04(or any successor notice).
If disposition is based on physical obsolescence under the demolition criteria, complete Section 1 (Demolition) of this form.
2.Method of Disposition
a. Public Bid FMV Sale
b. Negotiated Sale at FMV
c. Negotiated Lease or other Transfer at FMV
d. Negotiated Sale or other Transfer at FMV
e. Negotiated Sale at below FMV
f. Negotiated Lease or other Transfer at below FMV
g. Land-Swap
Attach a description of the method of disposition (e.g. sale or ground lease terms; below FMV disposition).
If the disposition is proposed via negotiation, attach a Certificate of Good Standing (under applicable State law) of the proposed
acquiring entity, or other evidence that the entity is recognized under State law.
3.Is the proposed acquiring entity the PHA’s instrumentality as defined
by 24 CFR 905.604(b)(3)? Yes No
4.Commensurate Public Benefit:
If the method of disposition is at or below FMV, the PHA must demonstrate a commensurate public benefit
Attach a narrative description of commensurate public benefit in accordance with 24 CFR 970.19 and PIH Notice 2018-04
(or any successor notice).
Section 3. Proceeds
1.Will the PHA realize proceeds from this disposition? Yes No
2.If PHA answered yes to question #1, indicate the estimated amount of
gross and net proceeds Gross $ Net $
3.Is the PHA requesting to use gross proceeds for relocation costs? Yes $ (estimated amount)
No
4.Is the PHA requesting to use gross proceeds for reasonable costs of
disposition?
Yes $ (estimated amount)
No
If yes, attach a brief narrative, budget, or other supporting documentation describing the reasonable costs
5.If the PHA will realize net
proceeds from this disposition,
how does the PHA propose to
use the proceeds?
Public Housing Capital Fund (CFP) Uses
Loan for development of Public Housing Units
Section 8 PBV Unit Development
Loan for development of PBV units
Supportive Services for Residents
Costs of Converting Public Housing Units to Project-Based Section 8 under the Rental
Assistance Demonstration (RAD) Program
Section 8 HCV Shortfalls
Operation of Section 8 program
Operation of Public Housing program
Modernization of Section 8 Units
Loan for modernization of PBV Units
Other Statutorily Eligible Uses: (describe)
To Be Determined (TBD) (PHA must request approval from HUD when it determines
a proposed use)
Attach a brief narrative, budget, or other supporting documentation describing the proposed use of proceeds.
If loan is checked, include the loan term, interest rate, and type (i.e. permanent, bridge, construction).
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 29
All attachments must reference the Page 3 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
Section 4. Offer of Sale to Resident Organization (Disposition Only)
1.If this action is for a disposition,
is the PHA exercising any of the
exceptions to the offer of sale
requirements?
Yes No
970.9(b)(3)(i): local government requests to acquire vacant land less than 2 acres in
order to build or expand public services
970.9(b)(3)(ii): PHA seeks disposition to develop a facility to benefit low-income
families
970.9(b)(3)(iii): the units have been legally vacated (HOPE VI, 24 CFR part 971 or
972)
970.9(b)(3)(iv): the units are distressed units subject to Section 33 required
conversion
970.9(b)(3)(v): property proposed for disposition is non-dwelling
Other: PHA requests that HUD consider another exception to 970.9(b)(1)
If exercising an exception, attach a narrative statement or documentation supporting the exception in accordance with
970.9(b)(4). If not exercising an exception, complete questions #2-6 of this Section 4.
2.Name(s) of all established eligible organizations as defined by 24 CFR 970.11 (e.g.
resident organizations, eligible resident management corporations as defined in 24
CFR part 964, and nonprofit organization acting on behalf of residents at a
development.
Attach a narrative explanation of how the PHA determined the entities identified
3.Date(s) the PHA sent an initial written notification to each established eligible
organization in accordance with 24 CFR 970.11
Attach a copy of the initial written notification to each established eligible organization
4.Did the PHA receive a written expression of interest in accordance with 24 CFR 970.11
by an established eligible organization? Yes No
If yes, attach a copy of the expression of interest by any eligible established organization
5.Did the PHA receive a proposal to purchase from an established eligible organization
within 60-days of receiving the established eligible organization’s expression of interest? Yes No
If yes, attach a copy of the proposal to purchase from an established eligible organization
6.Did the PHA accept the proposal to purchase? Yes No
N/A (PHA did not receive a proposal to purchase)
Attach a narrative explanation of why the PHA accepted or rejected the proposal to purchase
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 30
All attachments must reference the Page 4 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
Section 5. PHA Certification
For SAC applications submitted under 24 CFR part 970:
1)If this SAC application includes a demolition action, I certify that the proposed development (units or other
property) meets the obsolescence criteria of 24 CFR 970.15 as specifically described in this SAC application.
I further certify that such obsolescence makes any units proposed for demolition unsuitable for housing
purposes and that no reasonable program of modification is cost-effective to return the development to its
useful life;
2)If this SAC application includes a demolition for only a portion of the buildings/units at a development on a
contiguous site, the PHA certifies that the partial demolition will help to ensure the viability of the remaining
portion of the development;
3)If this SAC application includes a disposition action for public housing units, the PHA is justified in disposing
of the development or other public housing property in accordance with the specific criteria of 24 CFR
970.17, as specifically described in this SAC application;
4)The PHA will comply with all applicable relocation requirements of 24 CFR 970.21; and
5)The PHA will use gross and net proceeds it receives from the disposition in accordance with the requirements
of 24 CFR 970.19 and the HUD approval.
For De Minimis Demolitions:
1)The units proposed for demolition meet the criteria of Section 18 because they are beyond repair or the space
occupied by the units will be used for meeting the service or other needs of public housing residents; and
2)The units proposed for demolition do not exceed the statutory maximums of five percent of my PHA’s total
housing stock, or five dwelling units, whichever is less, in any 5-year period.
I hereby certify that all the information stated herein, as well as any information provided in the accompaniment herewith,
is true and accurate.
Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18
U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Name of Authorized Official
Title
Signature
Date
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 31
All attachments must reference the Page 5 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
Form HUD-52860-A Instructions
This form is required when a PHA proposes a demolition or disposition under 24 CFR part 970 and when a PHA proposes a de
minimis demolition under Section 18 of the 1937 Act. This information is required as a supplement to the HUD-52860 form. PHAs
must complete this form and upload it as an attachment to the IMS/PIC SAC application. Also, PHAs must upload the supporting
documentation requested by this form as part of the IMS/PIC SAC application. PHAs must label that supporting documentation by
section number of this form and/or by name (e.g. use of proceeds). PHAs refer to 24 CFR part 970 and all applicable PIH Notices in
completing this form, including PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice). PHAs must label All defined terms not defined in this
form have the meaning in those regulations and notices.
Section 1: Demolition
Justification (Question 4). In completing their narrative statements describing the justification for demolition, PHAs should refer to
the guidance at 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice 2012-7 (or any successor notice). In the case of a SAC application for demolition of
portion of a development (e.g. SAC application is for less than all units on a contiguous site) the PHA’s narrative must describe how
the demolition will help to ensure the viability of the remaining portion of the development. This requirement shall not apply for
demolitions of units on scattered non-contiguous sites.
Obsolete-Physical Condition: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(i). A PHA must demonstrate serious and substantial physical deterioration of the
buildings/units at the development. HUD strongly encourages PHAs to submit a physical needs assessment (PNA), government
inspection, or independent architect or engineer’s report as supporting documentation.
Obsolete-Location: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(ii). A PHA must demonstrate that the location of the units causes obsolescence. HUD may
consider the physical deterioration of the neighborhood; change in neighborhood from residential to industrial or commercial
development; or environmental conditions which jeopardize the suitability of the site or a portion of the site and its housing structures
for residential use.
Obsolete-Other Factors: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(iii). A PHA must generally demonstrate that factors at the development have impacted
the marketability, usefulness, or management of the units so seriously that, notwithstanding due diligence and its best efforts in
marketing and leasing the units, the PHA is unable to operate the development for residential purposes for an extended period of time
(generally more than 5 years). HUD may consider factors such as turnover rate, historic vacancy rate, access to transportation, crime
rates, site plan and density issues, neighborhood infrastructure, and unit size. HUD strongly encourages PHAs to submit third party
documentation.
De Minimis Demolition: 24 CFR 970.27. In any 5-year period, a PHA may demolish not more than the lesser of 5 dwelling units or 5
percent of the total public housing dwelling units owned by the PHA without the need to obtain HUD approval under 24 CFR part 970
provided the PHA can meet one of the following criteria: (a) The PHA will use the space occupied by the unit(s) for meeting the
service or other needs of the residents (e.g. laundry facility; community center; child care center); or (b) the PHA has determined the
unit(s) are beyond repair.
Cost-Test (Question 5). HUD generally shall not consider a program of modifications to be cost-effective if the costs of such program
exceed 62.5 percent of total development cost (TDC) for elevator structures and 57.14 percent of TDC for all other types of structures
in effect at the time the SAC application is submitted to HUD.
Obsolete-Physical Condition: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(i). PHAs must complete and submit the HUD-52860-B form.
Obsolete-Location: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(ii). HUD will consider the PHA’s cost of curing the cause of the obsolescence (e.g. nearby
industrial or commercial development, environmental conditions).
Obsolete-Other Factors: 24 CFR 970.15(b)(1)(i)(iii). HUD will consider the PHA’s cost of curing the cause of the obsolescence (e.g.
site plan, crime, turnover).
De Minimis Demolition. Cost-test requirements are not applicable.
Section 2: Disposition
Justification (Question 1). In completing their narrative statements describing the justification for disposition, PHAs should refer to
the guidance at 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice).
Conditions in Surrounding Area: 24 CFR 970.17(a). A PHA must demonstrate the location of the units (e.g. industrial or commercial
development) jeopardizes the health and/or safety of the residents and/or the feasible operation of the units by the PHA based on
external conditions outside the control of the PHA; and the condition is beyond the scope of the PHA to mitigate or cure in a cost-
effective manner. To support a SAC application based on health and/or safety, PHAs must generally provide relevant third-party
documentation that evidences the external conditions that present serious obstacles to the PHA maintaining the units as healthy and/or
safe housing.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 32
All attachments must reference the Page 6 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
More Efficient/Effective Low-Income Housing: 24 CFR 970.17(b). A PHA must demonstrate the retention of the units is not in the
best interests of the residents or the PHA because the disposition allows the acquisition, development, or rehabilitation of units that
will be more efficiently or effectively operated as other low-income housing units. PHAs must generally demonstrate why other low-
income units are preferable (e.g., more energy efficient, better unit configuration, better location for resident in terms of transportation,
jobs, schools or racial or economic concentration). See PIH Notice 2012-7 (or any successor notice).
Best Interests of PHA and Residents & Consistent with PHA Plan & 1937 Act: 970.17(c). See PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor
notice).
Third-Party Agreement. Certain third-party agreements may require HUD review and approval under 24 CFR part 970. In this case,
the PHA must submit a SAC disposition application under this form to obtain HUD approval for the third-party agreement (including
completing and attaching justification narrative of the agreement under 970.17(c) or other applicable section of 24 CFR 970). In the
SAC application, the PHA must clearly indicate it is requesting HUD approval of a third-party agreement and attach the draft form of
third-party agreement to the application. If the PHA is not requesting that HUD release the ACC or Declaration of Trust (DOT) or
DORC from the property, it should put “0” in all fields for units, buildings and acreage. See PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor
notice).
Non-Dwelling Property: 970.17(d). A PHA must demonstrate that the non-dwelling structure or land exceeds the needs of the
development (after DOFA); or the disposition is incidental to, or does not interfere with, the continued operation of the remainder of
the development.
Method of Disposition (Question 2). In completing this section, PHAs should refer to the guidance at 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice
2018-04 (or any successor notice). PHAs may propose different methods of disposition in their SAC applications, including:
(a)Public Bid Fair Market Value (FMV) Sale (Cash). The PHA lists the public housing property on the open and competitive
market and solicits bids. Actual FMV may be more or less than the appraised value, depending on the market and may reflect
negotiations during the due diligence period.
(b)Negotiated Sale at FMV (Cash). The PHA negotiates a sale with an identified buyer based on the appraised value of the public
housing property. The PHA receives cash for the sale.
(c)Negotiated Lease or other Transfer at FMV (Cash). The PHA negotiates a lease (e.g. ground lease, capital lease) with an
identified entity based on the appraised value (leasehold and/or fee value) of the public housing property. The PHA receives
cash for the lease payments.
(d)Negotiated Sale or other Transfer at FMV (Seller-Financing). The PHA negotiates a sale with an identified buyer but instead
of receiving cash proceeds, the PHA receives a promissory note and/or mortgage or deed of trust. Payments are generally
made from deferred loan payments.
(e)Negotiated Sale at below FMV. The PHA negotiates a sale with an identified buyer for below FMV (often nominal value).
(f)Negotiated Lease or other Transfer at below FMV. The PHA negotiates a lease with an identified entity for below FMV
(often nominal value).
(g)Land-Swaps. The PHA negotiates a “land swap”. In addition to meeting the requirements for a Negotiated Sale at FMV in B
above, the PHA must generally evidences that HUD has approved the acquisition of the property to be acquired in the “land-
swap” under 24 CFR part 905. If the property that PHA is proposing to acquire is valued less than public housing property
proposed for disposition, the PHA receives cash proceeds to make up the difference.
If the disposition is proposed via negotiation, the PHA must evidence the entity is a valid entity under State law and is in good
standing.
Commensurate Public Benefit (Question 3). In completing this section, PHAs should refer to the guidance at 24 CFR 970.19 and PIH
Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice). HUD determines commensurate public benefit on a case-by-case basis. However, generally
the public housing property must be developed for affordable housing purposes serving low-income families (incomes at or below
80% of area median).HUD does not consider general public benefits (e.g., schools, libraries, fire stations, police stations and bridges)
to be approvable non-dwelling uses that primarily serve low-income families. A PHA may propose a preferred form of use restriction
(e.g., LIHTC extended use agreement, HOME agreement, reversion clause in transfer documents, provision in ground lease, separate
use agreement).
If applicable, PHAs may, but are not required, to complete the following table and submit with their SAC applications in order to
evidence the proposed commensurate public benefit, purpose and other disposition details:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 33
All attachments must reference the Page 7 of 7 form HUD-52860-A (04/2018)
Section and line number to which they apply.
Development Name Development Number
Proposed for Disposition:Building/s: , Units: , Acres:
Total number of units to be developed (or
preserved) on property: Less than 80% of Area Median Income
Total number of non-dwelling buildings to be
developed (or preserved) on property:ACC Non-ACC PBV Market Rate
Rental
For Sale
Name of Acquiring Entity (Rental Units)
Name of Acquiring Entity (initial developer) (For
Sale Units)
Method of Disposition (e.g. 99-year ground lease; fee simple sale; Fair Market
Value)
Lease Price $per year
Sale Price $
Purpose and or summary of Commensurate Public
Benefit (short description of units and non-
dwelling property to be developed/preserved)
Section 3: Proceeds
In completing this section, PHAs should refer to the guidance at 24 CFR part 970, PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice) and
any other HUD guidance on proceeds. In accordance with 24 CFR 970.19, PHAs describe their proposed use of estimated proceeds
(gross and net) in the SAC application.
Relocation Costs (Question 3). Pursuant to 24 CFR 970.21(e)(2), PHAs must pay for the actual and reasonable relocation expenses for
all residents who will be displaced from their public housing units as a result of a demolition and/or disposition action. HUD considers
the following to be eligible costs of relocation that can be deducted from gross proceeds: counseling and advisory services to residents
(including mobility counseling), moving expenses (including housing search costs), payment of a security and/or utility deposits at a
comparable housing, and costs of providing any necessary reasonable accommodations to residents in accordance with Section 504 of
the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and other HUD guidance.
Reasonable Costs of Disposition (Question 4). Reasonable costs of disposition may include the following (although HUD may
disapprove any costs it deems unreasonable): (i) costs that PHAs incur in preparing the SAC application (e.g. environmental studies,
engineering costs of rehab estimates under 24 CFR 970.15, appraisal fees); and (ii) transactional (seller) closing costs (e.g., local
customary split of any brokerage fees, appraisal fees, survey costs, tax certificates fees, fees for recording the DOT/DORC release,
notary fees, title insurance fees, title company document preparation and closing fees, mailing and wire transfer fees, and reasonable
attorney fees), provided such costs are listed on the HUD-1 or other applicable settlement statement document.
Net Proceeds (Question 5). Net proceeds means proceeds realized after deducting relocation and disposition costs.
Section 4: Offer of Sale to Resident Organizations
In completing this section, PHAs should refer to the guidance at 24 CFR part 970 and PIH Notice 2018-04 (or any successor notice).
PHAs are eligible to exercise the exception from the offer of sale described at 970.9(b)(3)(ii) only in cases where the PHA has firm
plans to replace substantially all of the units proposed for disposition with the housing units for low-income families (even if those
housing units are not low-income housing units as defined by Section 3 of the 1937 Act). Note that a PHA cannot forgo giving
applicable resident entities an offer of sale based on speculation or general plans to build a facility to benefit low-income families.
Section 5: Certification
The Executive Director, Board Chairperson, or other authorized agent of the PHA, should sign and date this Certification.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 34
3113626.2 037386 FILE
FORM HUD 52860-A
Narrative: Demolition and Disposition Addendum For Las Deltas/Las Deltas
Annex I
Section 1.4: Demolition
The basic rationale for demolition in covered in Section 2.1 below.
The property is 3.7% occupied. The cost of maintaining the property is approximately $1
million per year regardless of the number of households in place since the nature of the
neighborhood requires that all vacated units be secured with metal window and door covers that
HACCC is renting at a significant cost to the agency. In addition, HACCC has had to continue to
pay for local sheriff patrols of the property to disperse homeless and criminal elements from
squatting on the vacated property. Thus, the requested demolition should occur as soon as the
units can be vacated.
HACCC has received a bid to demolish the contiguous part of the property which includes the 58
units in property 9A and the 40 units in Property 6. Demolishing these units promptly will have
a cost-saving effect for the agency, particularly when you consider that most of the units have
been broken into and vandalized and will likely be torn down regardless of what will eventually
be done with the site. In addition, a vacant series of contiguous parcels will be easier to draw
interest from potential development groups than a series of dilapidated, boarded up and
vandalized units.
HACCC plans to demolish only 98 of the 214 units. 107 units have been committed for
conversion under the Rental Assistance Demonstration Program. The scattered site units that
make up Property 9B are not likely to be demolished but, rather, sold off to interested buyers
either at auction or at market value. HACCC seeks disposition approval for these units so that it
can proceed with the process of selling the properties. Most of the scattered sites are duplexes,
with four single family dwellings.
Section 1.5: Demolition (Cost-test)
Total cost to demolish 98 units will be approximately $1,200,000. The amount will fluctuate
until final contracts are signed.
Section 2.1: Disposition
HACCC is seeking disposition under the rationale of Section 18(a)(2)(A)(i) of the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937 (the Act)—“conditions in the area surrounding the public housing project adversely
affect the health or safety of the residents or the feasible operation of the project by the public
housing agency”, and the "Other" rationale of Section 18(a)(2)(B) of the Act.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 35
3113626.2 037386 FILE
The Las Deltas/Las Deltas Annex developments are located in North Richmond, for which the
2012 crime rate indexes (the latest available) indicate a Total Crime Risk approximately 68%
higher than for the State of California and similar relative risks for most types of serious crimes.
While development-specific crime statistics are much more limited, Las Deltas/Annex appears to
have a concentration of serious crimes within North Richmond —6 of 19 violent crimes in North
Richmond in 2014, despite a population of under 150 families and police patrols assigned to the
properties.
As a result of that and other factors discussed further below, virtually all families that HACC has
assigned to Las Deltas/Annex in recent years have refused to move there. In 2011 through May
of 2013, these developments had a site-based waiting list. During this time period, HACCC
called 1,537 families with potential offers of 2-bedroom and 3-bedroom units, interviewed 181
families and actually leased 14 units.
HACCC then converted to an authority-wide waiting list. From July 2013 through July 2015,
HACCC leased 55 public housing units. However, none of these units were at Las
Deltas/Annex. In view of the non-existent demand for these units, and the high costs that would
be incurred to prepare them because the units promptly are vandalized once vacated, the HACCC
stopped preparing units at Las Deltas/Annex.
North Richmond Poverty, Crime & Environmental Issues; Reduced Occupancy
The plight of North Richmond has been well –documented in recent years, including by a 9-part
series in richmondconfidential.com: http://richmondconfidential.org/2011/06/01/part-1-north-
richmond-a-neighborhood-on-the-brink/ (Links to the remaining parts are in this first article.)
Among the findings of these and other studies are:
North Richmond is highly segregated, with 97% of its residents Latinos, Blacks and Asians
compared with 82.9% in Richmond and 59.9% in California according to the 2010 U.S. Census.
This community has the lowest per capita income in Contra Costa County, about $9,000, or
roughly one third of the county average. In a 2009 report published by a coalition of area
environmental and other groups entitled “Measuring What Matters,” the median income in North
Richmond was listed at $24,131, the lowest of more than 20 of the most impoverished
communities in the Bay Area. While other, more recent sources show some higher median
income numbers, they still show stark poverty relative to other California communities. One
source, citydata.com, also shows a 41.0% drop in median household income from 2000 to 2013,
compared to a 26.7% increase for all California households during the same time period.
Most homes sell for below $100,000, among the lowest prices in the Bay Area. North Richmond
is less than one mile from the sprawling Chevron refinery sitting on 940 acres, the largest
producer of base oils on the West coast, and also is bounded by noisy railroad tracks to the south
and a route to a nearby landfill to the north that is constantly used by trucks loaded with various
wastes. The broader area contains five major oil refineries, three chemical companies, eight
Superfund sites, dozens of other toxic waste sites, highways, two rail yards, ports and marine
terminals where tankers dock. “The people of Richmond, p articularly African-Americans, are at
significantly higher risk of dying from heart disease and strokes and more likely to go to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 36
3113626.2 037386 FILE
hospitals for asthma than other county residents; health experts say their environment likely is
playing a major role.” Kay and Katz, “North Richmond in shadow of poverty and pollution;”
also called “Pollution, Poverty, People of Color: The factory on the Hill,” Environmental Health
News, June 4, 2012: https://shar.es/14ujXj.
Residents complain of a lack of paved streets, lighting and basic services. There is one grocery
store in the area, which does not carry fresh fruit or vegetables but has a wall that contains a roll
call of homicide victims over the years.
Nearly every block has seen bloodshed in the past 30 years. From 2005 to 2010, at least 28
homicides occurred in the North Richmond area, with a population of under 3,000 people. Five
in one year would equal a rate of 217 killings per 100,000 people, as opposed to 34 per 100,000
people in Richmond over the last decade. Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, was declared the world’s
“murder capital” by the Citizen’s Council for Public Security, a nongovernmental organization,
for 2009 with a rate of 130 murders per 100,000 inhabitants. Caracas, Venezuela, and New
Orleans followed, with rates of 96 and 95 homicides per 100,000 people respectively. Thus, the
North Richmond rate has been more than six times that of the City of Richmond and well over
twice the rates of Caracas and New Orleans. North Richmond had 19 more homicides from
2011 to early 2014.
North Richmond has been a dumping ground for private and commercial interests all over the
Bay Area. Local activists long have attributed health and environmental problems to the
Chevron refinery.
A large national developer, KB Homes, built a market-rate development of single-family homes
in the early 2000s that abuts Las Deltas/Annex. The developer built a concrete wall to separate
the new development from Las Deltas/Annex.
The City of Richmond has resisted efforts to annex North Richmond, which remains a part of
unincorporated Contra Costa County. The County has not had adequate resources to meet North
Richmond’s needs, for example, for police to combat violence as well as important non-violent
offenses including illegal dumping.
Of the 214 original units, only 8 units remain occupied. This has facilitated a migration of
homeless squatters and break-ins that pose a threat to the remaining Las Deltas households and
surrounding neighbors. Many of them have voiced concerns with local officials and law
enforcement.
In view of these enormous problems, it is not surprising that HACCC has been unable to fill
vacancies at North Richmond and remains unable to offer Las Deltas residents a reasonable
living environment despite taking extraordinary measures such as paying for supplemental police
patrols. HACCC’s reasonable operation of Las Deltas/Annex is infeasible, particularly with
federal funding shortfalls. HACCC’s certification that the statutory test is met clearly is justified.
Inability To Complete RAD
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 37
3113626.2 037386 FILE
For the past two years, HACCC pursued a RAD transfer of assistance (TOA) strategy for Las
Deltas and worked to have 95 households, who were in occupancy on the date all four CHAPs
were approved by HUD, relocated to healthier and safer neighborhoods. Even with HACCC’s
offers to developers of non-RAD project-based vouchers if they will take RAD units, the
restrictive RAD rents have made it difficult to entice developers to participate in the program and
HACCC is finding it a challenge to complete the TOA and, in turn, meet RAD’s 1-for-1
replacement requirement. Thus, the satisfactory completion of RAD and authorization to dispose
of the property through RAD rather than this application process does not appear to be a
reasonable option.
For all these reasons, HUD should promptly grant the requested disposition approval, partial
demolition approval and, upon application, approval of 95 tenant protection vouchers.
Section 3: Proceeds
While the appraised value of all of the properties is approximately $14,920,000, it is not
expected that HACCC will be successful in securing this amount for the sale and disposition of
the properties at this site. HACCC will make best efforts to do so. At a minimum, all proceeds
from the sale will be used to recoup the approximately $1,300,000 in relocation costs and
$1,542,000 in demolition costs expended out of Capital Funds during the relocation and
preparation phase for this demo/Dispo effort. In addition, it is anticipated that there will be costs
associated with the appraisal, environmental reviews, securing the site, realtor services and
attorney fees associated with the demolition and disposition of Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex
I.
All remaining proceeds will be used to make further improvements to other developments in
HACCC's public housing portfolio as well as begin the pre-development planning for the
disposition of the El Pueblo and Bayo Vista public housing developments.
Section 4.1: Offer of Sale to Resident Organizations
There are no established resident organizations at Las Deltas to offer the property for sale.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 38
3113629.2 037386 FILE
FORM HUD 52860
Narrative: Demo/Dispo Application For Las Deltas/Las Deltas Annex I
Section 4.11: Description of Existing Development
Development DOFA Building Family/
Total
# UFAS Units by Bedroom Size
Name Number Date Type** Elderly? Units 0 1 2 3 4 5
Las Deltas Ca006 1952
Duplex &
6-plex FAMILY 76 0 0 5 0 0 0
Las Deltas Ca009A 1961 Duplex FAMILY 58 0 0 0 0 0 0
Las Deltas Ca009B 1960
Duplex
and Single
Family
Dwelling FAMILY 80 0 7 0 0 0 0
All UFAS units are fully built out for mobility and sensory accessibility.
Section 5.3: Proposed Action by Building Type
See attached site map. Three separate properties in two distinct AMPs are outlined. AMP 7 -
Property 6 (20 duplexes and 6 6-plexes) and AMP 6 - Property 9A (29 duplexes) are intended for
demolition and disposition. The largest area, AMP 6 - Property 9B, (a forty square block area
among which are the 80 scattered site units broken down as 38 duplexes and 4 single family
dwellings) are intended for disposition only.
Section 5.4: Total Acreage Proposed for Removal (if applicable)
Attached are also the most current Declarations of Trust for each property with legal
descriptions. Total Acreage for the demolition component of the property is 9.38 acres. The 80
units seeking disposition is 7.69 acres.
Section 6.2: Relocation
Summary of residents estimated to be displaced by Race:
Black * 72
White * 19
Asian 1
Native American 1
Multi -racial 1
Declined to State 1
* Includes 20 Hispanic households between the two.
Number of households containing a person with disabilities: 37
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 39
3113629.2 037386 FILE
Section 6.3: Relocation
HACCC has contracted Overland, Pacific & Cutler, LLC (OPC) as its relocation consultant to
provide relocation services for the Las Deltas families. OPC has conducted extensive interviews
with all of the households and crafted relocation strategies for each household based on their
preference for area and type of housing they are interested in.
Of the 95 households in residency at the time of CHAP approvals in August, 2016, 14
households eventually either moved on their own without assistance in fear of remaining at the
site or were terminated for cause. OPC has been working with the remaining 81 residents for
approximately nine months to find acceptable replacement housing for each of the affected
families. During this time, they have not only counseled families to facilitate their move, but
they have worked closely with the Bay Area housing market to locate and negotiate tenancies for
suitable housing. To date, 73 of the remaining 81 families at Las Deltas have been relocated and
the others have continued to receive regular counseling and housing search assistance to help
identify a suitable home for them. OPC has worked with HACCC to establish a trust account to
facilitate the timely processing of security deposits and moving expenses for the families and has
been instrumental in negotiating tenancies in an extremely restrictive rental market.
Section 6.6: Relocation
Residents of Las Deltas have been offered the following housing opportunities:
1. Vacant and available public housing units throughout the HACCC portfolio;
2. Housing Choice Vouchers
3. Project Based Voucher units committed as replacement units for Las Deltas
Below is a summary of relocation activity to date.
Total Las Deltas Families Eligible for Relocation 95
Total who moved on their own without assistance or were
terminated for cause
Total Additional Families That Have Moved
14
75
Moved to other public housing 42
Moved using voucher within HACCC jurisdiction 25
Moved using voucher outside of HACCC jurisdiction 7
Moved and left HACCC programs 1
Total Families Pending Move 6
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 40
3113629.2 037386 FILE
Section 6.7: Relocation
Typically, the number of tenant protection vouchers (TPV) is limited at least initially to the
number of occupied units at the time of demo/dispo application approval. However, as a result
of the deplorable conditions of the units at Las Deltas, and fearing for the health and safety of the
residents at the property, HACCC was forced to begin the relocation process before getting
approval through regular HUD channels. In addition, HACCC was discouraged from pursuing
demo/dispo as a viable solution by HUD in 2014, because the standard for demonstrating
physical obsolescence did not appear to be met irrespective of an overwhelming serious crime
problem and other unacceptable living conditions. HACCC thus requests TPVs equal to the
number of households in occupancy when HACCC was awarded the last of its four CHAPs on
August 16, 2016 . After nearly a year of monthly discussions with the RAD Transaction
Manager assigned to HACCC's RAD award and HUD staff, in June of 2017, HACCC requested
permission from the Office of Recapitalization to proceed with early relocation of Las Deltas.
HUD's response indicated that HACCC should proceed with relocation under its authority
granted under Public Housing regulations for emergency transfer of households living in
substandard conditions.
Section 7.1: Resident Consultation
When HACCC was intending to submit a demo/dispo application as an alternative to the RAD
applications it was submitting and to weigh the results of which strategy would present itself
first, a resident meeting was held with the remaining 95 residents at Las Deltas at that time.
Approximately 36 households attended a community meeting where the demo/dispo application
was discussed and what potential outcomes would come of such an application, including the
option for TPVs, demolition of the property and sale of the property. This meeting was held on
September 24, 2015. The agenda, sign-in sheet and presentation shared are attached. In
addition, there are continuing discussions with residents regarding RAD and relocation.
Section 7.4: Resident Consultation (Resident Advisory Board)
Regular meetings of the Resident Advisory Board are held as part of the PHA Plan process each
year. In response to HUD 's comment that the me eting held on September 21, 2015 to discuss
options for the conversion and/or disposition of Las Deltas was too old, a meeting with the RAB
was convened on September 26, 2018 to further discussed the Demo/Dispo application.
Attached are the agenda and sign-in sheets from the meeting.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 41
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes42
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes43
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes44
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes45
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes46
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes47
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes48
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes49
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes50
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes51
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes52
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes53
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes54
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes55
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes56
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes57
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes58
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes59
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes60
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes61
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes62
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes63
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes64
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 65
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 66
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 67
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 68
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes69
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes70
U.S.DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentSan FranciscoRegionalOffice-RegionIXOneSansomeStreet,Suite1200SanFrancisco,CA94104-4430WWW.hLidC1OVespanol.hud.govNOV212010JaneHornstein,DirectorSpecialApplicationsCenterUSDepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopmentRalphH.MetcalfeFederalBuilding77WestJacksonBoulevard,Room2401Chicago,IL60604-3507RE:ApplicationforDemolitionandDispositionLasDeltasandLasDeltasAnnexI-CAO11600000andCAO11700000Deanin‘.The SanFrancisco OfficeofPublicandIndianHousing(PIH)iswritingthisletterinsupportoftheawardof95tenantprotectionvouchers(TPVs)inconnectionwiththeHousingAuthorityoftheCountyofContraCosta’s(HACCC) applicationfordemolitionanddispositionofthe LasDeltasandLasDeltasAnnexIpublichousingproperties(collectively,LasDeltas)inNorthRichmond,CA.HACCCapproachedPIHin2005, 200$andin2012todiscussthesubmissionofademolition/dispositionapplication.Inallthreeoccasions,theSACdiscouragedHACCCfromapplyingbecauseitwasdeterminedthatHACCClikelydidnotmeettheobsolescencetest.DespiterepeatedHACCCeffortstodemonstratehowbadlytheunitsneededrenovation,theywereneverabletomeettherestrictiveHUDdefinitionineffectatthetimeforobsolescence.In2013, HACCCdecidedtopursueanotherpath.HACCCsubmittedfourapplicationsfor RentalAssistanceDemonstration(RAD)conversion ofthe 214unitsatthissitethroughthetransferofassistance(TOA)method.TwoapplicationswereapprovedonMarch30,2015,andtwo wereapprovedonAugust16,2016,when95householdsremainedinoccupancy.TheunitsatLasDeltaswereinsuchdeplorableconditionthat HACCCappealedtoHUDtostartrelocationimmediately.TheapplicableRAD noticerequiredthatearlyrelocationonlycouldbeapprovedunderspecific conditionsandtheOfficeofRecapitalization(RECAP)didnotapproveearlyrelocation.Instead,RECAPinformed HACCCthatHACCCcouldauthorizeearlyrelocationunderitspublichousingAdmissionsandContinuedOccupancyPlan forhealthandsafetyreasons.PH-IwassupportiveofanyeffortsthatwouldresultintherelocationofthefamiliesatLasDeltasfromtheunitsthatposedserioushealthandsafety risks,arguablywiththeworstandmostdangerouslivingconditionsofanydevelopmentintheregion.PIHworkedcloselywithHACCCandRECAPtoensurethatUniformRelocationActstandardswereappliedandthatanapprovedrelocationplanwasinplace. PIHalsohasworkedcloselywithHACCCtoremovevacantunitsatLasDeltas linkedwithunitsthatclosed underRAD TOAfromthePlCinventory;May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes71
107ofthe214unitshavebeenremoved.Anadditional1$unitsarecommittedtoaRADtransactiontargetedtoveteransinPittsburg,CA,butonly12unitsareexpectedtoclose,and$9unitsareinamulti-phaseCHAPthatareuncommitted.Thus,95unitsareorsoonwillbeunassigned.PNsupportsHACCCspursuitof demolitionand/or dispositionfortheseremainingunits.IthasbeenachallengetopersuadeownerstoacceptRADasaviabledevelopmentoption,andHACCChashadtosupplementeach RADvoucherwiththreetofourregularproject-basedvoucherstoallowtheprojectstocashflow.Aspartofthiseffort,HACCCseeksTPVsforthe95unitsandweencourageyourofficetoassistthem withasmanyTPVsasyoucantoensurethefamiliesfromLasDeltasareproperlycaredfor andContra CostaCountydoesnotloselow-incomehousingsubsidies.Asyou areaware,HUDhasbegunto dothestatutorily-authorizedtwo-year occupancylook-backforTPVawards. Suchalook-backwouldallowHUDtoprovide95TPVsforLasDeltas.HACCChasprovidedyouwithseveral itemstodocumenthowfarbackourdiscussionshavebeengoing withHACCCandRECAPregardingtherelocation oftheLasDeltasfamiliesandthedireconditionsatthesite.TheTPVs wouldbringclosuretothisdemolition/dispositioneffort, whilemaintainingaffordablehousingopportunitiesforContraCostaCounty.Pleasedonothesitatetocontactmeshouldyouwanttofurther discussthismatter.Icanbereachedat(415)489-6444.Sincerely,GerardWindtDirector,OfficeofPublicandIndianHousingHUD,RegionIXMay 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes72
APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA006
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018C-RESTRICTED
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 73
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018C-Restricted Appraisal
Las Deltas Family Housing
North Richmond, California
CA006A Las Deltas
Dear Mr. Villareal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on 3 contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Silver Avenue, North Jade Street,
Ruby Avenue and First Street in North Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. The subject
contains a total of 6.48 acres, or 282,356 square feet of land area on 3 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 20 duplexes, or a total of 40 units and several
administrative/community buildings of which only the preschool is occupied. The residential units
consist of one, two, three- and four-bedroom units. Currently, only one unit is occupied with the
remaining 39 units vacant. The remaining tenant is in the process of moving. The improvements
were built in approximately 1952 are of poor condition and quality. The vacant units are boarded-
up and most of the units have been vandalized with wiring and copper removed. In addition, several
of the units have sustained fire damage and approximately 36 townhouse style units were
demolished in late 2018 due to safety issues. The existing improvements are considered to add no
value to the underlying land. The property interest appraised is fee simple.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property.
The intended use (function) for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition
application to HUD. This report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any
reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 74
Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted Appraisal Report, which summarizes
our findings, with the data and analysis included in the appraisers file. The purpose of this appraisal
is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property. The intended use (function)
for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the
County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report
should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
This is a Restricted Appraisal Report in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices (USPAP) Standard 2-2(b). Use of this report is limited to the client. The
rationale for how the appraiser arrived at the opinion and conclusions set forth in this report may
not be understood properly without additional information that is in the appraiser’s work file.
EXTRAORDINARY AND HYPOTHETICAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject
title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them
at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
I. AREA AND MARKET CONDITIONS
The subject is located in the North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated area
of West Contra Costa County. North Richmond is located adjacent to the City of Richmond
and is situated within the City of Richmond’s sphere of influence.
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which contains a total of 178
units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and 1960s to provide low cost rental
housing. The property is older and in poor condition. The majority of the subject units are
currently vacant, with the remaining tenants in the process of moving to other locations.
The Richmond housing and rental market is relatively stable, with moderate gains in rents
and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a supply perspective, there are new
developments in the pipeline in the greater subject market area. Demand in the greater East
Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected to benefit from the overflow. However, North
Richmond has limited new product coming online in the near future, and their status in
unincorporated Contra Costa County has led to municipal service gaps that have discourage
prospective buyers. Long term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for
market rate housing and rental units.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 75
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 76
II. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A. Site
The subject property consists of 3 contiguous parcels that are part of the Las Deltas
Family Project in North Richmond. The subject parcels are situated on the blocks
bounded by North Jade Street to the west, Silver Avenue to the north, First Street to
the west and Ruby Avenue to the south. The Subject Identification Table on the
following page lists the subject properties and notes the lot area, the condition of
the existing improvements on the parcel, street address and unit identification
number as well as the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 56,323 to 132,161 square feet, or from 1.29 to
3.03 acres. The parcels are generally regular in shape. The topography of the parcels
is generally level. The parcels are divided by North Jade Street and West Grove
Avenue. The streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities
are available to the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor quality, single family
homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the subject
property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches in the
area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B. Zoning
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential Low Density, (ML). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Primary land uses include attached single-
family residences such as duplexes or duets, multiple family residential such as
condominiums, apartments, mobile home parks. Secondary land uses allowed
include churches, small residential care and child care facilities.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area.
The subject parcels currently appear to be legally conforming uses.
C. Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 77
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
1 409-210-023-1 1645 N Jade Street 395 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 1,155 Duplex L-shaped site with frontage on Jade Street
1635 N Jade Street 396 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 1,155 2,310 West Grove Avenue and West Ruby Street
1621 N Jade Street 397 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
1611 N Jade Street 398 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310 4 Duplexes
131 W Grove Avenue 431 ML P-1 1BD/1 BA -Boarded up 578 Duplex
117 W Grove Avenue 432 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 1,348 7,481 sf of Residential bldg area
1595 N Opal Street 433 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1593 N Opal Street 434 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1589 N Opal Street 435 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1587 N Opal Street 436 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1583 N Opal Street 437 132,161 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1581 N Opal Street 438 3.03 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1575 N Opal Street 439 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1573 N Opal Street 440 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1569 N Opal Street 441 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1567 N Opal Street 442 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1563 N Opal Street 443 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1561 N Opal Street 444 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
130 W Ruby Avenue 445 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Boarded Up 935 Duplex
116 W Ruby Avenue 446 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
North Jade Street NA ML P-1 Admin- Office/Maintenance- Vacant Community 3,735 Square Feet
North Jade Street NA ML P-1 Maintenance Storage- Vacant Community 1,025 Square Feet
West Grove Avenue NA ML P-1 Project Pride- Vacant Community 3,128 Square Feet
West Grove Avenue NA ML P-1 Preschool/Headstart Occupied Community 3,950 Square Feet
2 409-210-022-3 1608 N Jade Street 399 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 Duplex Block bounded by Silver and W Grove
1616 N Jade Street 400 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 1,513 Avenues and N Jade and First Streets
1624 N Jade Street 401 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 Duplex
1632 N Jade Street 402 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 1,513 10 Duplexes
1642 N Jade Street 403 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 Duplex
1648 N Jade Street 404 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 1,513 16,724 sf of Residential bldg area
40 Silver Avenue 405 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
44 Silver Avenue 406 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310
50 Silver Avenue 407 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
54 Silver Avenue 408 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310
1649 First Street 409 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1643 First Street 410 93,872 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1633 First Street 411 2.16 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1625 First Street 412 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 1,513
1617 First Street 413 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1609 First Street 414 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
40 W Grove Avenue 415 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
54 W Grove Avenue 416 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 1,513
1620 Opal Court 417 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1622 Opal Court 418 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1628 Opal Court 419 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1630 Opal Court 420 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1636 Opal Court 421 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1638 Opal Court 422 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1639 Opal Court 423 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1637 Opal Court 424 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1631 Opal Court 425 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1629 Opal Court 426 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1623 Opal Court 427 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1621 Opal Court 428 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
116 W Grove Avenue 429 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
130 W Grove Avenue 430 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
Had been converted to Community Bldg.
Vacant
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan Unit Size (SF)
Comments
CA006
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 78
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan Unit Size (SF)
Comments
CA006
3 409-210-024-9 54 W Ruby Avenue 447 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex West side of First Street between
40 W Ruby Avenue 448 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513 West Grove Avenue and West Ruby Streets
1562 N Opal Street 449 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1564 N Opal Street 450 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished 6 Duplexes
1568 N Opal Street 451 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1570 N Opal Street 452 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished 9,078 sf of bldg area
1574 N Opal Street 453 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1576 N Opal Street 454 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1580 N Opal Street 455 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1582 N Opal Street 456 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1586 N Opal Street 457 56,323 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1588 N Opal Street 458 1.29 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1592 N Opal Street 459 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1594 N Opal Street 460 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
55 W Grove Avenue 461 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
41 W Grove Avenue 462 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1599 First Street 463 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1591 First Street 464 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 1,513
1587 First Street 465 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1581 First Street 466 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1573 First Street 467 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Occupied 578 Duplex
1567 First Street 468 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 1,513
1559 First Street 469 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1551 First Street 470 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1)Site area based on public records.
282,356 sf
6.48 Acres
11.72 density
Property 6
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 16 578 9,248
2 1 770 770
3 15 935 14,025
4 8 1,155 9,240
4- SF 0 1,155 0
20 Duplexes 40 33,283
36 6- Six plexes (2 BD) which were demolished/ 36 units
76 Total original number of units on site
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 79
D. Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 3 contiguous parcels and is improved with 20 duplexes
units. The subject dwelling units are of wood frame construction on concrete slabs
with stucco exteriors. The units have gas wall heaters, and the windows are single
pane aluminum frame. The interior finishes of the units consist of vinyl flooring
and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square feet. The two-bedroom
units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three-bedroom units have 935
square feet and the four-bedroom units consist of 1,155 square feet
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1952 and are generally in very
poor condition. The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and
uninhabitable. Many of the units have been gutted. Of the 40 units, approximately
one unit is currently occupied, and the other 39 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and there was some water
damage observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged and in some cases
the ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are typically boarded-up to
prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear doors have been removed
by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several of the units have been
damaged by fire.
The subject originally contained a total of 6, six-unit townhouse style buildings.
Due to the condition of the units and safety issues these 36 two-bedroom units were
demolished in December 2018.
The subject property includes five administrative//community buildings which are
located on two parcels. The Youth Empowerment Center is located within Units
407 and 408 on Silver Avenue on Subject Parcel Number 2 and was converted from
two duplex units. These buildings appear to be at the end of their economic life and
are considered to have no value.
The remaining building is occupied by Headstart and is a preschool. It is located at
135 West Grove Street. The preschool contains approximately 3,950 square feet
and is in average condition. The preschool is currently rented on a month to month
basis as the lease expired in June 2017.
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 80
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 81
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 82
Based on our research as well as discussions with brokers and other active
participates in the real estate market, a benchmark renovation cost of $120 per
square foot is concluded. This cost is applied to all of the units at the subject as
they all require renovation.
III. OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Highest and Best Use Conclusion
As Vacant
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Multiple Family
Residential - Low Density (ML) and are zoned Planned Unit (P-1). Duplexes or
attached residential or apartment uses are the primary zoning for the subject
properties with secondary uses allowed of residential care and child care facilities
as well as churches. The subject properties consist of 3 contiguous parcels that
range in size from 1.29 to 3.03 acres. The site’s sizes are sufficient to support a
variety of residential development. Overall physical characteristics do not limit the
highest and best use of the subject site.
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the unincorporated
area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County. Market conditions currently support
speculative development for the subject sites. This is supported by an adjacent
residential development that was built over the past 10 years. The maximally
productive use is that use, from among financially feasible uses, that provides the
highest rate of return or value. Therefore, the highest and best use of the subject site
as-if vacant, is considered to be residential development.
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the subject sites as-if
vacant would be for the construction of a new residential development consistent
with the subject’s zoning.
As Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential duplex units that were built
in the 1950s. Almost all of the subject units are vacant, and most have been
vandalized. As is demonstrated in the valuation chapter, given the age, condition
and quality of the units, as well as the cost to repair the improvements, the existing
vacant improvements are considered to have lower value than land and should be
demolished. This conclusion is further supported by the fact that 36 townhouse style
units on the subject property were demolished in late 2018.
The subject lots are relatively large in size and are contiguous. It is likely that the
property would appeal to a developer and could be redeveloped to form a new
residential subdivision. Based on these factors the highest and best use is to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 83
demolish the existing improvements and redevelop the property with a residential
project.
B. Valuation of Subject Property
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject
properties is the Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated
by comparing the subject to similar land sites which have transferred prior to the
effective date of appraisal. The index properties show characteristics which are
similar to the property being appraised. The Comparable Sales Table is on the
following page.
Land Valuation
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions, a unit value between $15 and $20
per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as if vacant. A per square foot
value of $15 is concluded for the largest subject parcel of over 3 acres as if vacant.
For the smaller parcels of 1.29 and 2.16 acres a unit value of $18 per square foot is
concluded as if vacant.
Improvement Valuation
The subject contains parcels with 3 to 10 duplexes or between 6 and 20 units. Based
on the subject size and location a per unit value of $145,000 is concluded for
Subject Parcel Number 1 with 8 units or 4 duplexes. This value assumes the units
are in habitable condition.
The Subject Parcel Number 3 is a large parcel with 6 duplexes or 12 units. Given
the larger size of the property a unit value of $120,000 is concluded. Subject Parcel
Number 2 contains 20 units or 10 duplexes, a unit value of $110,000 per unit is
concluded. Again, this value assumes the units are in habitable condition.
Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
All but one of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the costs to repair the units was previously estimated
at approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. The renovation cost is deducted from the concluded value of
the improved properties as if habitable to derive an as-is value in the current
uninhabitable condition.
Further, in order to estimate only land value, the cost to demolish the improvements
is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is estimated at approximately $10.00
per square foot. This is equal to a cost of approximately $22,560 per duplex and
includes the costs to demolish the community buildings. This cost includes asbestos
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 84
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1a 3151 Garrity Way 7/18 $3,500,000 95,396 SF $37 Located at Hilltop neighborhood Home Sweet Home LLC/
Richmond Entitled 2.19 AC 98 Units Proposed for apt units.Zhangs Management Group LLC
APN: 405-290-069 45 Du/Acre Vacant Land #107514
1b 3151 Garrity Way Listing $4,800,000 $50
Entitled
2 830 Marina Way South 11/17 $16,250,000 436,035 SF $37 Former Industrial Site Development Solutions Seascape/
Richmond Entitled 10.01 AC 197 Units Proposed for apt units.William Lyon Hms Inc.
APN: 560-190-007-8 20 Du/Acre Vacant Land #214851
3 2200 Nevin Avenue 4/15 $1,690,000 74,813 SF $23 Proposed for Adams Carl Trust/
Richmond $93,750 (1)1.72 AC 289 Units affordable housing Affordable Housing Land Consultants
APN: 514-090-018-3, 514-080-013 $1,783,750 $24 168 Du/Acre #300640
Unentitled
4 Tennessee Street & Avian Drive Listing $1,400,000 121,968 SF $11 Sloping hillside G Annas & Fatemeh Maroofi/
Vallejo Entitled 2.80 AC 28 Units site NA
APNs: 0069-430-010, various 10 Du/Acre
5 505 W. 10th Street Listing $2,200,000 102,797 SF $21 Vacant land Amerasla Real Estate Fund LLC/
Pittsburg Entitled 2.36 AC 54 Units mixed-Use development NA
APNs: 082-260-009, -012, -044, 243-001, -002 and -178 23 Du/Acre
Multifamily Unit Sales
6 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 Poor Condition #0112249
7 417 Verde Avenue 6/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 Fair Condition #202656
8 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,276 SF $180 Average Condition #041392
9 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 Average Condition #024643
10 3202 Nevin Ave 6/17 $1,300,000 9,410 SF Bldg.$108,333 12 Unit Cruz-Nevin Trust/
Richmond 0.34 AC Per Unit Blt in 1948 Levy, Ephraim & Rosemary Trust
APN: 538-190-021-5 15,002 SF $138 Poor Condition 103991
11 2394 Road 20 7/17 $2,650,000 12,600 SF Bldg.$147,222 18 Unit Eric Antonicic/
San Pablo 0.67 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 Road 20 MF Partners LLC
APN: 416-120-020-1 29,142 SF $210 Good Condition #114598
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C
Density
RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLE SALES
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA006
492
CR - City of Richmond
PA - City of Richmond
MFR-3/C-2 - City of Richmond
PDR - City of Vallejo
M - City of Pittsburg
RM2 - City of Richmond
4 - Studio, 4 - 1BD/1BA
784
P1 - Contra Costa County
4 - 3BD/1BA, 4 - 2BD/1BA
676
R-3 - City of Richmond
8 - 2BD/1BA
783
RM2 - City of Richmond
1 - 1BD/1BA, 8 - 2BD/1BA
663
RL2 - City of Richmond
12 - 2BD/1BA
I - City of San Pablo
3 - 1BD/1BA , 15 - 2BD/1BD
700
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 85
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 86
and lead abatement as well as remediation costs. These costs are utilized in the
analysis and are deducted from the value conclusions to derive an as-is value as
land.
As- Is Market Values
The valuation table for the subject properties are summarized on the table on the
following page. The table includes our estimation of the improved value with
renovation costs which are deducted from the units, to derive an as-is value of the
improvements in their existing uninhabitable condition. In addition, the three
parcels have surplus land where the six-plexes had been demolished late last year.
A surplus land value of approximately 50% of the previously concluded land value
is concluded given that it is only a portion of the larger site and can’t be developed
independently.
The Subject Parcel Number 1 also contains a preschool building that contains 3,950
square feet. The preschool is currently occupied and rented on a monthly basis for
a nominal rent. The preschool is in average condition but is situated on a larger
parcel with other uses. Based upon the condition and location of the subject
preschool, a unit value of $100 per square foot is concluded. No values are applied
to the other auxiliary buildings which are at the end of their useful life.
In addition, the value of the subject land with a deduction made for the demolition
of the improvements is shown. Based on our conclusions and discussed in the
highest and best use chapter of the appraisal, the subject has greater value as a land
site and the improvements should be demolished.
The total bulk market value of the subject is the sum of the 3 properties as no
discount would be indicated for the development of the total site.
C.Value Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 3 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is individual fee simple market values of the subject property
which consists of 3 contiguous parcels in Las Deltas CA006 as of March 12, 2019,
are estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-023-1 $1,790,000
Parcel Number 409-210-022-3 $1,520,000
Parcel Number 409-210-023-9 $920,000
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 87
#Address Size/Unit Value/Demolition/
Unit No.Value Renovation
1 409-210-023-1 1645 N Jade Street 395
1635 N Jade Street 396 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1621 N Jade Street 397 Units Per Unit
1611 N Jade Street 398
131 W Grove Avenue 431 7,481 $120 ($897,720)
117 W Grove Avenue 432 sf psf
1595 N Opal Street 433
1593 N Opal Street 434
1589 N Opal Street 435 Surplus Land 79,296 $7.50 $594,720
1587 N Opal Street 436 132,161 sf psf
1583 N Opal Street 437 3.03
1581 N Opal Street 438 Acres Preschool 3,950 $100.00 $395,000
1575 N Opal Street 439 sf
1573 N Opal Street 440 Value as Improved $1,252,000
1569 N Opal Street 441
1567 N Opal Street 442
1563 N Opal Street 443
1561 N Opal Street 444 Land Value 132,161 $15.00 ($193,190)$1,789,225
130 W Ruby Avenue 445 sf $1,982,415 Demolition of bldgs
116 W Ruby Avenue 446 at $10 psf
North Jade Street NA
North Jade Street NA $1,790,000
116 West Grove Avenue 429
West Grove Avenue NA
2 409-210-022-3 1608 N Jade Street 399
1616 N Jade Street 400 20 $110,000 $2,200,000
1624 N Jade Street 401 Units Per Unit
1632 N Jade Street 402
1642 N Jade Street 403
1648 N Jade Street 404 Cost to renovate duplex units 16,724 $120 ($2,006,880)
129 Silver Avenue 405 sf psf
105 Silver Avenue 406
55 Silver Avenue 407
41 Silver Avenue 408 Surplus Land 35,202 $9.00 $316,818
1649 First Street 409 sf psf
1643 First Street 410
1633 First Street 411 Value as Improved $509,938
1625 First Street 412 93,872
1617 First Street 413 2.16
1609 First Street 414 Acres
40 W Grove Avenue 415 Land Value 93,872 $18.00 ($167,240)$1,522,456
54 W Grove Avenue 416 sf $1,689,696 Demolition of bldgs
1620 Opal Court 417 at $10 psf
1622 Opal Court 418
1628 Opal Court 419
1630 Opal Court 420 $1,520,000
1636 Opal Court 421
1638 Opal Court 422
1639 Opal Court 423
1637 Opal Court 424
1631 Opal Court 425
1629 Opal Court 426
1623 Opal Court 427
1621 Opal Court 428
116 W Grove Avenue 429
130 W Grove Avenue 430
3 409-210-024-9 54 W Ruby Avenue 447
40 W Ruby Avenue 448 12 $120,000 $1,440,000
1562 N Opal Street 449 Units
1564 N Opal Street 450
1568 N Opal Street 451
1570 N Opal Street 452 Cost to fix duplex units 9,078 $120 ($1,089,360)
1574 N Opal Street 453 sf psf
1576 N Opal Street 454
1580 N Opal Street 455
1582 N Opal Street 456 56,323 Surplus Land 28,161 $9.00 $253,453
1586 N Opal Street 457 1.29 sf psf
1588 N Opal Street 458 Acres Value as Improved $604,093
1592 N Opal Street 459
1594 N Opal Street 460
55 W Grove Avenue 461 Land Value 56,323 $18.00 ($90,780)$923,034
41 W Grove Avenue 462 sf $1,013,814 Demolition of bldgs
1599 First Street 463 at $10 psf
1591 First Street 464
1587 First Street 465 $920,000
1581 First Street 466
1573 First Street 467
1567 First Street 468
1559 First Street 469
1551 First Street 470
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.$4,230,000
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 per square foot.
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C
As-Is Market Value
6-Duplexes
As-Is Market Value
10-Duplexes
Costs to renovate duplex units
As- Is Market Value
4-Duplexes
ValuesAPN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size (SF)
1
Use
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA006
North Richmond, California
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 88
Bulk Market Value of Subject 3 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the fee simple market value of the subject property, three legal
parcels sold in a single transaction (bulk) as of March 12, 2019, is estimated to be:
FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($4,230,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
IV. REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
A.Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villareal with the Housing Authority of
Contra Costa County. Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted
Appraisal Report, which summarizes our findings, with the data and analysis
included in the appraisers file. The intended use (function) for which this appraisal
was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This
report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
B.Date of Appraisal
The effective date of valuation is March 12, 2019.
The date of the report is March 29, 2019.
C.Scope of Appraisal
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 89
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included commercial and residential real
estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
D.Appraisal Reporting Format
This report is a Restricted Appraisal Report in accordance with Standards Rules of
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) Standard 2-2 (b).
Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained
in the appraisers work file. The appraisers’ opinions and conclusions set forth in
this report cannot be understood properly without additional information in the
appraisers’ work file.
E.Definition of Terms
1.Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))2015
Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the
consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a) Bu yer and seller are typically motivated;
b) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interest;
c)A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d)Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions
granted by anyone associated with the sale.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 90
2.Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
F.Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1.A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the
subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would effect market
value.
2.This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject
properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Limiting Conditions
3.No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the property
is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and special
assessments other than as stated in this report.
4.Plot plans and maps if any are included to assist the reader in visualizing the
property. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and
contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and
believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such
items furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraiser.
5.All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct but
is not guaranteed as such.
6. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The
appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering studies
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no soil
contamination exists as a result of chemical drainage or leakage in connection with
any production operations on or near the property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 91
7.In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used in
the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the site has
not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited to) the
existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic wastes.
The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances; the client is advised to
retain an expert in this field.
8.Any projections of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather,
they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future income and expenses
will be. No warranty or representation is made that these projections will
materialize.
9.Possession of any report prepared, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right
of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in
any event only with the proper written qualification and only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
10.Neither all nor part of the contents of the appraisal shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, new sales, or other media without the written
consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation conclusions,
the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI
designation.
11.Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations, is
a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this appraisal
assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the misinterpretation
of these maps. It is strongly recommended that any lending institution reverify
earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they are providing
a mortgage loan.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 92
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN AND PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 93
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 94
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Administrative Offices Administrative Building
Parking Lot and Neighboring Improvements Vacant Land
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 95
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
W Grove Avenue and N Opal Street Former Six-plex Site
Former Six-plex Site Subject Neighborhood
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 96
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1625 North Jade Street 1621 North Jade Street
1621 North Jade Street Interior 1621 North Jade Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 97
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Preschool Exterior Preschool Exterior
Preschool Preschool Kitchen Area
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 98
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 99
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
3202 Nevin Avenue
Richmond
2394 Road 20
San Pablo
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 100
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 101
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 102
RESTRICTED APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
ANNEX I
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA009A
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018A-RESTRICTED
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 103
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018A- Restricted,
Appraisal Las Deltas Family
North Richmond, California
CA009A Las Deltas Annex 1
Dear Mr. Villareal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has made an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on (5) contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Warren Drive, Silver Avenue,
North Jade Street, and Harrold Street in North Richmond unincorporated Contra Costa County,
California. The subject contains a total of 4.9 acres, or 213,401 square feet of land area on 5
parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 29 duplexes, or a total of 58 units. The units consist of one,
two, three, and four-bedroom units. Currently, only one unit is occupied with the remaining 57
units vacant. The remaining tenant is in the process of moving. The improvements were built in
approximately 1960 and are of poor quality and condition. The vacant units are boarded-up and
most of the units have been vandalized, with the wiring and copper removed. In addition, several
of the units have sustained fire damage. The existing improvements are considered to add no value
to the underlying land. The property interest appraised is fee simple.
Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted Appraisal Report, which summarizes
our findings, with the data and analysis included in the appraisers file. The purpose of this appraisal
is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property. The intended use (function)
for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the
County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report
should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 104
This is a Restricted Appraisal Report in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices (USPAP). Use of this report is limited to the client. The rationale for how the
appraiser arrived at the opinion and conclusions set forth in this report may not be understood
properly without additional information that is in the appraiser’s work file.
EXTRAORDINARY AND HYPOTHETICAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
1.A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject
title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2.This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them
at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
I.AREA AND MARKET CONDITIONS
The subject is located in the North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated area
of West Contra Costa County. North Richmond is located adjacent to the City of Richmond
and is situated within the City of Richmond’s sphere of influence.
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which contains a total of 178
units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and 1960s to provide low cost rental
housing. The property is older and in poor condition. The majority of the subject units are
currently vacant, with the remaining tenants in the process of moving to other locations.
The Richmond housing and rental market is relatively stable, with moderate gains in rents
and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a supply perspective, there are new
developments in the pipeline in the greater subject market area. Demand in the greater East
Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected to benefit from the overflow. However, North
Richmond has limited new product coming online in the near future, and their status in
unincorporated Contra Costa County has led to municipal service gaps that have discourage
prospective buyers. Long term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for
market rate housing and rental units.
II.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A.Site
The subject property consists of 5 contiguous parcels that are part of the Las Deltas
Family Project in North Richmond. The subject parcels are situated on the blocks
bounded by North Jade Street to the west, Warren Drive/Wildcat Creek to the north,
Harrold Street/Warren Drive to the east and Silver Avenue to the south. The Subject
Identification Table on the following page lists the subject properties and notes the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 105
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
1 526 Silver Avenue 526 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 Duplex West side of Jade Street between
1721 N Jade Street 527 ML P-1 4BD/ 1.5 BA- Boarded Up 1,155 2,090 Market and Silver Avenues
1735 N Jade Street 528 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 Duplex 4- Duplexes
1745 N Jade Street 529 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 1,870
1755 N Jade Street 530 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Occupied 935 Duplex 7,700 SF of bldg area
1765 N Jade Street 531 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,870
1775 N Jade Street 532 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 Duplex
20 Market Avenue 533 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 1,870
2 20 Market Avenue 534 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex Warren Drive
1815 Warren Drive 535 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 10 Duplexes
1821 Warren Drive 536 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1823 Warren Drive 537 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156 12,520 SF of bldg area
1827 Warren Drive 538 ML P-1 1BD/1BA - Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1829 Warren Drive 539 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156
1833 Warren Drive 540 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded up 578 Duplex
1835 Warren Drive 541 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,156
1839 Warren Drive 542 ML P-1 1BD/1BA - Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1841 Warren Drive 543 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156
1845 Warren Drive 544 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1847 Warren Drive 545 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,156
1851 Warren Drive 546 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1853 Warren Drive 547 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 1,156
1857 Warren Drive 548 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1859 Warren Drive 549 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 1,156
1863 Warren Drive 550 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1865 Warren Drive 551 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA-Boarded Up 770 1,348
1869 Warren Drive 552 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
51 Market Avenue 553 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540
3 50 Market Avenue 554 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex East Side of Harold Street between
1768 Harrold Street 555 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 2,090 Market and Silver Avenues
1758 Harrold Street 556 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex 4 Duplexes
1748 Harrold Street 557 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 1,870
1738 Harrold Street 558 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex 7,398 SF of bldg area
1728 Harrold Street 559 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 2,090
1714 Harrold Street 560 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 Duplex
51 Silver Avenue 561 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,348
4 41 Silver Street 562 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex Block bounded by Market and Silver
1719 Harrold Street 563 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 2,090 Avenues and Harrold and Jade Streets
1733 Harrold Street 564 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex 8 Duplexes
1743 Harrold Street 565 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 1,155 2,310
1753 Harrold Street 566 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex 15,400 SF of bldg area
1763 Harrold Street 567 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 1,540
1773 Harrold Street 568 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
40 Market Avenue 569 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 1,705
30 Market Avenue 576 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1772 Jade Street 577 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 2,090
1762 N Jade Street 578 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex
1752 N Jade Street 579 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 2,090
1742 N Jade Street 580 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1732 N Jade Street 581 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,870
1722 N Jade Street 582 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
33 Silver Avenue 583 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,705
5 41 Market Avenue 570 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex Block bounded by Warren Drive and
1868 Warren Drive 571 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 Market Avenue
1836 Warren Drive 572 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex 3 Duplexes
1832 Warren Drive 573 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 Fire Damaged
1814 Warren Drive 574 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
31 Market Avenue 575 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 4,620 SF of bldg area
213,401 SF
1)Site area based on public records.4.90 Acres
Property 9A
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 16 578 9,248
2 16 770 12,320
3 18 935 16,830
4 8 1,155 9,240
4- SF 0 1,155 0
58 47,638
29 Duplexes
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A
409-210-021-5
22,608409-210-011-6
409-210-025-6 27,878
409-210-026-4
409-210-020-7
59,677
28,750
74,488
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Unit Size
(SF)
CA009A - Annex 1
Comments
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 106
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 107
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 108
lot area, the condition of the existing improvements on the parcel, street address and
unit identification number as well as the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 22,608 to 74,488 square feet, or from 0.52 to
1.71 acres. Parcels 1, 3 and 4 are generally regular in shape, while Parcel 2 is
comprised in an irregular “U” shape with an abutment in the upper northeast
portion. Parcel 2 is located immediately south of Wildcat Creek. Parcel 5 is
bounded by Warren Drive on three sides, and Market Avenue to the south. The
topography of the parcels is generally level. The parcels are divided by North Jade
Street, Warren Drive, Market Avenue, Harrold Street and Silver Avenue. The
streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities are available to
the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor quality, single family
homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the subject
property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches in the
area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B.Zoning
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential Low Density, (ML). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Primary land uses include attached single-
family residences such as duplexes or duets, multiple family residential such as
condominiums, apartments, mobile home parks. Secondary land uses allowed
include churches, small residential care and child care facilities.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area.
The subject parcels currently appear to be legally conforming uses.
C.Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
D.Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 5 contiguous parcels and is improved with 29 duplexes, or
58 units. The subject dwelling units are of wood frame construction on concrete
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 109
slabs with stucco exteriors. The units have gas wall heaters, and the windows are
single pane aluminum frame. The interior finishes of the units consist of vinyl
flooring and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square feet. The two-
bedroom units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three bedroom units have
935 square feet and the four bedroom units consist of 1,155 square feet.
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1960 and are generally in very
poor condition. The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and
uninhabitable. Many of the units have been gutted. Of the 58 units, approximately
one unit is currently occupied, and the other 57 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and in some cases there
was some water damage observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged
and in some cases the ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are
typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear
doors have been removed by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several
of the units have been damaged by fire.
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage.
Based on our research as well as discussions with brokers and other active
participates in the real estate market, a benchmark renovation cost of $120 per
square foot t is concluded. This cost is applied to all of the units at the subject as
they all require renovation.
III. OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Highest and Best Use Conclusion
As Vacant
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Multiple Family
Residential- Low Density (ML) and are zoned Planned Unit (P-1). Duplexes or
attached residential or apartment uses are the primary zoning for the subject
properties with secondary uses like residential care, child care facilities, and
churches also allowed. The subject properties consist of 5 contiguous parcels that
range in size from 22,608 to 74,488 square feet. The sites’ sizes are sufficient to
support a variety of residential development. Overall physical characteristics do not
limit the highest and best use of the subject site.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 110
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the unincorporated
area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County. Market conditions currently support
speculative development for the subject sites. This is supported by an adjacent
residential development that was built over the past 10 years. The maximally
productive use is that use, from among financially feasible uses, that provides the
highest rate of return or value. Therefore, the highest and best use of the subject site
as-if vacant, is considered to be residential development.
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the subject sites as-if
vacant would be for the construction of a new residential development consistent
with the subject’s zoning.
As Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential duplex units that were built
in the 1960s. Almost all of the subject units are vacant, and most have been
vandalized. As is demonstrated in the valuation chapter, given the age, condition
and quality of the units, as well as the cost to repair the improvements, the existing
vacant improvements are considered to have lower value than land and should be
demolished.
The subject lots are relatively large in size and are contiguous. It is likely that the
property would appeal to a developer and could be redeveloped to form a new
residential subdivision. Based on these factors the highest and best use is to
demolish the existing improvements and redevelop the property with a residential
project.
B.Valuation of Subject Property
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject
properties is the Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated
by comparing the subject to similar land sites which have transferred prior to the
effective date of appraisal. The index properties show characteristics which are
similar to the property being appraised. The Comparable Sales Table is on the
following page.
Land Valuation
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions, a unit value between $18 and $20
per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as if vacant. A per square foot
value of $20 is concluded for the smaller subject parcels of approximately 22,608
to 28,750 square feet as if vacant. For the larger parcels of 59,677 and 74,488 square
feet a unit value of $18 per square foot is concluded as if vacant.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 111
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1a 3151 Garrity Way 7/18 $3,500,000 95,396 SF $37 Located at Hilltop neighborhood Home Sweet Home LLC/
Richmond Entitled 2.19 AC 98 Units Proposed for apt units.Zhangs Management Group LLC
APN: 405-290-069 45 Du/Acre Vacant Land #107514
1b 3151 Garrity Way Listing $4,800,000 $50
Entitled
2 830 Marina Way South 11/17 $16,250,000 436,035 SF $37 Former Industrial Site Development Solutions Seascape/
Richmond Entitled 10.01 AC 197 Units Proposed for apt units.William Lyon Hms Inc.
APN: 560-190-007-8 20 Du/Acre Vacant Land #214851
3 2200 Nevin Avenue 4/15 $1,690,000 74,813 SF $23 Proposed for Adams Carl Trust/
Richmond $93,750 (1)1.72 AC 289 Units affordable housing Affordable Housing Land Consultants
APN: 514-090-018-3, 514-080-013 $1,783,750 $24 168 Du/Acre #300640
Unentitled
4 Tennessee Street & Avian Drive Listing $1,400,000 121,968 SF $11 Sloping hillside G Annas & Fatemeh Maroofi/
Vallejo Entitled 2.80 AC 28 Units site NA
APNs: 0069-430-010, various 10 Du/Acre
5 505 W. 10th Street Listing $2,200,000 102,797 SF $21 Vacant land Amerasla Real Estate Fund LLC/
Pittsburg Entitled 2.36 AC 54 Units mixed-Use development NA
23 Du/AcreAPNs: 082-260-009, -012, -044, 243-
001, -002 and -178
PA - City of Richmond
MFR-3/C-2 - City of Richmond
M - City of Pittsburg
PDR - City of Vallejo
Density
CR - City of Richmond
COMPARABLE RESIDENTIAL SALES
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA009A - Annex 1
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 112
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)Density
COMPARABLE RESIDENTIAL SALES
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA009A - Annex 1
Multifamily Unit Sales
6 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 Poor Condition #0112249
7 417 Verde Avenue 6/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 Fair Condition #202656
8 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,276 SF $180 Average Condition #041392
9 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 Average Condition #024643
10 3202 Nevin Ave 6/17 $1,300,000 9,410 SF Bldg.$108,333 12 Unit Cruz-Nevin Trust/
Richmond 0.34 AC Per Unit Blt in 1948 Levy, Ephraim & Rosemary Trust
APN: 538-190-021-5 15,002 SF $138 Poor Condition 103991
11 2394 Road 20 7/17 $2,650,000 12,600 SF Bldg.$147,222 18 Unit Eric Antonicic/
San Pablo 0.67 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 Road 20 MF Partners LLC
APN: 416-120-020-1 29,142 SF $210 Good Condition #114598
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A
RM2 - City of Richmond
4 - Studio, 4 - 1BD/1BA
492
P1 - Contra Costa County
4 - 3BD/1BA, 4 - 2BD/1BA
676
3 - 1BD/1BA , 15 - 2BD/1BD
700
663
RL2 - City of Richmond
12 - 2BD/1BA
784
I - City of San Pablo
R-3 - City of Richmond
8 - 2BD/1BA
783
RM2 - City of Richmond
1 - 1BD/1BA, 8 - 2BD/1BA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 113
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 114
Improvement Valuation
The subject contains parcels with 3 to 10 duplexes or between 6 and 20 units. Based
on the subject size and location, a per unit value of $145,000 is concluded for
Subject Parcel Numbers 1, 3 and 5 with 6 to 8 units or 3 to 4 duplexes. This value
assumes the units are in habitable condition.
The Subject Parcel Number 4 is a large parcel with 8 duplexes or 16 units. Given
the larger size of the property, a unit value of $120,000 is concluded. Subject Parcel
Number 2 contains 20 units or 10 duplexes, and a unit value of $110,000 per unit
is concluded. Again, this value assumes the units are in habitable condition.
Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
All but one of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the cost to repair the units was previously estimated
at approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. The renovation cost is deducted from the concluded value of
the improved properties as if habitable to derive an as-is value in the current
uninhabitable condition.
Further, in order to estimate only land value, the cost to demolish the improvements
is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is estimated at approximately $10.00
per square foot. This is equal to approximately $16,500 per duplex. This cost
includes asbestos and lead abatement as well as remediation costs. These costs are
utilized in the analysis and are deducted from the value conclusions to derive an as-
is value as land.
As- Is Market Values
The valuation table for the subject properties are summarized on the table on the
following page. The table includes our estimation of the improved value with
renovation costs which are deducted from the units, to derive an as-is value of the
improvements in their existing uninhabitable condition.
In addition, the value of the subject land with a deduction made for the demolition
of the improvements is shown. Based on our conclusions and discussed in the
highest and best use chapter of the appraisal, the subject has greater value as a land
site and the improvements should be demolished.
The total bulk market value of the subject is the sum of the 5 properties as no
discount would be indicated for the development of the total site.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 115
#Address Size/Unit Value/Demolition/
Use Unit No.Value Renovation (2)
1 21 Silver Avenue 526 4-Duplexes 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1721 N Jade Street 527 units
1735 N Jade Street 528
1745 N Jade Street 529 27,878 Costs to renovate duplex 7,700 $120 ($924,000)
1755 N Jade Street 530 0.64 Value as Improved sf psf $236,000
1765 N Jade Street 531 Acres
1775 N Jade Street 532 Land Value 27,878 $20.00 ($77,000)$480,560
20 Market Avenue 533 sf $557,560 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $480,000
2 20 Market Avenue 534 10-Duplexes 20 $110,000 $2,200,000
1815 Warren Drive 535 units
1821 Warren Drive 536
1823 Warren Drive 537 Costs to renovate duplex 12,520 $120 ($1,502,400)
1827 Warren Drive 538 Value as Improved sf psf $697,600
1829 Warren Drive 539
1833 Warren Drive 540 Land Value 74,488 $18.00 ($125,200)$1,215,584
1835 Warren Drive 541 sf $1,340,784 demo costs
1839 Warren Drive 542
1841 Warren Drive 543
1845 Warren Drive 544 As-Is Market Value $1,220,000
1847 Warren Drive 545 74,488
1851 Warren Drive 546 1.71
1853 Warren Drive 547 Acres
1857 Warren Drive 548
1859 Warren Drive 549
1863 Warren Drive 550
1865 Warren Drive 551
1869 Warren Drive 552
51 Market Avenue 553
3 50 Market Avenue 554 4-Duplexes 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1768 Harrold Street 555 units
1758 Harrold Street 556
1748 Harrold Street 557 28,750 Costs to renovate duplex 7,398 $120 ($887,760)
1738 Harrold Street 558 0.66 Value as Improved sf psf $272,240
1728 Harrold Street 559 Acres
1714 Harrold Street 560 Land Value 28,750 $20.00 ($73,980)$501,020
51 Silver Avenue 561 sf $575,000 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $500,000
4 41 Silver Street 562 8-Duplexes 16 $120,000 $1,920,000
1719 Harrold Street 563 units
1733 Harrold Street 564
1743 Harrold Street 565 Costs to renovate duplex 15,400 $120 ($1,848,000)
1753 Harrold Street 566 Value as Improved sf psf $72,000
1763 Harrold Street 567
1773 Harrold Street 568 59,677 Value as Improved 59,677 $18.00 ($154,000)$920,186
40 Market Avenue 569 1.37 sf $1,074,186 demo costs
30 Market Avenue 576 Acres
1772 Jade Street 577
1762 N Jade Street 578 As-Is Market Value $920,000
1752 N Jade Street 579
1742 N Jade Street 580
1732 N Jade Street 581
1722 N Jade Street 582
33 Silver Avenue 583
5 41 Market Avenue 570 3-Duplex 6 $145,000 $870,000
1868 Warren Drive 571 units
1836 Warren Drive 572
1832 Warren Drive 573 22,608 Costs to renovate duplex 4,620 $120 ($554,400)
1814 Warren Drive 574 0.52 Value as Improved sf psf $315,600
31 Market Avenue 575 Acres
Land Value 22,608 $20.00 ($46,200)$405,960
sf $452,160 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $410,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.$3,530,000
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 psf,.
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A
409-210-020-7
409-210-021-5
409-210-011-6
409-210-025-6
409-210-026-4
Values
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
SUBJECT PROPERTIES VALUATION WORKSHEET
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009A - Annex 1
North Richmond, California
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 116
C.Values Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 5 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is individual market values of the subject property which
consists of 5 contiguous parcels in Las Deltas Annex 1, as of March 12, 2019, are
estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-025-6 $480,000
Parcel Number 409-210-026-4 $1,220,000
Parcel Number 409-210-020-7 $500,000
Parcel Number 409-210-021-5 $920,000
Parcel Number 409-210-011-6 $410,000
Bulk Market Value of Subject 5 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the fee simple market value of the subject property five legal parcels
sold in a single transaction (bulk) as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,530,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
IV. REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
A.Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villareal with the Housing Authority of
Contra Costa County. Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted
Appraisal Report, which summarizes our findings, with the data and analysis
included in the appraisers file. The intended use (function) for which this appraisal
was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This
report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 117
B.Date of Appraisal
The effective date of valuation is March 12, 2019.
The date of the report is March 29, 2019.
C.Scope of Appraisal
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included commercial and residential real
estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
D.Appraisal Reporting Format
This report is a Restricted Appraisal Report in accordance with Standards Rules of
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) Standard 2-2 (b).
Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained
in the appraisers work file. The appraisers’ opinions and conclusions set forth in
this report cannot be understood properly without additional information in the
appraisers’ work file.
E.Definition of Terms
1.Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))2015
Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 118
consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a) Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
b) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interest;
c)A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d) Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e)The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions
granted by anyone associated with the sale.
2.Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
F.Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1.A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the
subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would effect market
value.
2.This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject
properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Limiting Conditions
3.No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the property
is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and special
assessments other than as stated in this report.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 119
4. Plot plans and maps if any are included to assist the reader in visualizing the
property. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and
contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and
believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such
items furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraiser.
5.All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct but
is not guaranteed as such.
6.The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The
appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering studies
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no soil
contamination exists as a result of chemical drainage or leakage in connection with
any production operations on or near the property.
7.In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used in
the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the site has
not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited to) the
existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic wastes.
The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances; the client is advised to
retain an expert in this field.
8.Any projections of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather,
they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future income and expenses
will be. No warranty or representation is made that these projections will
materialize.
9.Possession of any report prepared, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right
of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in
any event only with the proper written qualification and only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
10.Neither all nor part of the contents of the appraisal shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, new sales, or other media without the written
consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation conclusions,
the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI
designation.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 120
11. Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations, is
a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this appraisal
assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the misinterpretation
of these maps. It is strongly recommended that any lending institution reverify
earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they are providing
a mortgage loan.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 121
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN AND PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 122
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 123
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 124
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 125
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
3202 Nevin Avenue
Richmond
2394 Road 20
San Pablo
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 126
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 127
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 128
RESTRICTED APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
ANNEX 2
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA009B
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018B-RESTRICTED
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 129
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018B-Restricted, Appraisal
Las Deltas Family
North Richmond, California
CA009B Las Deltas Annex 2
Dear Mr. Villareal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has prepared an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on 31 noncontiguous parcels in North Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.
The parcels are located on blocks bounded by Chesley Avenue, First Street, Seventh Street and
Wildcat Creek Regional Trail, north of Verde Avenue. The subject contains a total of 7.69 acres,
or 334,836 square feet of land area on 31 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with a mixture of 4 single-family homes and 38 duplexes, for a
total of 80 units. Currently, only seven units are occupied with the remaining 73 units vacant. The
remaining tenants are in the process of moving. The improvements were built in approximately
1961 and are of uniformly poor condition and quality. The vacant units are currently boarded-up
and most of the units have been vandalized with the wiring and copper removed. Several of the
units have sustained fire damage and are considered to add no value to the underlying land. Other
properties at the subject are considered viable to be renovated, and the retention of the existing
improvements is concluded as the highest and best use.
Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted Appraisal Report, which summarizes
our findings, with the data and analysis included in the appraisers file. The purpose of this appraisal
is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property. The intended use (function)
for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the
County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report
should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
This is a Restricted Appraisal Report in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional
Appraisal Practices (USPAP). Use of this report is limited to the client. The rationale for how the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 130
appraiser arrived at the opinion and conclusions set forth in this report may not be understood
properly without additional information that is in the appraiser’s work file.
EXTRAORDINARY AND HYPOTHETICAL LIMITING CONDITIONS
1.A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject
title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2.This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them
at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
I.AREA AND MARKET CONDITIONS
The subject is located in the North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated area
of West Contra Costa County. North Richmond is located adjacent to the City of Richmond
and is situated within the City of Richmond’s sphere of influence.
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which contains a total of 178
units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and 1960s to provide low cost rental
housing. The property is older and in poor condition. The majority of the subject units are
currently vacant, with the remaining tenants in the process of moving to other locations.
The Richmond housing and rental market is relatively stable, with moderate gains in rents
and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a supply perspective, there are new
developments in the pipeline in the greater subject market area. Demand in the greater East
Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected to benefit from the overflow. However, North
Richmond has limited new product coming online in the near future, and their status in
unincorporated Contra Costa County has led to municipal service gaps that have discourage
prospective buyers. Long term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for
market rate housing and rental units.
II.PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
A.Site
The subject property consists of a total of 31parcels located on various sites in North
Richmond and is part of the Las Deltas Family Project CA 009B - Annex 2. There
are 31 are noncontiguous parcels that are situated on the blocks bounded by First
Street to the west, Chesley Avenue to the south, Seventh Street to the east and
Wildcat Creek Regional Trail to the north. The Subject Identification Table on the
following page lists the subject properties and notes the lot area, the condition of
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 131
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 132
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
1 1520 First Street 584 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of First Street between
1518 First Street 585 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 W Ruby Street and Chesley Avenue
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 SH P-1 2BD/1 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.770 Duplex
1511 Second Street 587 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,705
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of First Street between
1710 First Street 589 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex North side of Silver Avenue, mid-block
325 Silver Avenue 593 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 btwn 3rd & Truman Streets. Duplex
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 SF East side of 3rd Street, mid-block between
1,155 Market Avenue & Silver Avenue.
6 1844 Truman Street 595 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Truman Street,
1840 Truman Street 596 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870 mid-block between Verde & Market Ave.
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Fourth Street between
1727 Fourth Street 600 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant 935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 4,998 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.SF SE corner of 4th Street & Market Avenue.
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 SF SW corner of Silver and Giaramita Street
1643 Giaramita Street 604 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street btw
1639 Giaramita Street 605 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090 Grove and Silver Avenues
1623 Giaramita Street 606 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Occupied 935 Duplex 5,115 sf of bldg area
1619 Giaramita Street 607 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
7,578
409-052-003-4 10,040
7,500
409-162-018-9
409-251-022-3
409-191-009-3 10,026
409-142-005 21,299
7,500
7,338
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
409-052-009-1 7,463
NW corner of Chelsley Ave & 2nd St.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 133
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 5,000 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Very Poor SF NE corner of Giaramita St. & Silver Ave.
Structural Damage- Land Value
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 SH P-1 1BD/1BA-Vacant Poor Cond.578 Duplex Northwest corner of Giaramita Street
525 Silver Avenue 609 SH P-1 1BD/1BA-Vacant Poor Cond.578 1,156 and Silver Avenue
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex NE corner of 6th Street & Market Avenue.
611 Market Avenue 613 SH P-1 2BD/1 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.770 1,925
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of 6th Street, mid-block betwn
1737 Sixth Street 615 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market & Silver Avenues. Damage
14 1572 First Street 616 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex East side of 1st Street, mid-block betwn
1574 First Street 617 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090 West Ruby Street & Silver Avenue.
1560 First Street 618 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex 4,180 sf of bldg area
1558 First Street 619 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090
15 1529 Second Street 620 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 Duplex
114 West Ruby Street 621 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Occupied 935 1,870
16 1601 Second Street 622 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 2nd Street, mid-block betwn
1605 Second Street 623 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Grove & Silver Aves. Str. Damage. Land Value
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex South side of Silver Ave, mid-block
218 Silver Avenue 625 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 btwn 2nd & 3rd Strs. Str. Damage. Land Value
18 308 Market Avenue 626 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex SE Corner of Market and Third
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 East Side of Third Street
322 Market Avenue 628 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex SS of Market St bwt. Third & Truman St.
320 Market Avenue 629 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 3,740 sf of bldg area
7,580409-152-007-4
9,983409-151-005-9
409-282-019-2 7,500
409-052-001-8 7,499
9,865
409-182-002-9
15,214409- 191-001
11,365
409-060-018-2 15,065
409-060-009-1
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 134
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Verde Avenue mid-block
317 Verde Avenue 635 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 between Fourth and Truman Streets
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex East side of 4th Street, mid-block betwn
1622 Fourth Street 637 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 Grove & Silver Avenues.
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Gutted
1540 Fourth Street 639 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 L Shape Lot. Frontage on 5th and 4th
1534 Fourth Street 640 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Street. Located betwn Grove and
1532 Fourth Street 641 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Chesley Avenues. 2 units Fire Damage
1539 Fifth Street 642 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Gutted
1541 Fifth Street 643 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 5,610 sf of bldg area
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex NW corner of Fifth, Grove and Siliver
1709 Fifth Street 645 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street
1925 Giaramita Street 649 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 north of Verde Avenue
24 1932 Giaramita Street 650 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Irregular shaped lot with frontage on
1934 Giaramita Street 651 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870 Sixth and Giaramita Streets, north of
1923 Sixth Street 662 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Verde Avenue. Adjacent to creek
1925 Sixth Street 663 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 and school.
1929 Sixth Street 664 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex
1931 Sixth Street 665 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
1945 Sixth Street 666 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 7,480 sf of bldg area
1943 Sixth Street 667 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex SE corner of Verde Ave & Giramita St.
542 Verde Avenue 653 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310
1842 Giaramita Street 654 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 4,180 sf of bldg area
1840 Giaramita Street 655 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
10,208
409-161-008-1 7,316
26,529
409-272-009-5
409-292-001-8
409-281-001-1 17,502
25,288409-100-004-4
409-171-015-4
409-252-008-1 8,081
10,557
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 135
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street, mid-block
1527 Giaramita Street 657 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 btwn Chelsley & Grove Avenues.
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 6th Street, mid-block betwn
1549 Sixth Street 659 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Chelsley & Grove Avenues.
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Sixth Street mid-block
1641 Sixth Street 661 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 between Silver and Grove Avenues
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Sixth Street North of Verde
1930 Sixth Street 669 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Avenue
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Sixth Street mid-block betwn
1722 Sixth Street 671 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 7th Street, mid-block betwn
1819 Seventh Street 673 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Occupied 935 1,870 Market & Verde Avenues.
1829 Seventh Street 674 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 3,740 sf of bldg area
1827 Seventh Street 675 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
1)Site area based on public records.334,836 SF of Land
2)All vacant improvements boarded-up 7.69 Acres
10 du/ac
Property 9B
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 2 578 1,156
2 2 770 1,540
3 61 935 57,035
4 11 1,155 12,705
4- SF 4 1,155 4,620
80 77,056
4 SF Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
38 Duplexes 19-WCP-018B
409-110-007-5 8,384
409-282-005-1 14,958
409-131-003-9 9,967
409-141-006-0 7,993
7,530409-291-009-2
409-120-005-7 7,710
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 136
the existing improvements on the parcel, street address and unit identification
number as well as the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 4,998 to 26,529 square feet. The parcels are
typically regular in shape and the topography of the parcels is generally level. The
streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities are available to
the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor to fair quality single
family homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the
subject property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches
in the area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B.Zoning
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential High Density, (SH). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 5.0 to 7.2 single family units per
net acre. Attached single family units (duplexes or duets) may be allowed as well as
churches, small residential care and child care facilities. The minimum lot size is
4,500 square feet for a single family and 7,000 square feet for a duplex. The
building height limit is 30 feet or two stories.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area.
The subject parcels currently appear to be legally conforming uses.
C.Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
D.Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 31 parcels and is improved with duplexes or single-family
rental units for a total of 80 residential units. The subject dwelling units are of wood
frame construction on concrete slabs with stucco exteriors. The units have windows
which are single pane aluminum frame. The typical interior finishes of the units
consist of vinyl flooring and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square
feet. The two-bedroom units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three-
bedroom units have 935 square feet and the four bedroom units consist of 1,155
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 137
3
18
5
4
8
7
22 11 10
13
30
12
31
25
29 24
23
19
6
14
16
1 15
2
17
20
9 28
27
26
21
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 138
21
26
27
28
9
20
17
16
14
1 15
2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 139
SUBJECT
19
23
24
29
31
12
25
6
18
5
4
7
8
22 11 10
13
30 3
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 140
square feet. The subject contains four single family homes with four bedrooms/1.5
baths with 1,155 square feet.
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1961 and are generally in very
poor condition. The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and
uninhabitable. Many of the units have been gutted. Of the 80 units, approximately
7 units are currently occupied, and the other 73 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and there was some water
damage observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged and in some cases
the ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are typically boarded-up to
prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear doors have been removed
by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several of the units have been
damaged by fire.
Although the interior of the residential units is in very poor condition and
essentially gutted, the building foundation and framing appears to be in average
condition. The roof structure is tar and gravel and also appears to be in average
condition with no signs of leaking.
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage.
Based on our research as well as discussions with brokers and other active
participates in the real estate market, a benchmark renovation cost of $120 per
square foot t is concluded. This cost is applied to all of the units at the subject as
they all require renovation.
III. OPINIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
A.Highest and Best Use Conclusion
As Vacant
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Single Family
Residential - High Density (SH) and are zoned Planned Unit (P-1). Low density
residential uses are the primary zoning for the subject properties with secondary
uses allowed of residential care and child care facilities as well as churches. The
subject consists of 31 parcels that range from 4,998 to 26,529 square feet. The site
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 141
sizes are sufficient to support a variety of residential development. Overall, physical
characteristics do not limit the highest and best use of the subject site.
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the unincorporated
area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County. Market conditions do not support
speculative development for the subject sites. Therefore, the highest and best use
of the subject sites as-if vacant, is considered to be to hold for future development
or to be developed by an owner-occupant.
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the subject scattered
sites as-if vacant would be to hold the property until market conditions improve and
warrant construction of a new development consistent with the subject’s zoning.
As Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential duplex units that were built
in the 1960s. Almost of the subject units are vacant and have been vandalized and
gutted. These units require renovation to be habitable.
Based on an estimated benchmark cost of $120 per square foot, which includes new
plumbing, wiring, heating, bathrooms and kitchens, flooring and walls, it is
considered financially feasible to renovate most of the vacant units which do not have
structural or fire damage.
Several of the units have sustained fire damage and have extensive structural
damage. These improvements are considered to have no value and should be
demolished. The highest and best use of three subject parcels, Numbers 10, 16 and
17, is to demolish the improvements and hold the land for future development
potential given the condition of the improvements on the parcels.
There are an additional 28 parcels at the subject that are improved with 75 units.
These improvements are considered to contribute value to the underlying land, and
are valued as currently improved, with a deduction made for the estimated costs to
renovate the units.
Therefore, the highest and best use of parcels identified as Numbers 1 through 9, 11
through 15 and 18 through 31 is to keep the existing duplex or single-family units
and to renovate the residential units.
B.Valuation of Individual Parcels at Subject Property
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject
properties is the Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated
by comparing the subject to similar land sites which have transferred prior to the
effective date of appraisal. The index properties show characteristics which are
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 142
similar to the property being appraised. The Comparable Sales Table is on the
following page.
Land Valuation
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions a unit value between $10.00 and
$20.00 per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as vacant. A per square
foot value of $20 per square foot is concluded for the smaller subject parcels of
approximately 5,000 to 7,500 square feet as vacant. For the larger subject parcels
of 7,600 to 15,000 square feet a unit value of $15 per square is concluded as vacant.
A unit value of $12.50 per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels which
contain 15,000 to 20,000 square feet and for parcels greater than 20,000 square feet
a unit value of $10.00 per square foot is concluded as vacant.
Improvement Valuation
The subject contains parcels with single family homes, as well as 2 to 4 duplexes
or between 2 and 8 units.
A unit value of $325,000 is concluded for the subject single-family units assuming
renovation has been completed. Based on the size, location, condition, age and quality
of the subject’s duplex units a value of $475,000, or $237,500 per unit is concluded.
This value assumes that the units have been renovated.
For the subject fourplexes a unit value of $680,000, or $170,000 per unit is
concluded which is within the range of the comparables assuming the units have
been renovated. The subject contains one parcel which contains 4 duplexes, or a
total of 8 units. A unit value of $145,000 is concluded as renovated.
Several of the parcels required additional adjustments which are discussed below.
The Subject Parcel Number 9 is a larger parcel that contains a single-family home
as well as two duplexes. Given that the single-family home shares the parcel with
the duplexes a lower market value is attributable to this single-family unit of
$225,000.
The Subject Parcel Number 11 is a duplex that contains one-bedroom units. Given
the smaller size of the property and the lower income potential a lower value of
$375,000 is concluded.
The Subject Parcel Numbers 14 and 25 contains two duplexes which has three- and
four-bedroom units as well as relatively large lot size. A unit value of $750,000 is
applied to this comparable as it takes into consideration the additional income
potential less the renovation costs.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 143
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per Zoning/Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre Unit / SF Max. Allowed Density Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1 236 Vernon Avenue 3/19 $75,000 3,762 SF $19.94 P-1 Three offers on property.William Malbrough/
North Richmond COE Contract 0.09 AC Contra Costa County One Lot NA
APN: 409-021-028-9 Price 1 Unit
2 800 Block Alamo Avenue 3/19 $112,500 7,500 SF $15.00 RL-2 Mid-block site Chinlakozv, Ulian/
Richmond Pending Asking 0.17 AC City of Richmond One Lot NA
APN: 561-252-029-5 Sale Price 3 Units
3 560 Alamo Avenue 12/18 $130,000 5,000 SF $26.00 RL-2 Mid-block site De Leon, Celso E V/
Richmond 0.11 AC City of Richmond One Lot YC & JJ LLC
APN: 561-231-001-0 2 Units #197311
4 1240 York Street 10/18 $250,000 7,500 SF $33.33 RL-2 Mid-block site Ron Ikebe/
Richmond 0.17 AC City of Richmond 3 Lots Veronica Coleman
APNs: 561-151-028-9, -029-7, -027-1 2 Units #024588
5 1541 Giaramita 8/17 $80,000 5,000 SF $16.00 P-1 Mid-block vacant site Prater, Jane H/
North Richmond 0.11 AC Contra Costa County One Lot Yaramala, Krishna & Padmavathi
APN: 409-110-005-9 1 Unit #0154135
6 0 Block Gertrude Avenue 5/17 $98,000 7,500 SF $13.07 P-1 Mid-block site- 3 Lots Domenico, Plinio D/
North Richmond 0.17 AC Contra Costa County Buyer plans to develop Montoya, Ricardo C/De Ceja, Wendy G
APNs: 409-042-018-5, -019, -020 3 Units with three units #093923
Single Family Units
7a 1853 Truman Street 2/19 $283,250 987 SF Bldg.$287 P-1 Fixer Ramiro S. Barrera/
North Richmond 0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1949 Arturo & Yanira R Benavides
APN: 409-240-005-2 2,720 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #015991
7b 10/18 $265,000 987 SF Bldg.$268 P-1 Fixer Frankie M. Fulmore/
0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1949 Ramiro S. Barrera
2,720 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0168878
8 321 Market Avenue 12/18 $410,000 1,000 SF Bldg.$410 P-1 Updated Aaron & Ladonnike Morgan/
North Richmond 0.08 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1965 Audrey Davidson
APN: 409-240-024-3 3,600 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0194226
9 425 Chesley Avenue 11/18 $310,000 1,016 SF Bldg.$305 P-1 Avg Condition Juan C. Cabrera/
North Richmond 0.07 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1944 Juan and Raquel Ruiz
APN: 409-100-010-1 2,850 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0192434
10 423 Market Avenue 11/18 $475,000 1,244 SF Bldg.$382 P-1 Above Avg./New Construction Jinotega Inc./
North Richmond 0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 2018 Juan A Meza
APN: 409-261-010-6 2,500 SF 3BD/2BA Single Family #0189935
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B
COMPARABLE LAND AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME SALES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 144
Price Zoning/Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per Unit Type Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre Unit / SF Avg Unit Size SF (GBA)Comments (Document#)
Duplex
1 724 Acacia Avenue 10/18 $375,000 2,070 SF Bldg.$187,500 RL2- City of Richmond Duplex Bank of New York/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 2BD/1BA 1986 Blt Newton RPM Ltd.
APN: 534-191-003-1 4,000 SF $181 1,035 Poor Condition #0163494
2 1645 14th Street 9/18 $480,000 2,070 SF Bldg.$240,000 City of San Pablo Duplex Solomon Gorlock/
San Pablo 0.08 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 2BD/1BA 1952 Blt Juan and Josefina M Torres
APN: 410-251-020-5 3,484 SF $232 1,035 Average Condition #203207
3 119 18th Street 9/18 $520,000 1,573 SF Bldg.$260,000 RM2- City of Richmond Duplex Gundersen, Mark/
Richmond 0.13 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 1BD/1BA 1906 Blt Molina-Ortiz, Silvestre R/Aguilera, Olivia P
APN: 540-220-015-7 5,650 SF $331 787 Average Condition #0139955
4 587 6th Street 9/18 $540,000 1,876 SF Bldg.$270,000 RM1- City of Richmond Duplex Bang Jong S living Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 3BD/1.5BA Blt in 1952 North County LLC
APN: 534-301-004-6 3,840 SF $288 938 Average Condition #010713
5 1627 Lincoln Avenue 6/18 $510,000 1,559 SF Bldg.$255,000 RM1- City of Richmond Duplex Duke Partners II LLC/
Richmond 0.11 AC Per Unit 3BD/2BA, 1BD/1BA 1944 Blt Sean E Haggai
APN: 530-290-008-8 5,000 SF $327 780 Average Condition #0125253
Triplex and Fourplexes
6 1625 Portola Avenue 1/19 $662,500 2,602 SF Bldg.$220,833 RM2- City of Richmond Triplex Scott M. Blasingame/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 3 Units - 2BD/1BA Blt in 1984 Jesus S. Mendez
APN: 514-162-025-1 3,936 SF $255 867 Average Condition #0002619
7 305 Ripley Avenue 3/19 $720,000 2,102 SF Bldg.$180,000 RM1- City of Richmond 4 Unit Moazeni, Behzad/ Rasouli, Ladan Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 1BD/1BA 1927 Blt NA
APN: 534-212-012-7 3,800 SF $343 526 Above Average Condition
8 301 Ripley Avenue 1/19 $630,000 2,102 SF Bldg.$157,500 RM1- City of Richmond 4 Unit Moazeni, Behzad/ Rasouli, Ladan Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 1BD/1BA 1927 Blt Tewdros, Aron
APN: 534-212-013-5 3,800 SF $300 526 Average Condition #012782
9 465 21st Street 11/18 $550,000 3,431 SF Bldg.$137,500 CM5- City of Richmond 4 Unit McMacgregor LLC/
Richmond 0.12 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 2BD/1BA Blt in 1954 Ahsbaba, Ahmad/ Sedighi Farideh
APN: 514-120-005-4 5,300 SF $160 858 Average Condition #190982
Multiplexes
10 1333 Market Avenue 11/18 $1,240,000 3,988 SF Bldg.$177,143 CMU- City of San Pablo 7 Unit Selbie C Wright Trust/
San Pablo 0.12 AC Per Unit 7 Units - 6 1BD/1BA, 1 2BD/1BA Blt in 1962 Garcia, Estevan/Lindstrom-Garice, Julie L.
APN: 411-041-003-4 5,227 SF $311 570 Good Condition #179493
11 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 RM2- City of Richmond 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit 4- Studio, 4 1BD/1BA Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 492 Poor Condition #0112249
12 417 Verde Avenue 5/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 P1, Contra Costa County 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit 8 units -4 3BD/1BA, 4 2BD/1BA Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 676 Fair Condition #202656
13 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 R-3- City of Richmond 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit 8 2BD/1BA Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,438 SF $180 783 Average Condition #041392
14 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 City of Richmond 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit 9 units -1 1BD/1BA, 8 2BD/1BA Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 663 Average Condition #024643
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 145
The Subject Parcel Number 21 is a larger parcel which contains 25,288 square feet.
The parcel has three duplexes, in which one duplex is fire damaged (Units 640 and
641). The fire damage to the duplex on this portion of the site is considered surplus
land, and the cost of demolition is considered to offset the value of this portion of
the land. No additional value is allocated to the surplus land. The concluded value
of Parcel 21 includes the two duplexes less renovation costs.
Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
All but one of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the costs to repair the units was previously estimated
at approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. Currently the renovation cost is lower than the as renovated
value of the properties. Therefore, this cost when required is deducted from the
concluded value of the properties as renovated to derive an as-is value.
Further, in order to estimate only land value, the cost to demolish the improvements
is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is estimated at approximately $10.00
per square foot. This is equal to approximately $11,000 for a single-family house
and approximately $19,000 for each duplex. This cost includes asbestos and lead
abatement as well as remediation costs. These costs are utilized in the analysis and
are deducted from the value conclusions to derive an as-is value as land.
As- Is Value Market Values
The valuation table for the subject properties are summarized on the table
following the value conclusions. The table includes our estimation of the
improved value with renovation costs which are deducted from the units, to
derive an as-is value of the improvements in their existing uninhabitable
condition. In addition, demolition costs are applied to the units which have
structural or more significant damage to derive a land value.
C.Discounted Market (Bulk) Value
The bulk market value of the subject parcels is estimated. The bulk (discounted)
market value estimate is defined as the sale of all 31 legal subject lots in a single
transaction. It assumes that the project is sold to a single buyer. The bulk market
value is determined by discounting the gross retail valuation over a projected
absorption period, with deductions made to account for the cost of sales and
entrepreneurial profit. The discounted analysis necessitates certain assumptions
concerning the cost of sales, absorption rate, profit, discount rate and inflation.
The aggregate retail market value of the 31 individual parcels calculated on the
table on the following page is $7,160,000. The summary of assumptions include
that the absorption rate is 3 parcels per month, which is equal to an average sale of
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 146
ASSUMPTIONS:
31 Parcels 0.00%Inflation/Appreciation Rate
$230,968 Avg. retail value per parcel 0.00%Concessions
$7,160,000 Aggregate retail value of 31 Parcels 5.00% Marketing/Escrow Expense
$89,500 Avg retail value per unit.1.00% Administrative Costs
3.00 Parcel per mo absorption -
2.6 Avg No of Units per Parcel
80 Units
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROSS INCOME
Parcels Sold Per Month 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00
Cumulative Parcels Sold 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 31.00
Remaining Unsold Parcels 28.00 25.00 22.00 19.00 16.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.00 1.00 0.00
Gross Sales Income $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $230,968
TOTAL GROSS SALES INCOME:$692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $230,968
LESS: COSTS OF SALES
Marketing ($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($11,548)
Administration ($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($2,310)
Special Assessments (Per Parcel/Yr)$919.81 ($2,376)($2,146)($1,916)($1,686)($1,456)($1,226)($996)($767)($537)($307)($77)
Property Tax @ 1.2591%($6,388)($5,770)($5,152)($4,534)($3,915)($3,297)($2,679)($2,061)($1,443)($824)($206)
($50,339)($49,491)($48,642)($47,794)($46,946)($46,098)($45,250)($44,401)($43,553)($42,705)($14,141)
NET SALES PROCEEDS BEFORE PROFIT $642,565 $643,413 $644,261 $645,109 $645,957 $646,805 $647,654 $648,502 $649,350 $650,198 $216,827
Discount Rate 20.0%0.9836 0.9675 0.9516 0.9360 0.9207 0.9056 0.8907 0.8761 0.8618 0.8476 0.8337
Present Value $632,031 $622,490 $613,093 $603,836 $594,718 $585,736 $576,890 $568,175 $559,592 $551,137 $180,779
DISCOUNTED BULK VALUE OF UNITS:$6,088,477
ROUNDED $6,090,000 85.0%Of Aggregate Retail Value
$196,000 per Parcel Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B
DISCOUNTED BULK (MARKET) VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 147
7.7 dwelling units per month. Marketing expenses are estimated at 5%
and administrative costs are estimated at 1%. An overall yield rate of 20% is
estimated for the subject utilizing an all-inclusive IRR. This results in a
rounded, bulk sale value estimate for the subject property if sold to a single buyer
of $6,090,000.
D.Values Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 31 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is fee simple individual market values of the subject property
which consists of 31 noncontiguous parcels in Las Deltas Annex 2, as of March 12,
2019, are shown on the following table on the following page and are estimated to
be:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 148
#Address SF Value
Units Conclusions
1 1520 First Street 584 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1518 First Street 585 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 770 $475,000 ($204,600)$270,000
1511 Second Street 587 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$27
(Land Value PSF)
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1710 First Street 589 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
325 Silver Avenue 593 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 1,155 1,155 7,578 $325,000 ($138,600)$190,000
Single Family cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
6 1844 Truman Street 595 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1840 Truman Street 596 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1727 Fourth Street 600 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 1,155 4,998 $325,000 ($138,600)$190,000
Single Family cost to renovate
$38
(Land Value PSF)
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 1,155 1,155 $225,000
1643 Giaramita Street 604 1,155 Single Family
1639 Giaramita Street 605 935 $680,000 ($613,800)$290,000
1623 Giaramita Street 606 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1619 Giaramita Street 607 935 $905,000
Total SF 5,115 Total $14
(Land Value PSF)
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 1,155 1,155 5,000 $100,000 ($11,550)$90,000
land value demo costs at $10 psf
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 578 $375,000 ($138,720)$240,000
525 Silver Avenue 609 578 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 1,155 $475,000 ($231,000)$240,000
611 Market Avenue 613 770 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1737 Sixth Street 615 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
14 1572 First Street 616 1,155 $750,000 ($501,600)$250,000
1574 First Street 617 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1560 First Street 618 1,155 $17
1558 First Street 619 935 (Land Value PSF)
15 1529 Second Street 620 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
114 W Ruby Street 621 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
16 1601 Second Street 622 935 $147,975 ($18,700)$130,000
1605 Second Street 623 935 land value demo costs at $10 psf
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 1,155 $170,475 ($23,100)$150,000
218 Silver Avenue 625 1,155 land value demo costs at $10 psf
18 308 Market Avenue 626 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
322 Market Avenue 628 935 $15
320 Market Avenue 629 935 (Land Value PSF)
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
317 Verde Avenue 635 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$31
(Land Value PSF)
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 1,155 $475,000 ($250,800)$220,000
1622 Fourth Street 637 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$21
(Land Value PSF)
409-171-015-4 10,557
409-252-008-1 8,081
409-052-001-8 7,499
409-060-009-1 9,865
409-182-002-9 11,365
9,983
409-251-022-3 7,500
409-162-018-9 7,500
409-142-005
409-060-018-2 15,065
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1 Demolition/Repair Costs (2)
409-052-009-1 7,463
409-052-003-4 10,040
7,500
409-151-005-9
Total Bldg
SF
1,870
1,705
1,870
1,870
1,870
2,310
1,870
21,299
409-152-007-4 7,580
409-282-019-2 7,500
1,156
1,925
2,090
2,090
1,870
1,870
2,090
409-191-001-0 15,214
As-Is Market Value
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
10,026
2,090
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
409-191-009-3 1,870
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 149
#Address SF Value
Units Conclusions
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1 Demolition/Repair Costs (2)
Total Bldg
SF
As-Is Market Value
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 935 $680,000 ($448,800)
1540 Fourth Street 639 935 2 -Duplexes cost to renovate
1534 Fourth Street 640 935 $0 $0
1532 Fourth Street 641 935 Surplus Land
1539 Fifth Street 642 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1541 Fifth Street 643 935
$9
(Land Value PSF)
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1709 Fifth Street 645 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$34
(Land Value PSF)
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 1,155 $475,000 ($277,200)$200,000
1925 Giaramita Street 649 1,155 Duplex cost to renovate
$20
(Land Value PSF)
24 409-292-001-8 1932 Giaramita Street 650 935 $1,160,000 ($897,600)$260,000
1934 Giaramita Street 651 935 4- Duplexes cost to renovate
1923 Sixth Street 662 935
1925 Sixth Street 663 935
1929 Sixth Street 664 935
1931 Sixth Street 665 935
1945 Sixth Street 666 935 $10
1943 Sixth Street 667 935 (Land Value PSF)
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 1,155 $750,000 ($501,600)$250,000
542 Verde Avenue 653 1,155 2- Duplex cost to renovate
1842 Giaramita Street 654 935
1840 Giaramita Street 655 935
$14
(Land Value PSF)
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1527 Giaramita Street 657 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$30
(Land Value PSF)
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1549 Sixth Street 659 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1641 Sixth Street 661 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$31
(Land Value PSF)
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1930 Sixth Street 669 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1722 Sixth Street 671 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1819 Seventh Street 673 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1829 Seventh Street 674 935 $15
1827 Seventh Street 675 935 (Land Value PSF)
Total:$7,160,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 per square foot.Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.19-WCP-018B
409-291-009-2 7,530
409-131-003-9 9,967
409-282-005-1 14,958
409-120-005-7 7,710
409-141-006-0 7,9931,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
10,208
26,529
409-100-004-4 25,288
409-281-001-1 17,502
409-110-007-5 8,3841,870
1,870
2,310
409-161-008-1 7,316
409-272-009-5
1,870
1,870
1,870
2,310
1,870
1,870
NA
1,870
1,870
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 150
Bulk Discounted Market Value of Subject 31 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the fee simple market value of the subject property 31 legal parcels
sold in a single transaction (bulk) as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
SIX MILLION NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,090,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
IV. REPORT SUMMARY AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
A.Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villareal with the Housing Authority of
Contra Costa County. Per your request the appraisal is presented as a Restricted
Appraisal Report, which summarizes our findings, with the data and analysis
included in the appraisers file. The intended use (function) for which this appraisal
was contracted is for the exclusive use of the Housing Authority of the County of
Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This
report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
B.Date of Appraisal
The effective date of valuation is March 12, 2019.
The date of the report is March 29, 2019.
C.Scope of Appraisal
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 151
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included commercial and residential real
estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
D.Appraisal Reporting Format
This report is a Restricted Appraisal Report in accordance with Standards Rules of
the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) Standard 2-2 (b).
Supporting documentation concerning the data, reasoning, and analyses is retained
in the appraisers work file. The appraisers’ opinions and conclusions set forth in
this report cannot be understood properly without additional information in the
appraisers’ work file.
E.Definition of Terms
1.Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))2015
Market Value means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming
the price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition is the
consummation of a sale as of a specific date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a) Bu yer and seller are typically motivated;
b) Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interest;
c)A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d)Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e) The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions
granted by anyone associated with the sale.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 152
2. Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
F. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the
subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would effect market
value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject
properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Limiting Conditions
3. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the property
is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and special
assessments other than as stated in this report.
4. Plot plans and maps if any are included to assist the reader in visualizing the
property. Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and
contained in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and
believed to be true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such
items furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraiser.
5. All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct but
is not guaranteed as such.
6. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable. The
appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering studies
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no soil
contamination exists as a result of chemical drainage or leakage in connection with
any production operations on or near the property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 153
7. In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used in
the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the site has
not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited to) the
existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic wastes.
The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances; the client is advised to
retain an expert in this field.
8. Any projections of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather,
they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future income and expenses
will be. No warranty or representation is made that these projections will
materialize.
9. Possession of any report prepared, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right
of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in
any event only with the proper written qualification and only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
10. Neither all nor part of the contents of the appraisal shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, new sales, or other media without the written
consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation conclusions,
the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI
designation.
11. Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations, is
a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this appraisal
assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the misinterpretation
of these maps. It is strongly recommended that any lending institution reverify
earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they are providing
a mortgage loan.
12. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992.
The appraiser has not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the subject
development to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
detailed requirements of the ADA.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 154
7.In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used in
the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the site has
not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited to) the
existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic wastes.
The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances; the client is advised to
retain an expert in this field.
8.Any projections of income and expenses are not predictions of the future. Rather,
they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future income and expenses
will be. No warranty or representation is made that these projections will
materialize.
9.Possession of any report prepared, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right
of publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and in
any event only with the proper written qualification and only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
10.Neither all nor part of the contents of the appraisal shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, new sales, or other media without the written
consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation conclusions,
the identity of the appraisers, or any reference to the Appraisal Institute or the MAI
designation.
11.Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations, is
a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this appraisal
assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the misinterpretation
of these maps. It is strongly recommended that any lending institution reverify
earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they are providing
a mortgage loan.
12.The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26, 1992.
The appraiser has not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of the subject
development to determine whether or not it is in conformity with the various
detailed requirements of the ADA.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 155
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN AND PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 156
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 157
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 158
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 159
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 160
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 161
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 162
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 163
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 164
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 165
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 166
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 167
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 168
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 169
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 170
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 171
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 172
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 173
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 174
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1529 Second Street 1529 Second Street Interior
1529 Second Street Kitchen 1529 Second Street Bathroom
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 175
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1529 Second Street Interior 317 Silver Avenue
317 Silver Avenue Interior 317 Silver Avenue Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 176
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
317 Silver Avenue Kitchen 317 Silver Avenue Interior
1549 Sixth Street 1549 Sixth Street Kitchen
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 177
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1549 Sixth Street Interior 1623 Giaramita Street
1623 Giaramita Street Interior 1623 Giaramita Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 178
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1730 Fred Jackson Way 1932 Giaramita Avenue
1923 Sixth Street 1931 Sixth Street
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 179
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1925 Sixth Street 1925 Sixth Street Kitchen
1925 Sixth Street Bathroom 1925 Sixth Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 180
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1539 Fifth Street 1639 Sixth Street
611 Market Avenue 423 Silver Avenue
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 181
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1725 Fourth Street 315 Verde Avenue
1844 Truman Street 32
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 182
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
724 Acacia Avenue
Richmond
1645 14th Street
San Pablo
119 18th Street
Richmond
587 6th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 183
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
1627 Lincoln Avenue
Richmond
1625 Portola Avenue
Richmond
305 Ripley Avenue
Richmond
301 Ripley Avenue
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 184
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
465 21st Street
Richmond
1333 Market Avenue
San Pablo
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 185
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 186
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 187
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 188
APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA006
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018C-SUMMARY
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 189
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018C-Summary Appraisal
Las Deltas Family Housing
North Richmond, California
CA006A Las Deltas
Dear Mr. Villarreal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has made an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on 3 contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Silver Avenue, North Jade Street,
Ruby Avenue and First Street in North Richmond, Contra Costa County, California. The subject
contains a total of 6.48 acres, or 282,356 square feet of land area on 3 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 20 duplexes, or a total of 40 units and several
administrative/community buildings of which only the preschool is occupied. The residential units
consist of one, two, three, and four-bedroom units. Currently, only one unit is occupied with the
remaining 39 units vacant. The remaining tenant is in the process of moving. The improvements
were built in approximately 1952 and are of poor condition and quality. The vacant units are
boarded-up and most of the units have been vandalized with wiring and copper removed. In
addition, several of the units have sustained fire damage and approximately 36 townhouse style
units were demolished in late 2018 due to safety issues. The existing improvements are considered
to add no value to the underlying land. The property interest appraised is fee simple.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property.
The intended use (function) for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition
application to HUD. This report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any
reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 190
A more complete description of the subject property appraised, as well as the research and analysis
leading to our opinions of value, is contained in the attached report. Chapter I provides a basic
summary of salient facts and conditions upon which this appraisal is based and reviews the value
conclusions.
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject title
is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them at
market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
VALUATION SUMMARY
As-Is Market Values of 3 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
as-is individual fee simple market values of the subject property, which consists of 3 contiguous
parcels in Las Deltas CA006, as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-023-1 $1,790,000
Parcel Number 409-210-022-3 $1,520,000
Parcel Number 409-210-023-9 $920,000
Bulk Market Value of Subject 3 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
fee simple market value of the subject property, three legal parcels sold in a single transaction
(bulk) as of March 12, 2019, is estimated to be:
FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($4,230,000)
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 191
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value conclusions
within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is also concluded to be 12
months.
This letter must remain attached to the appraisal report, identified on the footer of each page as
19-WCP-018C-Summary, plus related exhibits, in order for the value opinion set forth to be
considered valid.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 192
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN and PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 193
I. REPORT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
A. Property Appraised ........................................................................................................ 1
B. Property Identification .................................................................................................. 1
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User ...................................................... 1
D. Scope of Work................................................................................................................. 2
E. Appraisal Reporting Format ......................................................................................... 2
F. Appraisal and Report Dates .......................................................................................... 2
G. Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 2
H. Value Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 3
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ......................................................................... 4
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 6
A. Contra Costa County ..................................................................................................... 6
B. City of Richmond ........................................................................................................... 7
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs ..................................................................... 9
III. MARKET OVERVIEW...................................................................................................... 11
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends .................................................... 11
B. Residential Construction Trends ................................................................................ 12
C. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 14
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 15
A. Site Description ............................................................................................................. 15
B. Environmental Observations ...................................................................................... 15
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information ......................................................................... 15
D. Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................... 16
E. Easements and Restrictions ......................................................................................... 17
F. Ownership and Sales History ...................................................................................... 17
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes ................................................................ 17
H. Description of Existing Improvements ....................................................................... 18
I. Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................... 20
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................... 21
A. Highest and Best Use .................................................................................................... 21
B. Valuation Methodology................................................................................................ 22
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ..................................... 24
A. Presentation and Analysis of Comparable Land Sales ............................................. 24
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 194
B. Presentation and Analysis of Multiplex Unit Sales ................................................... 25
C. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs ............................................................. 25
D. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties .................................................... 26
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 195
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Subject Identification Table 15.1
Table 2 - Comparable Residential Sales 24.1
Table 3 - Valuation Worksheet 26.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Regional Map following 6
Neighborhood Map following 9
Assessor’s Parcel Map following 16
Aerial Map following 17
Subject Photos following 18
Comparable Residential Sales Map following 24.1
ADDENDA
Subject Photographs
Comparable Photographs
Qualifications of Appraisers
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 196
I. REPORT SUMMARY
A. Property Appraised
The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family Project,
located on 3 contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Silver Avenue, North Jade
Street, Ruby Avenue and First Street in North Richmond, Contra Costa County,
California. The subject contains a total of 6.48 acres, or 282,356 square feet of land
area on 3 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 20 duplexes, or a total of 40 units and several
administrative/community buildings of which only the preschool is occupied. The
residential units consist of one, two, three and four bedroom units. Currently, only
one unit is occupied with the remaining 39 units vacant. The remaining tenant is in
the process of moving. The improvements were built in approximately 1952 are of
poor condition and quality. The vacant units are boarded-up and most of the units
have been vandalized with wiring and copper removed. In addition, several of the
units have sustained fire damage and approximately 36 townhouse style units were
demolished in late 2018 due to safety issues. The existing improvements are
considered to add no value to the underlying land.
The property interest appraised is fee simple.
B. Property Identification
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 409-210-023-1, 409-210-022-3 & 409-210-024-9
General Plan ML - Multiple Family Residential Low Density
Zoning P-1: Planned Unit District
Census Tract No. 3650.02
Zip Code 94801-1412
Flood Zone X (Insurance is NOT Required)
Earthquake Fault Zone No
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director of the
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County in Martinez, California. The purpose
of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject
property. It is our understanding that the intended use/user of this appraisal is for
the exclusive use by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County for assisting in
a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report should not be used or
relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 197
D.Scope of Work
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included residential and commercial real
estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
E.Appraisal Reporting Format
This appraisal report is presented in a narrative format. This report is intended to
be an Appraisal Report prepared in conformance with USPAP Standard 2-2(a).
DI.Appraisal and Report Dates
The effective date of valuation and date of inspection is March 12, 2019.
The date of this report is March 29, 2019.
DII.Definition of Terms
1.Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))
“Market value” means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the
price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the
consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a.Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 198
b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d. Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted
by anyone associated with the sale.
2. Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
H. Value Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 3 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is individual fee simple market values of the subject property
which consists of 3 contiguous parcels in Las Deltas CA006 as of March 12, 2019,
are estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-023-1 $1,790,000
Parcel Number 409-210-022-3 $1,520,000
Parcel Number 409-210-023-9 $920,000
Bulk Market Value of Subject 3 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the fee simple market value of the subject property, three legal
parcels sold in a single transaction (bulk) as of March 12, 2019, is estimated to be:
FOUR MILLION TWO HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($4,230,000)
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 199
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that
the subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect
market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the
subject properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Assumptions
3. It is the client's responsibility to read this report and to inform the appraiser of
any errors or omissions of which he/she is aware prior to utilizing this report or
making it available to any third party.
4. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the
property is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and
special assessments other than as stated in this report.
5. Plot plans and maps are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained
in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be
true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items
furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraisers.
6. All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct
but is not guaranteed as such.
7. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable.
The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no
additional soil contamination exists, other than as outlined herein, as a result of
chemical drainage or leakage in connection with any production operations on
or near the property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 200
8. In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used
in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the
site has not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited
to) the existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic
wastes. The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The client is
advised to retain an expert in this field.
9. Any projections of income and expenses in this report are not predictions of the
future. Rather, they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future
income and expenses will be. No warranty or representation is made that these
projections will materialize.
10. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court in connection
with this appraisal unless arrangements have been previously made.
11. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of
publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and
in any event only with the proper written qualification, only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
12. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without the
written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation
conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or any reference to the Appraisal
Institute or the MAI designation.
13. Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations,
is a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this
appraisal assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the
misinterpretation of these maps. It is recommended that any lending institution
re-verify earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they
are providing a mortgage loan.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 201
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
A. Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County is located on the east side of San Francisco Bay, directly south
of Suisun Bay. It is one of the nine counties comprising the greater San Francisco
Bay Area. Contra Costa County continues to capture a significant portion of the
region’s population and employment growth.
Contra Costa County covers an area of approximately 798 square miles. The
county is divided into three distinct regions by ranges of hills. The western portion
along San Francisco Bay provides water access and is largely industrial in nature.
Population and development density are greatest along the bay where most of the
original development took place. This western portion of the East Bay is older and
predominantly urban in character. The central portion is developing as a regional
commercial/financial headquarters center. Eastern Contra Costa County has
undergone change from primarily agricultural and undeveloped to a suburban area
over the past decade.
The central portion of Contra Costa County has historically been a bedroom
community for workers employed in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. During
the last several years, major office development has occurred in central Contra
Costa County, resulting in a regional employment center stretching south along the
Interstate 680 corridor from Martinez to San Ramon and on to Pleasanton in
Alameda County. The communities in central Contra Costa County are largely
built out and remain predominantly residential.
Contra Costa County is well served by major transportation systems. Freeways
connect the area to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, while the former two can
also be reached using the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. The California
State Department of Finance most recently published estimates show a population
of 1,149,363 as of January 1, 2018. This represents a 0.9 percent increase over the
2017 population figure.
Contra Costa County is also relatively affluent. As estimated by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in their latest publication, Projections 2016 (data
sourced from the most recent 2010-2014 U.S. Census Bureau), the mean household
income was estimated at $107,290 for 2014 and expected to increase. Major
employment is found in management, business, science, and arts occupations,
service occupations, and sales and office occupations, which together account for
84 percent of the total employment in the County.
According to the California Economic Development Department, the
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County was 3.0 percent as of December 2018
(most recent available), which is a slight decrease from 3.2 percent a year prior.
This is based on a labor force of 578,800 with 17,200 unemployed. According to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 202
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 203
the California State Employment Development Department, the unemployment
figure for the State of California for December 2018 was 4.1 percent. The
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County has been lower than the average for
the state and national range over the past several years.
B. City of Richmond
The city of Richmond was incorporated in 1905 and has historically been
industrially oriented. The city benefitted from its deep harbors, which have been
used for shipping port terminals, and had one of the largest wartime shipbuilding
yards during World War II. These shipyards were closed in 1945, but industrial
development continued to occupy vacated shipyard buildings along the waterfront.
In general, land uses in the city are characterized by older industrial and residential
neighborhoods. The location of the city resulted in its development as an industrial
transportation hub. Shipping and railroad access have created extensive industrial
development along the southern and western portions of Richmond. These older
uses are now slowly being redeveloped to commercial, light industrial and
residential uses.
The city of Richmond is situated in the western portion of Contra Costa County.
As of January 1, 2018, the population of the city was estimated at 110,967
according to the California State Department of Finance. The population increased
0.8 percent from a year prior.
In terms of income and employment, Richmond reflects levels below that of Contra
Costa County as a whole. As of December 2018 (most recent available) the City of
Richmond had an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent, a slight decrease from 3.5
percent year over year. This is slightly higher than the Contra Costa County average
of 3.0 percent. Richmond’s median household income is $57,107 according to the
2012-2016 American Community Survey, which is significantly lower than the
County wide median income of $82,881.
Richmond has the highest level of manufacturing employment in the county. There
are over 300 manufacturing plants in the Richmond area. The major industry in the
area is petroleum products and petrochemicals. Chevron USA and Kaiser
Permanente are the major non-public employers in the area. Other significant
industries are steel fabrication, shipping and warehousing. Heavy industrial and
manufacturing uses remain an important component of the Richmond economy
although the number of these heavy industrial uses has generally been declining
over the past few decades.
The Hilltop Mall shopping center contains anchor tenants such as Macys and Sears
department stores, and Wal-Mart. Although the shopping center has been struggling
given the decline in retail sales, the shopping center was recently purchased, and
the owners plan to redevelop the center with a movie theater, food hall,
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 204
entertainment related tenants, a supermarket, a 24-hour fitness and multifamily
residential units.
Richmond is well served by the Bay Area transportation facilities. Interstate 80
runs predominantly north-south through the eastern portion of the city. Interstate
580 extends west through Richmond and across the Richmond/San Rafael bridge.
The Hoffman Expressway, connecting Interstates 580 and 80, greatly enhances
access between Richmond and Marin County to the west. The Richmond Parkway
connects with the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge in the southwestern part of the city.
This thoroughfare connects Interstate 80 in the northern portion of the city with
Interstate 580 and continues to the Richmond/San Rafael bridge near Point
Richmond. The city is also served by BART rail service and the County Connection
public bus service.
On January 10, 2019 the City of Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation
options by opening a ferry service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the
San Francisco Ferry Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond,
adjacent to the Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time
between Richmond and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs
during morning and evening commute hours. The new $20 million dollar terminal
at Harbour Way South is proving popular with ridership exceeding expectations.
The ferry terminal is also seen as a trigger for economic development as there is
new housing projects underway in this area as well as planned restaurants and
services.
North Richmond
The subject is located in North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated
West Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County currently provides municipal
government services to unincorporated North Richmond, including public works,
planning, law enforcement, and fire services. North Richmond is governed by the
County of Contra Costa and a community council known as the North Richmond
Municipal Advisory Council.
Annexing North Richmond into the City of Richmond has been discussed in recent
years, however as reported by the East Bay Times, efforts have stalled as North
Richmond residents have “overwhelmingly expressed that they didn’t want the
community to be incorporated by the city.” Per the article by the East Bay Times:
“The chief concern among North Richmond residents was having to pay more in
taxes and fees, Richmond city officials said. If the 3,717-person community were
annexed, property taxes would rise $140 per $100,000 of a home’s assessed value.
North Richmond residents would also have to pay a 1-percent higher sales tax, from
the current 8.25 percent to 9.25 percent, and a utility users’ tax that would be 5 to
10 percent higher.” Consequentially, annexation efforts have been halted for the
time being.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 205
North Richmond is developed with a mix of industrial uses east of the Richmond
Parkway and vacant land west of the Parkway. Residential uses are situated in the
central portion between Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west
and south, and the railroad tracks to the east (parallel to Rumhill Boulevard to the
east). Commercial uses are located generally to the south, near Richmond Parkway
and 7th Street, and west of 6th Street. There is a general lack of neighborhood serving
retail in North Richmond, and the national grocery store chains are mostly located
to the west in the City of San Pablo or to the South in the City of Richmond.
Overall, North Richmond is generally underserved due to its status as an
unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. The majority of the Contra Costa
County vital municipal services are located twenty miles to the east in Martinez,
resulting in large service gaps. Annexation into the City of Richmond was
suggested as a way to provide better service to the area, however North Richmond
residents recently voted against annexation due to tax and budget concerns.
Public transportation access in North Richmond is provided via two main buses that
run along Third Street and a North Richmond Shuttle. Freeway access to and from
Interstate 580 and Interstate 80 is good. Richmond Parkway is a major thoroughfare
with two to three lanes in each direction, signalized intersections and limited access
from adjoining properties.
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which currently contains
a total of approximately 178 units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and
1960s to provide low cost rental housing and was developed with 244 units. The
property is older and in poor to fair condition.
The subject property is located in an unincorporated portion of West Contra Costa
County, in North Richmond. The subject neighborhood is roughly bordered by
Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west and south, freight train
spur tracks to the south, and the Amtrak train tracks to the east (east of 7th Street).
The subject neighborhood is primarily residential and comprised of single-family
residences and multifamily uses. Nearby commercial uses are limited to two small
neighborhood market with more commercial uses located in neighboring
communities of Richmond and San Pablo.
To the north of the neighborhood is mostly vacant land that is interspersed with
industrial uses such as recycling centers and towing yards. To the south of the
subject neighborhood is industrial use with large warehouses. At the eastern border
of the neighborhood is Annie’s Annual and Perennials nursery located off of
Market Avenue to the east of 7th Street as well as other industrial buildings. To the
east of the neighborhood across the train tracks is also mostly residential, with some
commercial uses and grocery stores located along Rumhill Boulevard.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 206
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 207
To the immediate west of the subject is a newer home development called Bella
Flora. Homes in this development range in size from approximately 1,475 to 2,067
square feet and were built from 1990 to 2006. The average lot size of the
development is approximately 2,600 to 4,000 square feet square feet. Most recently
homes have sold in this development between $550,000 and $575,000. Based on
Redfin the median list price for homes in the Bella Flora development is
approximately $566,500 or $281 per square foot.
The subject’s Walkscore (www.walkscore.com) is 43, which is a “Car Dependent”,
indicating that most errands require a car. It also has a Transit Score of 30 which
indicates that while there is some transit, there are only a few nearby public
transportation options. Walk Score uses a proprietary algorithm to measure the
proximity of a property to basic services.
The outlook for the area is transitional, with older structures in the area slowly being
replaced or renovated with new residential homes.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 208
III. MARKET OVERVIEW
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends
The subject property is comprised of duplexes and is located in North Richmond.
As an unincorporated part of Contra Costa County, precise market statistics were
limited for the subject neighborhood. However, the subject is located within the
sphere of influence of the City of Richmond, and adjacent to the City of San Pablo.
The subject is located in North Richmond, in an area roughly bounded by
Richmond Parkway to the west, Wildcat Creek to the North, Rumhill Boulevard to
the east, and Gertrude Avenue to the south. According to data sourced from Paragon
MLS, there were a total of 26 listings in the primary subject market area in 2018.
Listings spent an average of 35 days on the market, with the longest time on market
recorded as 210 days. Of the 26 listings, 20 homes sold. List prices ranged from
$246,000 to $609,950 equating to an average list price of $434,894 or a median list
price of $409,000. Sales prices ranged from $225,000 to $585,000. This equates to
an average sales price of $435,062 and a median sales price of $439,000.
The above data includes sales of the homes located within the Bella Flora
development, located west of Martin Drive, which was built in 1990 – 2006, and is
comprised of newer, larger homes. Excluding the sales of the homes within the
Bella Flora development, there have been 16 listings in the subject neighborhood
in 2018. Listing prices ranged from $246,000 to $445,000, equating to an average
list price of $358,337 and a median list price of $369,500. Of the 16 listings there
were 11 sales, ranging from $225,000 to $475,000. This equates to an average sales
price of $353,437 and a median sales price of $365,000. The sales were on the
market for an average of 28 days.
In 2019, year to date, there has been one sale and one pending sale in the subject
neighborhood. The pending sale is listed at $369,000 and the sale property sold for
its listing price of $260,000.
The table below summarizes the average sales price for the subject and adjacent
neighborhoods, according to market statistics provided by the Contra Costa County
Association of Realtors. The subject is located in both the “Richmond – North &
East” neighborhood, as well as the “Richmond North & West/Parchester”
neighborhood.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 209
Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change
Richmond - El Sobrante 682,154$ 604,160$ -12.9% 335,263$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Hilltop/College 516,543$ 472,500$ -9.3% 388,609$ 399,500$ 2.7%
Richmond View 714,812$ 687,250$ -4.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - North & East 525,293$ 482,125$ -9.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond North & West/Parchester 406,354$ 433,167$ 6.2% 417,212$ -$ N/A
Richmond - South 427,496$ 421,400$ -1.4% 416,250$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Point/Bayfront 976,193$ -$ N/A 533,461$ 546,143$ 2.3%
Richmond - Annex 638,156$ 500,000$ -27.6%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Country Club 651,539$ -$ N/A -$ -$ N/A
Single-Family Townhouse-CondoNeighborhood
As shown on the above table, single family home sales in the subject’s CCAR
neighborhood are on the low end of the range, with average sale prices ranging
from $406,000 to $525,000.
In the Richmond North & West/Parchester neighborhood, there were a total of 21
new listings and 12 closed sales in 2018 of detached single-family houses. The
average sales price was reportedly $394,834, which is well below the Contra Costa
County average. There was an average 24 days on market until sale. There were 2
total attached townhouse-condo listings in the neighborhood in 2018 with no closed
sales.
The subject is far below the county average in terms of sales. The Contra Costa
County Association of Realtors (CCAR) reports that there 7,047 active listings of
single-family homes in Contra Costa County in 2018, and 2,243 listings of
townhouses/condos. Of those listings, there were a total of 4,781 closed sales of
single-family homes in 2018, as compared to 2,073 sales of townhouses/condos.
According to Zillow, the median home price in the City of Richmond is $529,700
as of January 2019. Home values have gone up 11.3 percent over the past year and
Zillow predicts they will rise 8.4 percent within the next year. The median list price
per square foot in the City of Richmond is $426. The median price of homes
currently listed in the City of Richmond is $499,000, while the median price of
homes that sold is $532,800. The median rent price in the City of Richmond is
$2,600.
Overall, relatively little product has sold in the past few years in the subject
immediate neighborhood, at prices far below the metro and county averages.
B. Residential Construction Trends
The subject is located in North Richmond, in unincorporated Contra Costa County,
however as stated above, it is located within the City of Richmond’s sphere of
influence. Historically, North Richmond area has seen limited new development
due to its peripheral location and weak demographics. While the greater East Bay
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 210
market has seen spikes in demands, the subject is located in the North Richmond,
which due to its longer commute has remained relatively affordable. CoStar reports
that “limited demand has caused development in the [subject Richmond/Martinez]
submarket to lag behind that in other parts of the East Bay.” According to CoStar,
the subject’s Richmond/Martinez submarket, “marks the far northeast boundary of
the East Bay Metro and comprises a mix of industrial cities and bedroom
communities. The submarket lacks the wealth or urban amenities of popular
neighbors to the immediate south, but recently saw its first developments since
before the recession.”
The City of Richmond, however, has seen an influx of new development as a result
of increasing demand for housing in the larger East Bay market. While the
Richmond area has always been a peripheral location due to its distance from San
Francisco and general commute difficulties, on January 10, 2019 the City of
Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation options by opening a ferry
service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the San Francisco Ferry
Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond, adjacent to the
Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time between Richmond
and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs during morning and
evening commute hours. This is expected to draw commuters who would have
otherwise shunned the hour-long vehicular commute from Richmond into San
Francisco and have been priced out of other Bay Area markets.
Currently, the City of Richmond has several major projects active in their
residential pipeline. There are three major projects under construction in Richmond.
The NOMA project by William Lyon Homes is located at 830 Marina Way South
and will contain approximately 197 townhomes and Live/Work units, as well as a
3,000 square foot business incubator, fitness center and parking. The Terraces at
Nevin (located at Nevin Avenue between 21st and 23rd Streets) is a multifamily
residential project of (2) six-story apartment buildings with a total of 289 units. The
Waterline, located between Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive in southern Point
Richmond, is comprised of (60) market rate two- and three-bedroom flats and
townhomes.
Richmond currently has three currently approved major projects as well: the
Miraflores Residential Development located in Park Plaza adjacent to East
Richmond, has been approved for 190 units; the Quarry Residential Project has
been approved for 200 new condos; and Latitude at 1500 Dornan Drive has been
approved for 295 condos, 21 single family homes, 2,000 square feet of retail space
and a 1.9 acre shoreline park. There are four other major projects currently proposed
as well. The 12th and Macdonald development has been proposed for 256 units and
approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial space. Marina Way South
Residential Project by New West Communities has proposed 399 units and 1,800
square feet of retail space. Richmond Central is an affordable housing development
proposed for 172 below market rate apartments. The Point Molate Development is
still under discussion but is expected to dramatically redevelop the 266-acre site.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 211
There is very little current or recent development in the North Richmond
neighborhood. Richmond currently has one multifamily affordable project under
construction, Heritage Point Development. The $27 million-dollar project is
located at 1500 Fred Jackson Way and will consist of a four story, 42 multifamily
units with approximately 4,500 square feet of commercial space. It is proposed to
be completed by late 2019 and is situated across from the Community Heritage
Senior Apartments. The project is being developed by Community Housing
Development Corporation (CDHC) in conjunction with the Contra Costa Housing
Authority.
Overall, the demand for housing in the East Bay remains strong, and the subject’s
submarket is expected to benefit from the overall demand as more centralized areas
become more expensive.
C. Conclusion
The Contra Costa County and Richmond housing and rental market is relatively
stable, with moderate gains in rents and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a
supply perspective, there are new developments in the pipeline in the greater subject
market area. Demand in the greater East Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected
to benefit from the overflow. However, North Richmond has limited new product
coming online in the near future, and their status in unincorporated Contra Costa
County has led to municipal service gaps that discourage prospective buyers. Long
term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for market rate housing
and rental units.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 212
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS
A. Site Description
The subject property consists of 3 contiguous parcels that are part of the Las Deltas
Family Project in North Richmond. The subject parcels are situated on the blocks
bounded by North Jade Street to the west, Silver Avenue to the north, First Street to
the west and Ruby Avenue to the south. The Subject Identification Table on the
following page lists the subject properties and notes the lot area, the condition of
the existing improvements on the parcel, street address and unit identification
number as well as the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 56,323 to 132,161 square feet, or from 1.29 to
3.03 acres. The parcels are generally regular in shape. The topography of the parcels
is generally level. The parcels are divided by North Jade Street and West Grove
Avenue. The streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities
are available to the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor quality, single family
homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the subject
property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches in the
area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B. Environmental Observations
An environmental assessment of the subject property was not provided. Upon
inspection of the subject property, the appraisers did not observe any evidence of
toxic contamination on the property. This appraisal assumes that the site and
improvements are free of toxic contaminants. The reader is referred to the limiting
condition to this effect in chapter one of this report.
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information
According to Flood Map 06013C0228G, dated September 30, 2015, the subject is
located in Flood Zone X, an area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-
year floodplains.
The subject property is not located in the Alquist Priolo zone. According to
governmental geological evaluations, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is located
in a seismic zone. No active faults are known to exist on the subject property.
Inasmuch as similar seismic conditions generally affect competitive properties, no
adverse impact on the subject property is considered.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 213
Table 1 Page 15.1
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
1 409-210-023-1 1645 N Jade Street 395 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 1,155 Duplex L-shaped site with frontage on Jade Street
1635 N Jade Street 396 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 1,155 2,310 West Grove Avenue and West Ruby Street
1621 N Jade Street 397 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
1611 N Jade Street 398 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310 4 Duplexes
131 W Grove Avenue 431 ML P-1 1BD/1 BA -Boarded up 578 Duplex
117 W Grove Avenue 432 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 1,348 7,481 sf of Residential bldg area
1595 N Opal Street 433 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1593 N Opal Street 434 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1589 N Opal Street 435 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1587 N Opal Street 436 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1583 N Opal Street 437 132,161 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1581 N Opal Street 438 3.03 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1575 N Opal Street 439 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1573 N Opal Street 440 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1569 N Opal Street 441 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1567 N Opal Street 442 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1563 N Opal Street 443 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1561 N Opal Street 444 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
130 W Ruby Avenue 445 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Boarded Up 935 Duplex
116 W Ruby Avenue 446 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
North Jade Street NA ML P-1 Admin- Office/Maintenance- Vacant Community 3,735 Square Feet
North Jade Street NA ML P-1 Maintenance Storage- Vacant Community 1,025 Square Feet
West Grove Avenue NA ML P-1 Project Pride- Vacant Community 3,128 Square Feet
West Grove Avenue NA ML P-1 Preschool/Headstart Occupied Community 3,950 Square Feet
2 409-210-022-3 1608 N Jade Street 399 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 Duplex Block bounded by Silver and W Grove
1616 N Jade Street 400 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 1,513 Avenues and N Jade and First Streets
1624 N Jade Street 401 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 Duplex
1632 N Jade Street 402 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 1,513 10 Duplexes
1642 N Jade Street 403 ML P-1 1BD/1BA Vacant- Boarded up 578 Duplex
1648 N Jade Street 404 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded up 935 1,513 16,724 sf of Residential bldg area
40 Silver Avenue 405 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
44 Silver Avenue 406 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310
50 Silver Avenue 407 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 Duplex
54 Silver Avenue 408 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA- Boarded up 1,155 2,310
1649 First Street 409 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1643 First Street 410 93,872 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1633 First Street 411 2.16 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1625 First Street 412 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 1,513
1617 First Street 413 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1609 First Street 414 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
40 W Grove Avenue 415 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
54 W Grove Avenue 416 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 1,513
1620 Opal Court 417 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1622 Opal Court 418 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1628 Opal Court 419 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1630 Opal Court 420 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1636 Opal Court 421 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1638 Opal Court 422 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1639 Opal Court 423 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1637 Opal Court 424 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1631 Opal Court 425 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1629 Opal Court 426 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1623 Opal Court 427 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1621 Opal Court 428 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
116 W Grove Avenue 429 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
130 W Grove Avenue 430 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
Had been converted to Community Bldg.
Vacant
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan Unit Size (SF)
Comments
CA006
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 214
Table 1 Page 15.1
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan Unit Size (SF)
Comments
CA006
3 409-210-024-9 54 W Ruby Avenue 447 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex West side of First Street between
40 W Ruby Avenue 448 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513 West Grove Avenue and West Ruby Streets
1562 N Opal Street 449 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1564 N Opal Street 450 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished 6 Duplexes
1568 N Opal Street 451 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1570 N Opal Street 452 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished 9,078 sf of bldg area
1574 N Opal Street 453 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1576 N Opal Street 454 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1580 N Opal Street 455 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1582 N Opal Street 456 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1586 N Opal Street 457 56,323 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1588 N Opal Street 458 1.29 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1592 N Opal Street 459 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
1594 N Opal Street 460 ML P-1 Land/ Unit Demolished
55 W Grove Avenue 461 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
41 W Grove Avenue 462 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1599 First Street 463 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1591 First Street 464 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 1,513
1587 First Street 465 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1581 First Street 466 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1573 First Street 467 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Occupied 578 Duplex
1567 First Street 468 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 1,513
1559 First Street 469 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1551 First Street 470 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,513
1)Site area based on public records.
282,356 sf
6.48 Acres
11.72 density
Property 6
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 16 578 9,248
2 1 770 770
3 15 935 14,025
4 8 1,155 9,240
4- SF 0 1,155 0
20 Duplexes 40 33,283
36 6- Six plexes (2 BD) which were demolished/ 36 units
76 Total original number of units on site
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C-Summary
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 215
D. Zoning Designation
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential Low Density, (ML). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Primary land uses include attached single-
family residences such as duplexes or duets, multiple family residential such as
condominiums, apartments, mobile home parks. Secondary land uses allowed
include churches, small residential care and child care facilities.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area. This zoning designation is meant to provide “a large-scale
integrated development or a general plan special area of concern provides an
opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are
applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily
for individual lot development, to a large-scale development or special area may
create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is
intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings,
structures, lot sizes and open space while insuring substantial compliance with the
general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general
welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the
advantages of large-scale site or special area planning.”
This zoning district allows the following permitted uses; a) any land uses with final
plan approval for development which are in harmony, serve to fulfill the function
of the development, and consistent with the General Plan; b) detached single-family
dwelling on each legally established lot with the accessory structures and uses
normally auxiliary to it. Allowed uses also include duplexes, secondary units, and
child care for less than 12 children. Based on the North Richmond Redevelopment
Plan area development guidelines, single family lots require a minimum of 4,500
square feet, a duplex requires 7,000 square feet and a multi-family project requires
a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. The maximum building height is 30 feet
or two stories.
Interim uses are also allowed under this zoning designation where no preliminary
development plan is approved. These include any nonconforming use existing at
the time of the establishment of the P-1 District which may be repaired, rebuilt, or
enlarged. Administrative use permits can also be granted. The subject property is
currently zoned P-1 and has a General Plan of Multiple Family Residential Low
Density. Any planned development would need to be reviewed by the County
Planning Department and a Development Permit is required for residential
construction over three units. The subject parcels currently appear to be legally
conforming uses.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 216
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 217
E. Easements and Restrictions
The appraisers were not provided with a preliminary title report for the subject
property. Inspection of the property and review of the parcel maps indicated that
there are several public utility easements affecting the subject parcels, which is
common for this type of property. None of the noted easements or restrictions
appear to adversely impact the utility or marketability of the subject property.
The subject property is currently owned by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa
County. The subject is potentially affected by regulatory agreements recorded on
the site which restrict the development and/or use. This appraisal assumes that
there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject property.
F. Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes
Under California property tax laws instituted by the passage of Proposition 13,
property taxes can only be increased a maximum of two percent annually unless a
property is sold, or additional value is added through new construction or alteration.
Upon sale, property is taxed on the basis of one percent of the reassessed value,
most often equal to the purchase price, plus existing bond indebtedness. The tax
rate for the subject tax rate area for the 2018-2019 fiscal year is reportedly 1.2591
percent. The tax rate is broken down as follows:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 218
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 219
For the current 2018-2019 tax year, the subject parcel has total assessed values and
property taxes as follows:
Subject Land Improvements Tax Rate Gross Value Special Total
1 409-210-023-1 131,841$ 997,127$ 0% 1,128,968$ 8,534$ 8,534$
2 409-210-022-3 103,390$ 419,303$ 0% 522,693$ 8,534$ 8,534$
3 409-210-024-9 68,919$ 302,086$ 0% 371,005$ 8,534$ 8,534$
TOTAL 304,150$ 1,718,516$ 2,022,666$ 25,602$ 25,602$ Source: Contra Costa County Tax Collector
The subject property has received an exemption for 99% of the total assessed value
of the land and improvements from ad valorem taxes due to the non-profit
management/ownership of the subject. However, the special assessments are not
exempt and total $25,602. The special assessments include West County
Wastewater District Sewer Charges. According to the County Tax Collector, as of
the date of this appraisal, all taxes due have been paid in full.
H. Description of Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 3 contiguous parcels and is improved with 20 duplexes
units. The subject dwelling units are of wood frame construction on concrete slabs
with stucco exteriors. The units have gas wall heaters, and the windows are single
pane aluminum frame. The interior finishes of the units consist of vinyl flooring
and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square feet. The two-bedroom
units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three-bedroom units have 935
square feet and the four-bedroom units consist of 1,155 square feet. The units have
a dryer connection and a connection for a washing machine in the kitchen area. The
roofing is seam metal panels which were installed in the mid-1980s. The duplexes
have a concrete driveway for parking one vehicle at each unit. The units have rear
yard with cyclone fencing and a concrete patio
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1952 and are generally in very
poor condition. Most of the units are currently boarded up and uninhabitable. Many
of the units have been gutted. Of the 40 units, approximately one unit is currently
occupied, and the other 39 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and there was some water
damage observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged and in some cases
the ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are typically boarded-up to
prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear doors have been removed
by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several of the units have been
damaged by fire.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 220
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Administrative Offices Administrative Building
Parking Lot and Neighboring Improvements Vacant Land
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 221
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
W Grove Avenue and N Opal Street Former Six-plex Site
Former Six-plex Site Subject Neighborhood
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 222
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1625 North Jade Street 1621 North Jade Street
1621 North Jade Street Interior 1621 North Jade Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 223
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
Preschool Exterior Preschool Exterior
Preschool Preschool Kitchen Area
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 224
The subject originally contained a total of (6) six-unit townhouse style buildings.
Due to the condition of the units and safety issues these (36) two-bedroom units
were demolished in December 2018.
The subject property includes five administrative/community buildings which are
located on two parcels. The Youth Empowerment Center is located within Units
407 and 408 on Silver Avenue on Subject Parcel Number 2 and was converted from
two duplex units. The building has an office, community room, kitchen and
bathroom. The building is currently vacant and in poor condition. The four other
buildings are located on Subject Parcel Number 1 with three of the buildings vacant.
The vacant buildings had been used as a maintenance structure, administrative
offices and community building. These buildings appear to be at the end of their
economic life and are considered to have no value.
The remaining building is occupied by Headstart and is a preschool. It is located at
135 West Grove Street. The preschool building has several offices, two classrooms,
a crib room a nursery play area, laundry room two children restrooms and a kitchen.
The center has a fenced playground area. The preschool contains approximately
3,950 square feet and is in average condition. The preschool is currently rented on
a month to month basis as the lease expired in June 2017.
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage. Essentially the units will need to be completely gutted and renovated to
become occupiable. In 2014 the subject property representative indicated that the
costs to repair vacant units ranged from $25,000 to $90,000 depending of the level
of renovation needed and if there was structural damage. These costs have only
increased over the past five years.
The appraiser acknowledges that the costs to renovate a residential unit can vary
greatly depending on the type of buyer such as an owner user, institutional or
speculator, as well as the ultimate scope of the renovation. According to EMG
which completed a Physical Needs Assessment for a portion of Las Deltas, on
December 2018, the estimated base cost for the renovation of the residential units
was approximately $120,000 per unit. Adding contractor fees of 15% the cost is
approximately $138,000 per unit. These costs did not include roof replacement,
parking upgrades or ADA installations.
Discussions with broker in the market area indicated that the costs to gut renovate
a red tagged single family home in San Pablo was estimated by a contractor at a
cost of $140,000. The home contained 1,100 square feet and had two bathrooms.
Other information provided to the appraiser by contractors indicated costs in the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 225
range of $100,000 to $120,000 per unit based on two bathrooms and an average
three-bedroom unit of approximately 1,000 square feet.
The subject contains approximately 33,283 square feet of residential
improvements, with an average unit size of 832 square feet. Based on our research
as well as discussions with brokers and other active participates in the real estate
market, a benchmark renovation cost of $120 per square foot is concluded. In the
valuation analysis, this cost is deducted from all of the units at the subject as they
would all require renovation to be habitable.
I. Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA)
An ADA compliance survey was not provided for review, nor was one performed
by the appraiser. The reader is directed to the limiting condition in Chapter I of this
report, which states that any effect on value of potential ADA noncompliance has
not been considered in this appraisal.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 226
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY
A. Highest and Best Use
The highest and best use is that use, from among reasonably probable and legal
alternative uses, found to be legally permissible, physically possible, financially
feasible, and which results in the highest land value.
The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are physical possibility, legal
permissibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Analysis of the
subject’s highest and best use is made as if the site were vacant, and as improved
with the existing improvements.
1. As-If Vacant
a) Physically Possible
The subject neighborhood contains primarily residential structures
as well as vacant lots. The subject consists of 3 contiguous parcels
that range from 1.29 to 3.03 acres. The site sizes are sufficient to
support a variety of residential development. Overall, physical
characteristics do not limit the highest and best use of the subject
site.
b) Legally Permissible
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Multiple
Family Residential - Low Density (ML) and are zoned Planned Unit
(P-1). Duplexes or attached residential or apartment uses are the
primary zoning for the subject properties with secondary uses
allowed of residential care and child care facilities as well as
churches. Based on the legal parameters, with consideration given
to conformance with the surrounding neighborhood, the highest and
best use of the subject property, as if vacant, appears to be low
density multifamily residential development.
c) Financially Feasible
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the
unincorporated area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County.
Market conditions currently support speculative development for
the subject sites. This is supported by an adjacent residential
development that was built over the past 10 years. The maximum
productive use is that use, from among financially feasible uses, that
provides the highest rate of return or value. Therefore, the highest
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 227
and best use of the subject sites as-if vacant, is considered to be for
residential development.
d) Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use Conclusion
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the
subject sites as-if vacant would be for the construction of a new
residential development consistent with the subject’s zoning.
2. As-Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential duplex units that
were built in the 1950s. Almost all of the subject units are vacant and most
have been vandalized. As is demonstrated in the valuation chapter, given
the age, condition and quality of the units, as well as the cost to repair the
improvements, the existing vacant improvements are considered to have
lower value than land and should be demolished. This conclusion is further
supported by the fact that 36 townhouse style units on the subject property
were demolished in late 2018.
The subject lots are relatively large in size and are contiguous. It is likely
that the property would appeal to a developer and could be redeveloped to
form a new residential subdivision. Based on these factors, the highest and
best use is to demolish the existing improvements and redevelop the
property with a residential project.
B. Valuation Methodology
The valuation of any parcel of real estate is derived principally through three
approaches to the market value. From the indications of these analyses, and the
weight accorded to each, an opinion of value is reached. Each approach is more
particularly described below.
1. Cost Approach
This approach is the summation of the estimated value of the land, as if
vacant, and the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements.
From these are deducted the appraiser's estimate of physical deterioration,
functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence, as observed during
inspection of the property and its environs. The Cost Approach is based on
the premise that, except under the most unusual circumstances, the value of
a property cannot be greater than the cost of constructing a similar building
on a comparable site.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 228
2. Sales Comparison Approach
This approach is based on the principal of substitution, i.e., the value of a
property is governed by the prices generally obtained for similar properties.
In analyzing the market data, it is essential that the sale prices be reduced to
common denominators to relate the degree of comparability to the property
under appraisal. The difficulty in this approach is that two properties are
never exactly alike.
3. Income Approach
An investment property is typically valued in proportion to its ability to
produce income. Hence the Income Approach involves an analysis of the
property in terms of its ability to provide a net annual income. This
estimated income is then capitalized at a market-oriented rate
commensurate with the risks inherent in ownership of the property, relative
to the rate of return offered by other investments.
The Sales Comparison approach is used in estimating the market value of the
subject as land and as improved. A deduction is made for the repair or demolition
costs to derive an as-is market value. The Cost Approach is not used, because
purchasers in the subject marketplace do not give weight to this approach.
The following chapters further discuss the methodologies used in valuing the
subject property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 229
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject properties is the
Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated by comparing the subject to
similar land sites which have transferred prior to the effective date of appraisal. The index
properties show characteristics which are similar to the property being appraised. The
Comparable Sales Table is on the following page.
Those transactions which are considered appropriate to indexing the value of the subject
parcels are summarized on the table. The prices paid for the comparable properties are shown
on an absolute basis and on a price per square foot basis, which is the most common unit
value used for land. In valuing the subject site, adjustments are made as necessary to each
comparable for location, accessibility, functional utility, date of sale, terms of sale, and size.
For valuing the existing improvements, the prices paid for the comparables is shown on an
absolute basis and per unit basis. Adjustments are made for location, age, condition, quality
and size.
A. Presentation and Analysis of Comparable Land Sales
The subject three parcels are relatively large and contain between 1.29 and 3.03
acres. No sale data was available for larger parcels in northern Richmond and our
search was expanded to include other market areas, somewhat similar to the subject
property. The table on the following page show land sales in other parts of
Richmond as well as listings in Vallejo and Pittsburg for multifamily land.
Land Sales 1 and 2 pertain to recent sales of entitled land in the Hilltop
neighborhood and Marina Bay neighborhood of Richmond. The comparables were
purchased for $37 per square foot. Both properties are superior to the subject in
terms of location and both have a higher density. In addition, both comparables
hare located in the City of Richmond which has superior city services. A lower
price per square foot is indicated.
Land Sale 3 is an older sale of property located at 2200 Nevin Avenue in Richmond.
The property consists of two parcels which are separated by 22nd Street. At the
time of sale the property was proposed for a 289 unit below market rate residential
development. The property was purchased for $24 per square foot including
demolition costs. Although this is an older sale which warrants an upward
adjustment for current stronger market conditions, the comparable has a superior
location in the City of Richmond and a significantly higher density. The comparable
supports a lower unit value for the subject parcels.
Land Sales 4 and 5 pertain to listings of properties in Vallejo and Pittsburg. Land
Sale 4 is listed for sale at $11 per square foot. This property is located on a sloping
hillside and will require additional costs for site work. Land Sale 5 is listed for sale
at $21 per square foot and is a higher density site in Pittsburg. Given that this is an
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 230
Table 2 Page 24.1
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1a 3151 Garrity Way 7/18 $3,500,000 95,396 SF $37 Located at Hilltop neighborhood Home Sweet Home LLC/
Richmond Entitled 2.19 AC 98 Units Proposed for apt units.Zhangs Management Group LLC
APN: 405-290-069 45 Du/Acre Vacant Land #107514
1b 3151 Garrity Way Listing $4,800,000 $50
Entitled
2 830 Marina Way South 11/17 $16,250,000 436,035 SF $37 Former Industrial Site Development Solutions Seascape/
Richmond Entitled 10.01 AC 197 Units Proposed for apt units.William Lyon Hms Inc.
APN: 560-190-007-8 20 Du/Acre Vacant Land #214851
3 2200 Nevin Avenue 4/15 $1,690,000 74,813 SF $23 Proposed for Adams Carl Trust/
Richmond $93,750 (1)1.72 AC 289 Units affordable housing Affordable Housing Land Consultants
APN: 514-090-018-3, 514-080-013 $1,783,750 $24 168 Du/Acre #300640
Unentitled
4 Tennessee Street & Avian Drive Listing $1,400,000 121,968 SF $11 Sloping hillside G Annas & Fatemeh Maroofi/
Vallejo Entitled 2.80 AC 28 Units site NA
APNs: 0069-430-010, various 10 Du/Acre
5 505 W. 10th Street Listing $2,200,000 102,797 SF $21 Vacant land Amerasla Real Estate Fund LLC/
Pittsburg Entitled 2.36 AC 54 Units mixed-Use development NA
APNs: 082-260-009, -012, -044, 243-001, -002 and -178 23 Du/Acre
Multifamily Unit Sales
6 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 Poor Condition #0112249
7 417 Verde Avenue 6/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 Fair Condition #202656
8 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,276 SF $180 Average Condition #041392
9 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 Average Condition #024643
10 3202 Nevin Ave 6/17 $1,300,000 9,410 SF Bldg.$108,333 12 Unit Cruz-Nevin Trust/
Richmond 0.34 AC Per Unit Blt in 1948 Levy, Ephraim & Rosemary Trust
APN: 538-190-021-5 15,002 SF $138 Poor Condition 103991
11 2394 Road 20 7/17 $2,650,000 12,600 SF Bldg.$147,222 18 Unit Eric Antonicic/
San Pablo 0.67 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 Road 20 MF Partners LLC
APN: 416-120-020-1 29,142 SF $210 Good Condition #114598
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C-Summary
Density
RESIDENTIAL COMPARABLE SALES
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA006
492
CR - City of Richmond
PA - City of Richmond
MFR-3/C-2 - City of Richmond
PDR - City of Vallejo
M - City of Pittsburg
RM2 - City of Richmond
4 - Studio, 4 - 1BD/1BA
784
P1 - Contra Costa County
4 - 3BD/1BA, 4 - 2BD/1BA
676
R-3 - City of Richmond
8 - 2BD/1BA
783
RM2 - City of Richmond
1 - 1BD/1BA, 8 - 2BD/1BA
663
RL2 - City of Richmond
12 - 2BD/1BA
I - City of San Pablo
3 - 1BD/1BA , 15 - 2BD/1BD
700
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 231
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 232
asking price not a closed sale and has a higher proposed density, a lower unit value
is warranted for the subject sites.
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions, a unit value between $15 and $20
per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as if vacant. A per square foot
value of $15 is concluded for the largest subject parcel of over 3 acres as if vacant.
For the smaller parcels of 1.29 and 2.16 acres a unit value of $18 per square foot is
concluded as if vacant.
B. Presentation and Analysis of Multiplex Unit Sales
Comparables 6 through 11 are sales of improved multiplex residential properties in
North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo. The comparables consist of 8 to 18
unit properties. The sale prices are between $875,000 to $2,650,000, or from
$108,333 to $147,222 per unit.
The subject contains parcels with 3 to 10 duplexes or between 6 and 20 units. Based
on the subject size and location a per unit value of $145,000 is concluded for
Subject Parcel Number 1 with 8 units or 4 duplexes. This value assumes the units
are in habitable condition.
The Subject Parcel Number 3 is a large parcel with 6 duplexes or 12 units. Given
the larger size of the property a unit value of $120,000 is concluded. Subject Parcel
Number 2 contains 20 units or 10 duplexes, a unit value of $110,000 per unit is
concluded. Again, this value assumes the units are in habitable condition.
C. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
All but one of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the costs to repair the units was previously estimated
at approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. The renovation cost is deducted from the concluded value of
the improved properties as if habitable to derive an as-is value in the current
uninhabitable condition.
Further, in order to estimate only land value, the cost to demolish the improvements
is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is estimated at approximately $10.00
per square foot. This is equal to a cost of approximately $22,560 per duplex and
includes the costs to demolish the community buildings. This cost includes asbestos
and lead abatement as well as remediation costs. These costs are utilized in the
analysis and are deducted from the value conclusions to derive an as-is value as
land.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 233
D. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties
The valuation for the subject properties is summarized on the table on the following
page. The table includes our estimation of the improved value with renovation costs
which are deducted from the units, to derive an as-is value of the improvements in
their existing uninhabitable condition. In addition, the three parcels have surplus
land where the six-plexes had been demolished late last year. A surplus land value
of approximately 50% of the previously concluded land value is concluded given
that it is only a portion of the larger site and can’t be developed independently.
The Subject Parcel Number 1 also contains a preschool building that contains 3,950
square feet. The preschool is currently occupied and rented on a monthly basis for
a nominal rent. Sales of small schools or institutional buildings in the area indicate
sale prices of between $114 to $220 per square foot. The preschool is in average
condition but is situated on a larger parcel with other uses. Based upon the condition
and location of the subject preschool, a unit value of $100 per square foot is
concluded. No values are applied to the other auxiliary buildings which are at the
end of their useful life.
In addition, the value of the subject land with a deduction made for the demolition
of the improvements is shown. Based on our conclusions and discussed in the
highest and best use chapter of the appraisal, the subject has greater value as a land
redevelopment site and the improvements should be demolished.
The table on the following page indicates the individual values of the subject
property. The total bulk market value of the subject is the sum of the 3 properties
as no discount would be indicated for the development of the total site. The total
bulk market value of the subject property as if sold in a single transaction is
$4,230,000.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 234
Table 3 Page 26.1
#Address Size/Unit Value/Demolition/
Unit No.Value Renovation
1 409-210-023-1 1645 N Jade Street 395
1635 N Jade Street 396 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1621 N Jade Street 397 Units Per Unit
1611 N Jade Street 398
131 W Grove Avenue 431 7,481 $120 ($897,720)
117 W Grove Avenue 432 sf psf
1595 N Opal Street 433
1593 N Opal Street 434
1589 N Opal Street 435 Surplus Land 79,296 $7.50 $594,720
1587 N Opal Street 436 132,161 sf psf
1583 N Opal Street 437 3.03
1581 N Opal Street 438 Acres Preschool 3,950 $100.00 $395,000
1575 N Opal Street 439 sf
1573 N Opal Street 440 Value as Improved $1,252,000
1569 N Opal Street 441
1567 N Opal Street 442
1563 N Opal Street 443
1561 N Opal Street 444 Land Value 132,161 $15.00 ($193,190)$1,789,225
130 W Ruby Avenue 445 sf $1,982,415 Demolition of bldgs
116 W Ruby Avenue 446 at $10 psf
North Jade Street NA
North Jade Street NA $1,790,000
116 West Grove Avenue 429
West Grove Avenue NA
2 409-210-022-3 1608 N Jade Street 399
1616 N Jade Street 400 20 $110,000 $2,200,000
1624 N Jade Street 401 Units Per Unit
1632 N Jade Street 402
1642 N Jade Street 403
1648 N Jade Street 404 Cost to renovate duplex units 16,724 $120 ($2,006,880)
129 Silver Avenue 405 sf psf
105 Silver Avenue 406
55 Silver Avenue 407
41 Silver Avenue 408 Surplus Land 35,202 $9.00 $316,818
1649 First Street 409 sf psf
1643 First Street 410
1633 First Street 411 Value as Improved $509,938
1625 First Street 412 93,872
1617 First Street 413 2.16
1609 First Street 414 Acres
40 W Grove Avenue 415 Land Value 93,872 $18.00 ($167,240)$1,522,456
54 W Grove Avenue 416 sf $1,689,696 Demolition of bldgs
1620 Opal Court 417 at $10 psf
1622 Opal Court 418
1628 Opal Court 419
1630 Opal Court 420 $1,520,000
1636 Opal Court 421
1638 Opal Court 422
1639 Opal Court 423
1637 Opal Court 424
1631 Opal Court 425
1629 Opal Court 426
1623 Opal Court 427
1621 Opal Court 428
116 W Grove Avenue 429
130 W Grove Avenue 430
3 409-210-024-9 54 W Ruby Avenue 447
40 W Ruby Avenue 448 12 $120,000 $1,440,000
1562 N Opal Street 449 Units
1564 N Opal Street 450
1568 N Opal Street 451
1570 N Opal Street 452 Cost to fix duplex units 9,078 $120 ($1,089,360)
1574 N Opal Street 453 sf psf
1576 N Opal Street 454
1580 N Opal Street 455
1582 N Opal Street 456 56,323 Surplus Land 28,161 $9.00 $253,453
1586 N Opal Street 457 1.29 sf psf
1588 N Opal Street 458 Acres Value as Improved $604,093
1592 N Opal Street 459
1594 N Opal Street 460
55 W Grove Avenue 461 Land Value 56,323 $18.00 ($90,780)$923,034
41 W Grove Avenue 462 sf $1,013,814 Demolition of bldgs
1599 First Street 463 at $10 psf
1591 First Street 464
1587 First Street 465 $920,000
1581 First Street 466
1573 First Street 467
1567 First Street 468
1559 First Street 469
1551 First Street 470
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.$4,230,000
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 per square foot.
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018C-Summary
As-Is Market Value
6-Duplexes
As-Is Market Value
10-Duplexes
Costs to renovate duplex units
As- Is Market Value
4-Duplexes
ValuesAPN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size (SF)
1
Use
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 3 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA006
North Richmond, California
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 235
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 236
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 237
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
3202 Nevin Avenue
Richmond
2394 Road 20
San Pablo
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 238
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 239
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 240
APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
ANNEX I
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA009A
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018A SUMMARY
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 241
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018A-Summary Appraisal
Las Deltas Family Housing
North Richmond, California
CA009A Las Deltas Annex 1
Dear Mr. Villarreal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has made an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on (5) contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Warren Drive, Silver Avenue,
North Jade Street, and Harrold Street in North Richmond unincorporated Contra Costa County,
California. The subject contains a total of 4.9 acres, or 213,401 square feet of land area on 5
parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 29 duplexes, or a total of 58 units. The units consist of one,
two, three, and four-bedroom units. Currently, only one unit is occupied with the remaining 57
units vacant. The remaining tenant is in the process of moving. The improvements were built in
approximately 1960 and are of poor quality and condition. The vacant units are boarded-up and
most of the units have been vandalized, with the wiring and copper removed. In addition, several
of the units have sustained fire damage. The existing improvements are considered to add no value
to the underlying land. The property interest appraised is fee simple.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property.
The intended use (function) for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition
application to HUD. This report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any
reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 242
A more complete description of the subject property appraised, as well as the research and analysis
leading to our opinions of value, is contained in the attached report. Chapter I provides a basic
summary of salient facts and conditions upon which this appraisal is based and reviews the value
conclusions.
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject title
is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them at
market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
VALUATION SUMMARY
As-Is Market Values of 5 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
as-is individual fee simple market values of the subject property which consists of 5 contiguous
parcels in Las Deltas Annex 1, as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-025-6 $480,000
Parcel Number 409-210-026-4 $1,220,000
Parcel Number 409-210-020-7 $500,000
Parcel Number 409-210-021-5 $920,000
Parcel Number 409-210-011-6 $410,000
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 243
Bulk Market Value of Subject 5 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
fee simple market value of the subject property five legal parcels sold in a single transaction (bulk)
as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,530,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value conclusions
within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is also concluded to be 12
months.
This letter must remain attached to the appraisal report, identified on the footer of each page as
19-WCP-018A-Summary, plus related exhibits, in order for the value opinion set forth to be
considered valid.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 244
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN and PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 245
I. REPORT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
A. Property Appraised ........................................................................................................ 1
B. Property Identification .................................................................................................. 1
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User ...................................................... 1
D. Scope of Work................................................................................................................. 2
E. Appraisal Reporting Format ......................................................................................... 2
F. Appraisal and Report Dates .......................................................................................... 2
G. Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 2
H. Value Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 3
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ......................................................................... 4
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 6
A. Contra Costa County ..................................................................................................... 6
B. City of Richmond ........................................................................................................... 7
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs ..................................................................... 9
III. MARKET OVERVIEW...................................................................................................... 11
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends .................................................... 11
B. Residential Construction Trends ................................................................................ 12
C. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 14
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 15
A. Site Description ............................................................................................................. 15
B. Environmental Observations ...................................................................................... 15
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information ......................................................................... 15
D. Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................... 16
E. Easements and Restrictions ......................................................................................... 17
F. Ownership and Sales History ...................................................................................... 17
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes ................................................................ 17
H. Description of Existing Improvements ....................................................................... 18
I. Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................... 19
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................... 20
A. Highest and Best Use .................................................................................................... 20
B. Valuation Methodology................................................................................................ 21
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ..................................... 23
A. Presentation and Analysis of Comparable Land Sales ............................................. 23
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 246
B. Presentation and Analysis of Multiplex Unit Sales ................................................... 24
C. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs ............................................................. 24
D. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties .................................................... 25
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 247
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - Subject Identification Table 15.1
Table 2 - Comparable Residential Sales 23.1
Table 3 - Valuation Worksheet 24.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Regional Map following 6
Neighborhood Map following 9
Assessor’s Parcel Map following 16
Aerial Map following 17
Subject Photos following 18
Comparable Residential Sales Map following 23.1
ADDENDA
Subject Photographs
Comparable Photographs
Qualification and License of Appraisers
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 248
I. REPORT SUMMARY
A. Property Appraised
The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family Project,
located on (5) contiguous parcels on the blocks bounded by Warren Drive, Silver
Avenue, North Jade Street, and Harrold Street in North Richmond unincorporated
Contra Costa County, California. The subject contains a total of 4.9 acres, or
213,401 square feet of land area on 5 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with 29 duplexes, or a total of 58 units. The units
consist of one, two, three, and four-bedroom units. Currently, only one unit is
occupied with the remaining 57 units vacant. The remaining tenant is in the process
of moving. The improvements were built in approximately 1960 and are of poor
quality and condition. The vacant units are boarded-up and most of the units have
been vandalized, with the wiring and copper removed. In addition, several of the
units have sustained fire damage. The existing improvements are considered to add
no value to the underlying land.
The property interest appraised is fee simple.
B. Property Identification
Assessor's Parcel Nos. 409-210-025-6, 409-210-026-4,
409-210-020-7, 409-210-021-5
and 409-210-011-6
General Plan ML - Multiple Family Residential
Low Density
Zoning P-1: Planned Unit District
Census Tract No. 3650.02
Zip Code 94801-1412
Flood Zone (Insurance is NOT Required) X
Earthquake Fault Zone No
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director of the
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County in Martinez, California. The purpose
of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject
property. It is our understanding that the intended use/user of this appraisal is for
the exclusive use by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County for assisting in
a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report should not be used or
relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 249
D.Scope of Work
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included residential real estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
E.Appraisal Reporting Format
This appraisal report is presented in a narrative format. This report is intended to
be an Appraisal Report prepared in conformance with USPAP Standard 2-2(a).
F.Appraisal and Report Dates
The effective date of valuation and date of inspection is March 7, 2019.
The date of this report is March 29, 2019.
G.Definition of Terms
1.Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))
“Market value” means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the
price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the
consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
b.Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
c.A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 250
d. Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted
by anyone associated with the sale.
2. Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
H. Value Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 5 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is individual market values of the subject property which
consists of 5 contiguous parcels in Las Deltas Annex 1, as of March 12, 2019, are
estimated to be:
Parcel Number: 409-210-025-6 $480,000
Parcel Number 409-210-026-4 $1,220,000
Parcel Number 409-210-020-7 $500,000
Parcel Number 409-210-021-5 $920,000
Parcel Number 409-210-011-6 $410,000
Bulk Market Value of Subject 5 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the fee simple market value of the subject property five legal parcels
sold in a single transaction (bulk) as of March 12, 2019, are estimated to be:
THREE MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($3,530,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 251
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that
the subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect
market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the
subject properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Assumptions
3. It is the client's responsibility to read this report and to inform the appraiser of
any errors or omissions of which he/she is aware prior to utilizing this report or
making it available to any third party.
4. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the
property is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and
special assessments other than as stated in this report.
5. Plot plans and maps are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained
in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be
true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items
furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraisers.
6. All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct
but is not guaranteed as such.
7. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable.
The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no
additional soil contamination exists, other than as outlined herein, as a result of
chemical drainage or leakage in connection with any production operations on
or near the property.
8. In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used
in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the
site has not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited
to) the existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 252
wastes. The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The client is
advised to retain an expert in this field.
9. Any projections of income and expenses in this report are not predictions of the
future. Rather, they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future
income and expenses will be. No warranty or representation is made that these
projections will materialize.
10. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court in connection
with this appraisal unless arrangements have been previously made.
11. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of
publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and
in any event only with the proper written qualification, only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
12. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without the
written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation
conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or any reference to the Appraisal
Institute or the MAI designation.
13. Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations,
is a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this
appraisal assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the
misinterpretation of these maps. It is recommended that any lending institution
re-verify earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they
are providing a mortgage loan.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 253
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
A. Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County is located on the east side of San Francisco Bay, directly south
of Suisun Bay. It is one of the nine counties comprising the greater San Francisco
Bay Area. Contra Costa County continues to capture a significant portion of the
region’s population and employment growth.
Contra Costa County covers an area of approximately 798 square miles. The
county is divided into three distinct regions by ranges of hills. The western portion
along San Francisco Bay provides water access and is largely industrial in nature.
Population and development density are greatest along the bay where most of the
original development took place. This western portion of the East Bay is older and
predominantly urban in character. The central portion is developing as a regional
commercial/financial headquarters center. Eastern Contra Costa County has
undergone change from primarily agricultural and undeveloped to a suburban area
over the past decade.
The central portion of Contra Costa County has historically been a bedroom
community for workers employed in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. During
the last several years, major office development has occurred in central Contra
Costa County, resulting in a regional employment center stretching south along the
Interstate 680 corridor from Martinez to San Ramon and on to Pleasanton in
Alameda County. The communities in central Contra Costa County are largely
built out and remain predominantly residential.
Contra Costa County is well served by major transportation systems. Freeways
connect the area to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, while the former two can
also be reached using the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. The California
State Department of Finance most recently published estimates show a population
of 1,149,363 as of January 1, 2018. This represents a 0.9 percent increase over the
2017 population figure.
Contra Costa County is also relatively affluent. As estimated by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in their latest publication, Projections 2016 (data
sourced from the most recent 2010-2014 U.S. Census Bureau), the mean household
income was estimated at $107,290 for 2014 and expected to increase. Major
employment is found in management, business, science, and arts occupations,
service occupations, and sales and office occupations, which together account for
84 percent of the total employment in the County.
According to the California Economic Development Department, the
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County was 3.0 percent as of December 2018
(most recent available), which is a slight decrease from 3.2 percent a year prior.
This is based on a labor force of 578,800 with 17,200 unemployed. According to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 254
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 255
the California State Employment Development Department, the unemployment
figure for the State of California for December 2018 was 4.1 percent. The
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County has been lower than the average for
the state and national range over the past several years.
B. City of Richmond
North Richmond is located adjacent to the City of Richmond and is situated within
the City of Richmond’s sphere of influence. The city of Richmond was incorporated
in 1905 and has historically been industrially oriented. The city benefitted from its
deep harbors, which have been used for shipping port terminals, and had one of the
largest wartime shipbuilding yards during World War II. These shipyards were
closed in 1945, but industrial development continued to occupy vacated shipyard
buildings along the waterfront.
In general, land uses in the city are characterized by older industrial and residential
neighborhoods. The location of the city resulted in its development as an industrial
transportation hub. Shipping and railroad access have created extensive industrial
development along the southern and western portions of Richmond. These older
uses are now slowly being redeveloped to commercial, light industrial and
residential uses.
The city of Richmond is situated in the western portion of Contra Costa County.
As of January 1, 2018, the population of the city was estimated at 110,967
according to the California State Department of Finance. The population increased
0.8 percent from a year prior.
In terms of income and employment, Richmond reflects levels below that of Contra
Costa County as a whole. As of December 2018 (most recent available) the City of
Richmond had an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent, a slight decrease from 3.5
percent year over year. This is slightly higher than the Contra Costa County average
of 3.0 percent. Richmond’s median household income is $57,107 according to the
2012-2016 American Community Survey, which is significantly lower than the
County wide median income of $82,881.
Richmond has the highest level of manufacturing employment in the county. There
are over 300 manufacturing plants in the Richmond area. The major industry in the
area is petroleum products and petrochemicals. Chevron USA and Kaiser
Permanente are the major non-public employers in the area. Other significant
industries are steel fabrication, shipping and warehousing. Heavy industrial and
manufacturing uses remain an important component of the Richmond economy
although the number of these heavy industrial uses has generally been declining
over the past few decades.
The Hilltop Mall shopping center contains anchor tenants such as Macys and Sears
department stores, and Wal-Mart. Although the shopping center has been struggling
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 256
given the decline in retail sales, the shopping center was recently purchased, and
the owners plan to redevelop the center with a movie theater, food hall,
entertainment related tenants, a supermarket, a 24-hour Fitness and multifamily
residential units.
Richmond is well served by the Bay Area transportation facilities. Interstate 80
runs predominantly north-south through the eastern portion of the city. Interstate
580 extends west through Richmond and across the Richmond/San Rafael bridge.
The Hoffman Expressway, connecting Interstates 580 and 80, greatly enhances
access between Richmond and Marin County to the west. The Richmond Parkway
connects with the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge in the southwestern part of the city.
This thoroughfare connects Interstate 80 in the northern portion of the city with
Interstate 580 and continues to the Richmond/San Rafael bridge near Point
Richmond. The city is also served by BART rail service and the County Connection
public bus service.
On January 10, 2019 the City of Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation
options by opening a ferry service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the
San Francisco Ferry Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond,
adjacent to the Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time
between Richmond and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs
during morning and evening commute hours. The new $20 million-dollar terminal
at Harbour Way South is proving popular with ridership exceeding expectations.
The ferry terminal is also seen as a trigger for economic development as there is
new housing projects underway in this area as well as planned restaurants and
services.
North Richmond
The subject is located in North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated
West Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County currently provides municipal
government services to unincorporated North Richmond, including public works,
planning, law enforcement, and fire services. North Richmond is governed by the
County of Contra Costa and a community council known as the North Richmond
Municipal Advisory Council.
Annexing North Richmond into the City of Richmond has been discussed in recent
years, however as reported by the East Bay Times, efforts have stalled as North
Richmond residents have “overwhelmingly expressed that they didn’t want the
community to be incorporated by the city.” Per the article by the East Bay Times:
“The chief concern among North Richmond residents was having to pay more in
taxes and fees, Richmond city officials said. If the 3,717-person community were
annexed, property taxes would rise $140 per $100,000 of a home’s assessed value.
North Richmond residents would also have to pay a 1-percent higher sales tax, from
the current 8.25 percent to 9.25 percent, and a utility users’ tax that would be 5 to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 257
10 percent higher.” Consequentially, annexation efforts have been halted for the
time being.
North Richmond is developed with a mix of industrial uses east of the Richmond
Parkway and vacant land west of the Parkway. Residential uses are situated in the
central portion between Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west
and south, and the railroad tracks to the east (parallel to Rumhill Boulevard to the
east). Commercial uses are located generally to the south, near Richmond Parkway
and 7th Street, and west of 6th Street. There is a general lack of neighborhood serving
retail in North Richmond, and the national grocery store chains are mostly located
to the west in the City of San Pablo or to the South in the City of Richmond.
Overall, North Richmond is generally underserved due to its status as an
unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. The majority of the Contra Costa
County vital municipal services are located twenty miles to the east in Martinez,
resulting in large service gaps. Annexation into the City of Richmond was
suggested as a way to provide better service to the area, however North Richmond
residents recently voted against annexation due to tax and budget concerns.
Public transportation access in North Richmond is provided via two main buses that
run along Third Street and a North Richmond Shuttle. Freeway access to and from
Interstate 580 and Interstate 80 is good. Richmond Parkway is a major thoroughfare
with two to three lanes in each direction, signalized intersections and limited access
from adjoining properties.
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which currently contains
a total of approximately 178 units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and
1960s to provide low cost rental housing and was developed with 244 units. The
property is older and in poor to fair condition.
The subject property is located in an unincorporated portion of West Contra Costa
County, in North Richmond. The subject neighborhood is roughly bordered by
Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west and south, freight train
spur tracks to the south, and Amtrak train tracks to the east (east of 7th Street). The
subject neighborhood is primarily residential and comprised of single-family
residences and multifamily uses. Nearby commercial uses are limited to two small
neighborhood market with more commercial uses located in neighboring
communities of Richmond and San Pablo.
To the north of the neighborhood is mostly vacant land that is interspersed with
industrial uses such as recycling centers and towing yards. To the south of the
subject neighborhood is industrial use with large warehouses. At the eastern border
of the neighborhood is Annie’s Annual and Perennials nursery located off of
Market Avenue to the east of 7th Street as well as other industrial buildings. To the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 258
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 259
east of the neighborhood across the train tracks is also mostly residential, with some
commercial uses and grocery stores located along Rumhill Boulevard.
To the immediate west of the subject is a newer home development called Bella
Flora. Homes in this development range in size from approximately 1,475 to 2,067
square feet and were built from 1990 to 2006. The average lot size of the
development is approximately 2,600 to 4,000 square feet square feet. Most recently
homes have sold in this development between $550,000 and $575,000. Based on
Redfin the median list price for homes in the Bella Flora development is
approximately $566,500 or $281 per square foot.
The subject’s Walkscore (www.walkscore.com) is 43, which is a “Car Dependent”,
indicating that most errands require a car. It also has a Transit Score of 30 which
indicates that while there is some transit, there are only a few nearby public
transportation options. Walk Score uses a proprietary algorithm to measure the
proximity of a property to basic services.
The outlook for the area is transitional, with older structures in the area slowly being
replaced or renovated with new residential homes.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 260
III. MARKET OVERVIEW
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends
The subject property is comprised of duplexes and is located in North Richmond.
As an unincorporated part of Contra Costa County, precise market statistics were
limited for the subject neighborhood. However, the subject is located within the
sphere of influence of the City of Richmond, and adjacent to the City of San Pablo.
The subject is located in North Richmond, in an area roughly bounded by
Richmond Parkway to the west, Wildcat Creek to the North, Rumhill Boulevard to
the east, and Gertrude Avenue to the south. According to data sourced from Paragon
MLS, there were a total of 26 listings in the primary subject market area in 2018.
Listings spent an average of 35 days on the market, with the longest time on market
recorded as 210 days. Of the 26 listings, 20 homes sold. List prices ranged from
$246,000 to $609,950 equating to an average list price of $434,894 or a median list
price of $409,000. Sales prices ranged from $225,000 to $585,000. This equates to
an average sales price of $435,062 and a median sales price of $439,000.
The above data includes sales of the homes located within the Bella Flora
development, located west of Martin Drive, which was built in 1990 – 2006, and is
comprised of newer, larger homes. Excluding the sales of the homes within the
Bella Flora development, there have been 16 listings in the subject neighborhood
in 2018. Listing prices ranged from $246,000 to $445,000, equating to an average
list price of $358,337 and a median list price of $369,500. Of the 16 listings there
were 11 sales, ranging from $225,000 to $475,000. This equates to an average sales
price of $353,437 and a median sales price of $365,000. The sales were on the
market for an average of 28 days.
In 2019, year to date, there has been one sale and one pending sale in the subject
neighborhood. The pending sale is listed at $369,000 and the sale property sold for
its listing price of $260,000.
The table below summarizes the average sales price for the subject and adjacent
neighborhoods, according to market statistics provided by the Contra Costa County
Association of Realtors. The subject is located in both the “Richmond – North &
East” neighborhood, as well as the “Richmond North & West/Parchester”
neighborhood.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 261
Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change
Richmond - El Sobrante 682,154$ 604,160$ -12.9% 335,263$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Hilltop/College 516,543$ 472,500$ -9.3% 388,609$ 399,500$ 2.7%
Richmond View 714,812$ 687,250$ -4.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - North & East 525,293$ 482,125$ -9.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond North & West/Parchester 406,354$ 433,167$ 6.2% 417,212$ -$ N/A
Richmond - South 427,496$ 421,400$ -1.4% 416,250$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Point/Bayfront 976,193$ -$ N/A 533,461$ 546,143$ 2.3%
Richmond - Annex 638,156$ 500,000$ -27.6%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Country Club 651,539$ -$ N/A -$ -$ N/A
Single-Family Townhouse-CondoNeighborhood
As shown on the above table, single family home sales in the subject’s CCAR
neighborhood are on the low end of the range, with average sale prices ranging
from $406,000 to $525,000.
In the Richmond North & West/Parchester neighborhood, there were a total of 21
new listings and 12 closed sales in 2018 of detached single-family houses. The
average sales price was reportedly $394,834, which is well below the Contra Costa
County average. There was an average 24 days on market until sale. There were 2
total attached townhouse-condo listings in the neighborhood in 2018 with no closed
sales.
The subject is far below the county average in terms of sales. The Contra Costa
County Association of Realtors (CCAR) reports that there 7,047 active listings of
single-family homes in Contra Costa County in 2018, and 2,243 listings of
townhouses/condos. Of those listings, there were a total of 4,781 closed sales of
single-family homes in 2018, as compared to 2,073 sales of townhouses/condos.
According to Zillow, the median home price in the City of Richmond is $529,700
as of January 2019. Home values have gone up 11.3 percent over the past year and
Zillow predicts they will rise 8.4 percent within the next year. The median list price
per square foot in the City of Richmond is $426. The median price of homes
currently listed in the City of Richmond is $499,000, while the median price of
homes that sold is $532,800. The median rent price in the City of Richmond is
$2,600.
Overall, relatively little product has sold in the past few years in the subject
immediate neighborhood, at prices far below the metro and county averages.
B. Residential Construction Trends
The subject is located in North Richmond, in unincorporated Contra Costa County,
however as stated above, it is located within the City of Richmond’s sphere of
influence. Historically, North Richmond area has seen limited new development
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 262
due to its peripheral location and weak demographics. While the greater East Bay
market has seen spikes in demands, the subject is located in the North Richmond,
which due to its longer commute has remained relatively affordable. CoStar reports
that “limited demand has caused development in the [subject Richmond/Martinez]
submarket to lag behind that in other parts of the East Bay.” According to CoStar,
the subject’s Richmond/Martinez submarket, “marks the far northeast boundary of
the East Bay Metro and comprises a mix of industrial cities and bedroom
communities. The submarket lacks the wealth or urban amenities of popular
neighbors to the immediate south, but recently saw its first developments since
before the recession.”
The City of Richmond, however, has seen an influx of new development as a result
of increasing demand for housing in the larger East Bay market. While the
Richmond area has always been a peripheral location due to its distance from San
Francisco and general commute difficulties, on January 10, 2019 the City of
Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation options by opening a ferry
service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the San Francisco Ferry
Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond, adjacent to the
Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time between Richmond
and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs during morning and
evening commute hours. This is expected to draw commuters who would have
otherwise shunned the hour-long vehicular commute from Richmond into San
Francisco and have been priced out of other Bay Area markets.
Currently, the City of Richmond has several major projects active in their
residential pipeline. There are three major projects under construction in Richmond.
The NOMA project by William Lyon Homes is located at 830 Marina Way South
and will contain approximately 197 townhomes and Live/Work units, as well as a
3,000 square foot business incubator, fitness center and parking. The Terraces at
Nevin (located at Nevin Avenue between 21st and 23rd Streets) is a multifamily
residential project of (2) six-story apartment buildings with a total of 289 units. The
Waterline, located between Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive in southern Point
Richmond, is comprised of (60) market rate two- and three-bedroom flats and
townhomes.
Richmond currently has three currently approved major projects as well: the
Miraflores Residential Development located in Park Plaza adjacent to East
Richmond, has been approved for 190 units; the Quarry Residential Project has
been approved for 200 new condos; and Latitude at 1500 Dornan Drive has been
approved for 295 condos, 21 single family homes, 2,000 square feet of retail space
and a 1.9 acre shoreline park. There are four other major projects currently proposed
as well. The 12th and Macdonald development has been proposed for 256 units and
approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial space. Marina Way South
Residential Project by New West Communities has proposed 399 units and 1,800
square feet of retail space. Richmond Central is an affordable housing development
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 263
proposed for 172 below market rate apartments. The Point Molate Development is
still under discussion but is expected to dramatically redevelop the 266-acre site.
There is very little current or recent development in the North Richmond
neighborhood. Richmond currently has one multifamily affordable project under
construction, Heritage Point Development. The $27 million-dollar project is
located at 1500 Fred Jackson Way and will consist of a four story, 42 multifamily
units with approximately 4,500 square feet of commercial space. It is proposed to
be completed by late 2019 and is situated across from the Community Heritage
Senior Apartments. The project is being developed by Community Housing
Development Corporation (CDHC) in conjunction with the Contra Costa Housing
Authority.
Overall, the demand for housing in the East Bay remains strong, and the subject’s
submarket is expected to benefit from the overall demand as more centralized areas
become more expensive.
C. Conclusion
The Contra Costa County and Richmond housing and rental market is relatively
stable, with moderate gains in rents and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a
supply perspective, there are new developments in the pipeline in the greater subject
market area. Demand in the greater East Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected
to benefit from the overflow. However, North Richmond has limited new product
coming online in the near future, and their status in unincorporated Contra Costa
County has led to municipal service gaps that have discourage prospective buyers.
Long term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for market rate
housing and rental units.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 264
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS
A. Site Description
The subject property consists of 5 contiguous parcels that are part of the Las Deltas
Family Project in North Richmond. The subject parcels are situated on the blocks
bounded by North Jade Street to the west, Warren Drive/Wildcat Creek to the north,
Harrold Street/Warren Drive to the east and Silver Avenue to the south. The Subject
Identification Table on the following page lists the subject properties and notes the
lot area, the condition of the existing improvements on the parcel, street address and
unit identification number as well as the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 22,608 to 74,488 square feet, or from 0.52 to
1.71 acres. Parcels 1, 3 and 4 are generally regular in shape, while Parcel 2 is
comprised in an irregular “U” shape with an abutment in the upper northeast
portion. Parcel 2 is located immediately south of Wildcat Creek. Parcel 5 is
bounded by Warren Drive on three sides, and Market Avenue to the south. The
topography of the parcels is generally level. The parcels are divided by North Jade
Street, Warren Drive, Market Avenue, Harrold Street and Silver Avenue. The
streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities are available to
the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor to fair quality single
family homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the
subject property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches
in the area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B. Environmental Observations
An environmental assessment of the subject property was not provided. Upon
inspection of the subject property, the appraisers did not observe any evidence of
toxic contamination on the property. This appraisal assumes that the site and
improvements are free of toxic contaminants. The reader is referred to the limiting
condition to this effect in chapter one of this report.
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information
According to Flood Map 06013C0228G, dated September 30, 2015, the subject is
located in Flood Zone X, an area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-
year floodplains.
The subject property is not located in the Alquist Priolo zone. According to
governmental geological evaluations, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is located
in a seismic zone. No active faults are known to exist on the subject property.
Inasmuch as similar seismic conditions generally affect competitive properties, no
adverse impact on the subject property is considered.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 265
Table 1 Page 15.1
#Address Zoning Existing Condition Unit Type
Total Bldg SF
1 526 Silver Avenue 526 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 Duplex West side of Jade Street between
1721 N Jade Street 527 ML P-1 4BD/ 1.5 BA- Boarded Up 1,155 2,090 Market and Silver Avenues
1735 N Jade Street 528 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 Duplex 4- Duplexes
1745 N Jade Street 529 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 1,870
1755 N Jade Street 530 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Occupied 935 Duplex 7,700 SF of bldg area
1765 N Jade Street 531 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,870
1775 N Jade Street 532 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 Duplex
20 Market Avenue 533 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA-Boarded Up 935 1,870
2 20 Market Avenue 534 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex Warren Drive
1815 Warren Drive 535 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 10 Duplexes
1821 Warren Drive 536 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1823 Warren Drive 537 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156 12,520 SF of bldg area
1827 Warren Drive 538 ML P-1 1BD/1BA - Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1829 Warren Drive 539 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156
1833 Warren Drive 540 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded up 578 Duplex
1835 Warren Drive 541 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,156
1839 Warren Drive 542 ML P-1 1BD/1BA - Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1841 Warren Drive 543 ML P-1 1BD/1BA- Boarded Up 578 1,156
1845 Warren Drive 544 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1847 Warren Drive 545 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,156
1851 Warren Drive 546 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1853 Warren Drive 547 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 1,156
1857 Warren Drive 548 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1859 Warren Drive 549 ML P-1 1BD/1BA -Boarded Up 578 1,156
1863 Warren Drive 550 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 Duplex
1865 Warren Drive 551 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA-Boarded Up 770 1,348
1869 Warren Drive 552 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
51 Market Avenue 553 ML P-1 2BD/1 BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540
3 50 Market Avenue 554 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex East Side of Harold Street between
1768 Harrold Street 555 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 2,090 Market and Silver Avenues
1758 Harrold Street 556 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex 4 Duplexes
1748 Harrold Street 557 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 1,870
1738 Harrold Street 558 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex 7,398 SF of bldg area
1728 Harrold Street 559 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 2,090
1714 Harrold Street 560 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 Duplex
51 Silver Avenue 561 ML P-1 1BD/1BA-Boarded Up 578 1,348
4 41 Silver Street 562 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex Block bounded by Market and Silver
1719 Harrold Street 563 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 2,090 Avenues and Harrold and Jade Streets
1733 Harrold Street 564 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex 8 Duplexes
1743 Harrold Street 565 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 1,155 2,310
1753 Harrold Street 566 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex 15,400 SF of bldg area
1763 Harrold Street 567 ML P-1 2BD/1BA - Boarded Up 770 1,540
1773 Harrold Street 568 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
40 Market Avenue 569 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Boarded Up 935 1,705
30 Market Avenue 576 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 Duplex
1772 Jade Street 577 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 2,090
1762 N Jade Street 578 ML P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex
1752 N Jade Street 579 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded Up 935 2,090
1742 N Jade Street 580 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Boarded up 935 Duplex
1732 N Jade Street 581 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,870
1722 N Jade Street 582 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
33 Silver Avenue 583 ML P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Boarded Up 935 1,705
5 41 Market Avenue 570 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex Block bounded by Warren Drive and
1868 Warren Drive 571 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 Market Avenue
1836 Warren Drive 572 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex 3 Duplexes
1832 Warren Drive 573 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 Fire Damaged
1814 Warren Drive 574 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 Duplex
31 Market Avenue 575 ML P-1 2BD/1BA- Boarded Up 770 1,540 4,620 SF of bldg area
213,401 SF
1)Site area based on public records.4.90 Acres
Property 9A
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 16 578 9,248
2 16 770 12,320
3 18 935 16,830
4 8 1,155 9,240
4- SF 0 1,155 0
58 47,638
29 Duplexes
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A Summary
409-210-021-5
22,608409-210-011-6
409-210-025-6 27,878
409-210-026-4
409-210-020-7
59,677
28,750
74,488
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Unit Size
(SF)
CA009A - Annex 1
Comments
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 266
D. Zoning Designation
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Multiple Family Residential Low Density, (ML). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 7.3 to 11.9 units per net acre. The
minimum lot size is 10,000 square feet. Primary land uses include attached single-
family residences such as duplexes or duets, multiple family residential such as
condominiums, apartments, mobile home parks. Secondary land uses allowed
include churches, small residential care and child care facilities.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area. This zoning designation is meant to provide “a large-scale
integrated development or a general plan special area of concern provides an
opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are
applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily
for individual lot development, to a large-scale development or special area may
create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is
intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings,
structures, lot sizes and open space while insuring substantial compliance with the
general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general
welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the
advantages of large-scale site or special area planning.”
This zoning district allows the following permitted uses; a) any land uses with final
plan approval for development which are in harmony, serve to fulfill the function
of the development, and consistent with the General Plan; b) detached single-family
dwelling on each legally established lot with the accessory structures and uses
normally auxiliary to it. Allowed uses also include duplexes, secondary units, and
child care for less than 12 children. Based on the North Richmond Redevelopment
Plan area development guidelines, single family lots require a minimum of 4,500
square feet, a duplex requires 7,000 square feet and a multi-family project requires
a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. The maximum building height is 30 feet
or two stories.
Interim uses are also allowed under this zoning designation where no preliminary
development plan is approved. These include any nonconforming use existing at
the time of the establishment of the P-1 District which may be repaired, rebuilt, or
enlarged. Administrative use permits can also be granted. The subject property is
currently zoned P-1 and has a General Plan of Multiple Family Residential Low
Density. Any planned development would need to be reviewed by the County
Planning Department and a Development Permit is required for residential
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 267
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 268
construction over three units. The subject parcels currently appear to be legally
conforming uses.
E. Easements and Restrictions
The appraisers were not provided with a preliminary title report for the subject
property. Inspection of the property and review of the parcel maps indicated that
there are several public utility easements affecting the subject parcels, which is
common for this type of property. None of the noted easements or restrictions
appear to adversely impact the utility or marketability of the subject property.
The subject property is currently owned by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa
County. The subject is potentially affected by regulatory agreements recorded on
the site which restrict the development and/or use. This appraisal assumes that there
are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject property.
F. Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes
Under California property tax laws instituted by the passage of Proposition 13,
property taxes can only be increased a maximum of two percent annually unless a
property is sold, or additional value is added through new construction or alteration.
Upon sale, property is taxed on the basis of one percent of the reassessed value,
most often equal to the purchase price, plus existing bond indebtedness. The tax
rate for the subject tax rate area for the 2018-2019 fiscal year is reportedly 1.2591
percent. The tax rate is broken down as follows:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 269
SUBJECT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 270
For the current 2018-2019 tax year, the subject parcels have total assessed values
and property taxes as follows:
Subject Land Improvements Tax Rate Gross Value Special Total
1 409-210-025-6 34,443$ 127,618$ 0% 162,061$ 8,534$ 8,534$
2 409-210-026-4 86,161$ 232,691$ 0% 318,852$ 9,036$ 9,036$
3 409-210-020-7 34,443$ 123,654$ 0% 158,097$ 8,534$ 8,534$
4 409-210-021-5 68,919$ 256,836$ 0% 325,755$ 8,534$ 8,534$
5 409-210-011-6 25,816$ 81,417$ 0% 107,233$ 8,534$ 8,534$
TOTAL 249,782$ 822,216$ 1,071,998$ 43,172$ 43,172$ Source: Contra Costa County Tax Collector
The subject property has received an exemption for 99% of the total assessed value
of the land and improvements from ad valorem taxes due to the non-profit
management/ownership of the subject. However, the special assessments are not
exempt and total $43,172. The special assessments include West County
Wastewater District Sewer Charges. According to the County Tax Collector, as of
the date of this appraisal, all taxes due have been paid in full.
H. Description of Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 5 contiguous parcels and is improved with 29 duplexes, or
58 units. The subject dwelling units are of wood frame construction on concrete
slabs with stucco exteriors. The units have gas wall heaters, and the windows are
single pane aluminum frame. The interior finishes of the units consist of vinyl
flooring and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square feet. The two-
bedroom units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three-bedroom units have
935 square feet and the four-bedroom units consist of 1,155 square feet. The units
have a dryer connection and a connection for a washing machine in the kitchen
area. The roofing is tar and gravel. The duplexes have a concrete driveway for
parking one vehicle at each unit. The duplexes have rear yard with cyclone fencing
and a concrete patio.
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1959 and are generally in very
poor condition. The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and
uninhabitable. Many of the units have been gutted. Of the 58 units, approximately
one unit is currently occupied, and the other 57 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and some water damage
observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged and in some cases the
ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are typically boarded-up to
prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear doors have been removed
by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several of the units have been
damaged by fire.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 271
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1832 Warren Drive 1829 Seventh Street
1714 Harrold Street 1835 Warren Drive
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 272
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1827 Warren Drive 1815 Warren Drive
20 Market Avenue 40 Market Avenue
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 273
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1763 Harrold Street 1719 Harrold Street
1733 Harrold Street 1722 North Jade Street
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 274
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1722 N Jade Street Interior 1722 N Jade Street Interior
1722 N Jade Street Interior 1722 N Jade Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 275
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1853 Warren Drive
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 276
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage. Essentially the units will need to be completely gutted and renovated to
become occupiable. In 2014 the subject property representative indicated that the
costs to repair vacant units ranged from $25,000 to $90,000 depending of the level
of renovation needed and if there was structural damage. These costs have only
increased over the past five years.
The appraiser acknowledges that the costs to renovate a residential unit can vary
greatly depending on the type of buyer such as an owner user, institutional or
speculator, as well as the ultimate scope of the renovation. According to EMG
which completed a Physical Needs Assessment for a portion of Las Deltas, on
December 2018, the estimated base cost for the renovation of the residential units
was approximately $120,000 per unit. Including contractor fees of 15 percent, the
cost is approximately $138,000 per unit. These costs did not include roof
replacement, parking upgrades or ADA installations.
Discussions with broker in the market area indicated that the costs to gut renovate
a red tagged single family home in San Pablo was estimated by a contractor at a
cost of $140,000. The home contained 1,100 square feet and had two bathrooms.
Other information provided to the appraiser by contractors indicated costs in the
range of $100,000 to $120,000 per unit based on two bathrooms and an average
three-bedroom unit of approximately 1,000 square feet.
The subject contains approximately 47,638 square feet of improvements, with an
average unit size of 821 square feet. Based on our research as well as discussions
with brokers and other active participates in the real estate market, a benchmark
renovation cost of $120 per square foot is concluded. This cost is applied to all
of the units at the subject as they all require renovation.
I.Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA)
An ADA compliance survey was not provided for review, nor was one performed
by the appraiser. The reader is directed to the limiting condition in Chapter I of this
report, which states that any effect on value of potential ADA noncompliance has
not been considered in this appraisal.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 277
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY
A. Highest and Best Use
The highest and best use is that use, from among reasonably probable and legal
alternative uses, found to be legally permissible, physically possible, financially
feasible, and which results in the highest land value.
The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are physical possibility, legal
permissibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Analysis of the
subject’s highest and best use is made as if the site were vacant, and as improved
with the existing improvements.
1. As-If Vacant
a) Physically Possible
The subject neighborhood contains primarily residential structures
as well as vacant lots. The subject consists of 5 contiguous parcels
that range from 22,608 to 74,488 square feet. The site sizes are
sufficient to support a variety of residential development. Overall,
physical characteristics do not limit the highest and best use of the
subject site.
b) Legally Permissible
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Multiple
Family Residential- Low Density (ML) and are zoned Planned Unit
(P-1). Duplexes or attached residential or apartment uses are the
primary zoning for the subject properties with secondary uses
allowed of residential care and child care facilities as well as
churches. Based on the legal parameters, with consideration given
to conformance with the surrounding neighborhood, the highest and
best use of the subject property, as if vacant, appears to be low
density multifamily residential development.
c) Financially Feasible
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the
unincorporated area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County.
Market conditions currently support speculative development for
the subject sites. This is supported by an adjacent residential
development that was built over the past 10 years. The maximum
productive use is that use, from among financially feasible uses, that
provides the highest rate of return or value. Therefore, the highest
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 278
and best use of the subject sites as-if vacant, is considered to be for
residential development.
d) Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use Conclusion
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the
subject sites as-if vacant would be for the construction of a new
residential development consistent with the subject’s zoning.
2. As-Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential duplex units that
were built in the 1960s. Almost all of the subject units are vacant and most
have been vandalized. As is demonstrated in the valuation chapter, given
the age, condition, and quality of the units, as well as the cost to repair the
improvements, the existing vacant improvements are considered to have
lower value than the land and should be demolished.
The subject lots are relatively large in size and are contiguous. It is likely
that the property would appeal to a developer and could be redeveloped to
form a new residential subdivision. Based on these factors the highest and
best use is to demolish the existing improvements and redevelop the
property with a residential project.
B. Valuation Methodology
The valuation of any parcel of real estate is derived principally through three
approaches to the market value. From the indications of these analyses, and the
weight accorded to each, an opinion of value is reached. Each approach is more
particularly described below.
1. Cost Approach
This approach is the summation of the estimated value of the land, as if
vacant, and the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements.
From these are deducted the appraiser's estimate of physical deterioration,
functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence, as observed during
inspection of the property and its environs. The Cost Approach is based on
the premise that, except under the most unusual circumstances, the value of
a property cannot be greater than the cost of constructing a similar building
on a comparable site.
2. Sales Comparison Approach
This approach is based on the principal of substitution, i.e., the value of a
property is governed by the prices generally obtained for similar properties.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 279
In analyzing the market data, it is essential that the sale prices be reduced to
common denominators to relate the degree of comparability to the property
under appraisal. The difficulty in this approach is that two properties are
never exactly alike.
3. Income Approach
An investment property is typically valued in proportion to its ability to
produce income. Hence the Income Approach involves an analysis of the
property in terms of its ability to provide a net annual income. This
estimated income is then capitalized at a market-oriented rate
commensurate with the risks inherent in ownership of the property, relative
to the rate of return offered by other investments.
The Sales Comparison approach is used in estimating the market value of the
subject as land and as improved. A deduction is made for the repair or demolition
costs to derive an as-is market value. The Cost Approach is not used, because
purchasers in the subject marketplace do not give weight to this approach.
The following chapters further discuss the methodologies used in valuing the
subject property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 280
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject properties is the
Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated by comparing the subject to
similar land sites which have transferred prior to the effective date of appraisal. The index
properties show characteristics which are similar to the property being appraised. The
Comparable Sales Table is on the following page.
Those transactions which are considered appropriate to indexing the value of the subject
parcels are summarized on the table. The prices paid for the comparable properties are shown
on an absolute basis and on a price per square foot basis, which is the most common unit
value used for land. In valuing the subject site, adjustments are made as necessary to each
comparable for location, accessibility, functional utility, date of sale, terms of sale, and size.
For valuing the existing improvements, the prices paid for the comparables is shown on an
absolute basis and per unit basis. Adjustments are made for location, age, condition, quality
and size.
A. Presentation and Analysis of Comparable Land Sales
The five subject parcels are relatively large and contain between 0.52 and 1.71
acres. No sales data was available for larger parcels in northern Richmond and our
search was expanded to include other market areas somewhat similar to the subject
property. The table on the following page show land sales in other parts of
Richmond as well as listings in Vallejo and Pittsburg for multifamily land.
Land Sales 1 and 2 pertain to recent sales of entitled land in the Hilltop
neighborhood and Marina Bay neighborhood of Richmond. The comparables were
purchased for $37 per square foot. Both properties are superior to the subject in
terms of location and both have a higher density. In addition, both comparables are
located in the City of Richmond which has superior city services. A lower price
per square foot is indicated.
Land Sale 3 is an older sale of property located at 2200 Nevin Avenue in Richmond.
The property consists of two parcels which are separated by 22nd Street. At the
time of sale, the property was proposed for a 289 unit below market rate residential
development. The property was purchased for $24 per square foot including
demolition costs. Although this is an older sale which warrants an upward
adjustment for current stronger market conditions, the comparable has a superior
location in the City of Richmond and a significantly higher density. The comparable
supports a lower unit value for the subject parcels.
Land Sales 4 and 5 pertain to listings of properties in Vallejo and Pittsburg. Land
Sale 4 is listed for sale at $11 per square foot. This property is located on a sloping
hillside and will require additional costs for site work. Land Sale 5 is listed for sale
at $21 per square foot and is a higher density site in Pittsburg. Given that this is an
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 281
Table 2 Page 23.1
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1a 3151 Garrity Way 7/18 $3,500,000 95,396 SF $37 Located at Hilltop neighborhood Home Sweet Home LLC/
Richmond Entitled 2.19 AC 98 Units Proposed for apt units.Zhangs Management Group LLC
APN: 405-290-069 45 Du/Acre Vacant Land #107514
1b 3151 Garrity Way Listing $4,800,000 $50
Entitled
2 830 Marina Way South 11/17 $16,250,000 436,035 SF $37 Former Industrial Site Development Solutions Seascape/
Richmond Entitled 10.01 AC 197 Units Proposed for apt units.William Lyon Hms Inc.
APN: 560-190-007-8 20 Du/Acre Vacant Land #214851
3 2200 Nevin Avenue 4/15 $1,690,000 74,813 SF $23 Proposed for Adams Carl Trust/
Richmond $93,750 (1)1.72 AC 289 Units affordable housing Affordable Housing Land Consultants
APN: 514-090-018-3, 514-080-013 $1,783,750 $24 168 Du/Acre #300640
Unentitled
4 Tennessee Street & Avian Drive Listing $1,400,000 121,968 SF $11 Sloping hillside G Annas & Fatemeh Maroofi/
Vallejo Entitled 2.80 AC 28 Units site NA
APNs: 0069-430-010, various 10 Du/Acre
5 505 W. 10th Street Listing $2,200,000 102,797 SF $21 Vacant land Amerasla Real Estate Fund LLC/
Pittsburg Entitled 2.36 AC 54 Units mixed-Use development NA
23 Du/AcreAPNs: 082-260-009, -012, -044, 243-
001, -002 and -178
PA - City of Richmond
MFR-3/C-2 - City of Richmond
M - City of Pittsburg
PDR - City of Vallejo
Density
CR - City of Richmond
COMPARABLE RESIDENTIAL SALES
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA009A - Annex 1
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 282
asking price and not a closed sale, and has a higher proposed density, a lower unit
value is warranted for the subject sites.
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions, a unit value between $18 and $20
per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as if vacant. A per square foot
value of $20 is concluded for the smaller subject parcels of approximately 22,608
to 28,750 square feet as if vacant. For the larger parcels of 59,677 and 74,488 square
feet a unit value of $18 per square foot is concluded as if vacant.
B. Presentation and Analysis of Multiplex Unit Sales
Comparables 6 through 11 are sales of improved multiplex residential properties in
North Richmond, Richmond and San Pablo. The comparables consist of 8 to 18-
unit properties. The sale prices are between $875,000 to $2,650,000, or from
$108,333 to $147,222 per unit.
The subject contains parcels with 3 to 10 duplexes or between 6 and 20 units. Based
on the subject size and location, a per unit value of $145,000 is concluded for
Subject Parcel Numbers 1, 3 and 5 with 6 to 8 units or 3 to 4 duplexes. This value
assumes the units are in habitable condition.
The Subject Parcel Number 4 is a large parcel with 8 duplexes or 16 units. Given
the larger size of the property a unit value of $120,000 is concluded. Subject Parcel
Number 2 contains 20 units or 10 duplexes, and a unit value of $110,000 per unit
is concluded. Again, this value assumes the units are in habitable condition.
C. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
All but one of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the costs to repair the units was previously estimated
at approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. The renovation cost is deducted from the concluded value of
the improved properties as if habitable to derive an as-is value in the current
uninhabitable condition.
Further, in order to estimate only land value, the cost to demolish the improvements
is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is estimated at approximately $10.00
per square foot. This is equal to approximately $16,500 per duplex. This cost
includes asbestos and lead abatement as well as remediation costs. These costs are
utilized in the analysis and are deducted from the value conclusions to derive an as-
is value as land.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 283
Table 2 Page 23.1
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per SF Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre of Land Comments (Document#)Density
COMPARABLE RESIDENTIAL SALES
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
Zoning/
Units Allowed/Proposed
CA009A - Annex 1
Multifamily Unit Sales
6 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 Poor Condition #0112249
7 417 Verde Avenue 6/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 Fair Condition #202656
8 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,276 SF $180 Average Condition #041392
9 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 Average Condition #024643
10 3202 Nevin Ave 6/17 $1,300,000 9,410 SF Bldg.$108,333 12 Unit Cruz-Nevin Trust/
Richmond 0.34 AC Per Unit Blt in 1948 Levy, Ephraim & Rosemary Trust
APN: 538-190-021-5 15,002 SF $138 Poor Condition 103991
11 2394 Road 20 7/17 $2,650,000 12,600 SF Bldg.$147,222 18 Unit Eric Antonicic/
San Pablo 0.67 AC Per Unit Blt in 1961 Road 20 MF Partners LLC
APN: 416-120-020-1 29,142 SF $210 Good Condition #114598
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A Summary
RM2 - City of Richmond
4 - Studio, 4 - 1BD/1BA
492
P1 - Contra Costa County
4 - 3BD/1BA, 4 - 2BD/1BA
676
3 - 1BD/1BA , 15 - 2BD/1BD
700
663
RL2 - City of Richmond
12 - 2BD/1BA
784
I - City of San Pablo
R-3 - City of Richmond
8 - 2BD/1BA
783
RM2 - City of Richmond
1 - 1BD/1BA, 8 - 2BD/1BA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 284
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 285
D. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties
The valuation for the subject properties is summarized on the table on the following
page. The table includes our estimation of the improved value with renovation costs
which are deducted from the units, to derive an as-is value of the improvements in
their existing uninhabitable condition.
In addition, the value of the subject land with a deduction made for the demolition
of the improvements is shown. Based on our conclusions, and discussed in the
highest and best use chapter of the appraisal, the subject has greater value as a land
site and the improvements should be demolished.
The table on the following page indicates the individual values of the subject
property. The total bulk market value of the subject is the sum of the 5 properties
as no discount would be indicated for the development of the total site. The total
bulk market value of the subject property as if sold in a single transaction is
$3,530,000.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 286
Table 3 Page 25.1
#Address Size/Unit Value/Demolition/
Use Unit No.Value Renovation (2)
1 21 Silver Avenue 526 4-Duplexes 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1721 N Jade Street 527 units
1735 N Jade Street 528
1745 N Jade Street 529 27,878 Costs to renovate duplex 7,700 $120 ($924,000)
1755 N Jade Street 530 0.64 Value as Improved sf psf $236,000
1765 N Jade Street 531 Acres
1775 N Jade Street 532 Land Value 27,878 $20.00 ($77,000)$480,560
20 Market Avenue 533 sf $557,560 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $480,000
2 20 Market Avenue 534 10-Duplexes 20 $110,000 $2,200,000
1815 Warren Drive 535 units
1821 Warren Drive 536
1823 Warren Drive 537 Costs to renovate duplex 12,520 $120 ($1,502,400)
1827 Warren Drive 538 Value as Improved sf psf $697,600
1829 Warren Drive 539
1833 Warren Drive 540 Land Value 74,488 $18.00 ($125,200)$1,215,584
1835 Warren Drive 541 sf $1,340,784 demo costs
1839 Warren Drive 542
1841 Warren Drive 543
1845 Warren Drive 544 As-Is Market Value $1,220,000
1847 Warren Drive 545 74,488
1851 Warren Drive 546 1.71
1853 Warren Drive 547 Acres
1857 Warren Drive 548
1859 Warren Drive 549
1863 Warren Drive 550
1865 Warren Drive 551
1869 Warren Drive 552
51 Market Avenue 553
3 50 Market Avenue 554 4-Duplexes 8 $145,000 $1,160,000
1768 Harrold Street 555 units
1758 Harrold Street 556
1748 Harrold Street 557 28,750 Costs to renovate duplex 7,398 $120 ($887,760)
1738 Harrold Street 558 0.66 Value as Improved sf psf $272,240
1728 Harrold Street 559 Acres
1714 Harrold Street 560 Land Value 28,750 $20.00 ($73,980)$501,020
51 Silver Avenue 561 sf $575,000 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $500,000
4 41 Silver Street 562 8-Duplexes 16 $120,000 $1,920,000
1719 Harrold Street 563 units
1733 Harrold Street 564
1743 Harrold Street 565 Costs to renovate duplex 15,400 $120 ($1,848,000)
1753 Harrold Street 566 Value as Improved sf psf $72,000
1763 Harrold Street 567
1773 Harrold Street 568 59,677 Value as Improved 59,677 $18.00 ($154,000)$920,186
40 Market Avenue 569 1.37 sf $1,074,186 demo costs
30 Market Avenue 576 Acres
1772 Jade Street 577
1762 N Jade Street 578 As-Is Market Value $920,000
1752 N Jade Street 579
1742 N Jade Street 580
1732 N Jade Street 581
1722 N Jade Street 582
33 Silver Avenue 583
5 41 Market Avenue 570 3-Duplex 6 $145,000 $870,000
1868 Warren Drive 571 units
1836 Warren Drive 572
1832 Warren Drive 573 22,608 Costs to renovate duplex 4,620 $120 ($554,400)
1814 Warren Drive 574 0.52 Value as Improved sf psf $315,600
31 Market Avenue 575 Acres
Land Value 22,608 $20.00 ($46,200)$405,960
sf $452,160 demo costs
As-Is Market Value $410,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.$3,530,000
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 psf,.
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.
Source: Watts, Cohn & Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018A Summary
409-210-020-7
409-210-021-5
409-210-011-6
409-210-025-6
409-210-026-4
Values
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
SUBJECT PROPERTIES VALUATION WORKSHEET
Appraisal of 5 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009A - Annex 1
North Richmond, California
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 287
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 288
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 289
COMPARABLE SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
3202 Nevin Avenue
Richmond
2394 Road 20
San Pablo
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 290
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 291
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 292
APPRAISAL OF:
LAS DELTAS FAMILY PROJECT
ANNEX II
NORTH RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA
CA009B
PREPARED FOR:
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY
MARTINEZ, CA
MARCH 2019
19-WCP-018B SUMMARY
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 293
March 29, 2019
Mr. Joseph Villarreal
Executive Director
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County
3133 Estudillo Street
P.O. Box 2759
Martinez, CA 94553
Re: 19-WCP-018B-Summary Appraisal
Las Deltas Family Housing
North Richmond, California
CA009B Las Deltas Annex 2
Dear Mr. Villarreal:
At your request and authorization, Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. has made an appraisal of the
above referenced property. The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family
Project, located on 31 noncontiguous parcels in North Richmond, Contra Costa County, California.
The parcels are located on blocks bounded by Chesley Avenue, First Street, Seventh Street and
Wildcat Creek Regional Trail, north of Verde Avenue. The subject contains a total of 7.69 acres,
or 334,836 square feet of land area on 31 parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with a mixture of 4 single-family homes and 38 duplexes, for a
total of 80 units. Currently, only seven units are occupied with the remaining 73 units vacant. The
remaining tenants are in the process of moving. The improvements were built in approximately
1961 and are of uniformly poor condition and quality. The vacant units are currently boarded-up
and most of the units have been vandalized with the wiring and copper removed. Several of the
units have sustained fire damage and are considered to add no value to the underlying land. Other
properties at the subject are considered viable to be renovated, and the retention of the existing
improvements is concluded as the highest and best use.
The purpose of this appraisal is to estimate the as-is fee simple market value of the subject property.
The intended use (function) for which this appraisal was contracted is for the exclusive use of the
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for assisting in a Demolition/Disposition
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 294
application to HUD. This report should not be used or relied upon by any other parties for any
reason.
A more complete description of the subject property appraised, as well as the research and analysis
leading to our opinions of value, is contained in the attached report. Chapter I provides a basic
summary of salient facts and conditions upon which this appraisal is based and reviews the value
conclusions.
EXTRAORDINARY ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that the subject title
is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject properties
once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing improvements or to rent them at
market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report might have
affected the assignment results.
VALUATION SUMMARY
As-Is Market Value of 31 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
as-is individual fee simple market values of the subject property which consists of 31
noncontiguous parcels in Las Deltas Annex 2, as of March 12, 2019, are shown on the table on the
following table and are estimated to be:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 295
#SF
Units
1 1520 First Street 584 935 $250,000
1518 First Street 585 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 770 $270,000
1511 Second Street 587 935
$27
(Land Value PSF)
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 935 $250,000
1710 First Street 589 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 935 $250,000
325 Silver Avenue 593 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 1,155 1,155 7,578 $190,000
$25
(Land Value PSF)
6 1844 Truman Street 595 935 $250,000
1840 Truman Street 596 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 935 $250,000
1727 Fourth Street 600 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 1,155 4,998 $190,000
$38
(Land Value PSF)
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 1,155 1,155
1643 Giaramita Street 604 1,155
1639 Giaramita Street 605 935 $290,000
1623 Giaramita Street 606 935
1619 Giaramita Street 607 935
Total SF 5,115 $14
(Land Value PSF)
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 1,155 1,155 5,000 $90,000
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 578 $240,000
525 Silver Avenue 609 578
$32
(Land Value PSF)
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 1,155 $240,000
611 Market Avenue 613 770
$32
(Land Value PSF)
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 935 $250,000
1737 Sixth Street 615 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
409-052-009-1 1,870 7,463
409-052-003-4 1,705 10,040
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
409-162-018-9 1,870 7,500
1,870 7,500
409-191-009-3 1,870 10,026
409-142-005 21,2992,090
1,870
409-251-022-3 1,870 7,500
409-152-007-4 1,156 7,580
409-282-019-2 1,925 7,500
409-151-005-9 1,870 9,983
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 296
#SF
Units
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
14 1572 First Street 616 1,155 $250,000
1574 First Street 617 935
1560 First Street 618 1,155 $17
1558 First Street 619 935 (Land Value PSF)
15 1529 Second Street 620 935 $250,000
114 W Ruby Street 621 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
16 1601 Second Street 622 935 $130,000
1605 Second Street 623 935
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 1,155 $150,000
218 Silver Avenue 625 1,155
18 308 Market Avenue 626 935 $230,000
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 935
322 Market Avenue 628 935 $15
320 Market Avenue 629 935 (Land Value PSF)
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 935 $250,000
317 Verde Avenue 635 935
$31
(Land Value PSF)
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 1,155 $220,000
1622 Fourth Street 637 935
$21
(Land Value PSF)
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 935
1540 Fourth Street 639 935
1534 Fourth Street 640 935
1532 Fourth Street 641 935
1539 Fifth Street 642 935 $230,000
1541 Fifth Street 643 935
$9
(Land Value PSF)
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 935 $250,000
1709 Fifth Street 645 935
$34
(Land Value PSF)
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 1,155 $200,000
1925 Giaramita Street 649 1,155
$20
(Land Value PSF)
24 409-292-001-8 1932 Giaramita Street 650 935 $260,000
1934 Giaramita Street 651 935
1923 Sixth Street 662 935
1925 Sixth Street 663 935
1929 Sixth Street 664 935
1931 Sixth Street 665 935
1945 Sixth Street 666 935 $10
1943 Sixth Street 667 935 (Land Value PSF)
409-060-018-2
2,090
15,065
2,090
409-052-001-8 1,870 7,499
409-060-009-1 1,870 9,865
409-252-008-1 1,870 8,081
409-171-015-4 2,090 10,557
409-182-002-9 2,310 11,365
409-191-001-0
1,870
15,214
1,870
409-100-004-4
1,870
25,288NA
1,870
1,870
26,529
1,870
1,870
1,870
409-161-008-1 1,870 7,316
409-272-009-5 2,310 10,208
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 297
#SF
Units
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 1,155 $250,000
542 Verde Avenue 653 1,155
1842 Giaramita Street 654 935
1840 Giaramita Street 655 935
$14
(Land Value PSF)
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 935 $250,000
1527 Giaramita Street 657 935
$30
(Land Value PSF)
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 935 $250,000
1549 Sixth Street 659 935
$32
(Land Value PSF)
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 935 $250,000
1641 Sixth Street 661 935
$31
(Land Value PSF)
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 935 $250,000
1930 Sixth Street 669 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 935 $250,000
1722 Sixth Street 671 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 935 $230,000
1819 Seventh Street 673 935
1829 Seventh Street 674 935 $15
1827 Seventh Street 675 935 (Land Value PSF)
Total:$7,160,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B-Summary
409-281-001-1
2,310
17,502
409-141-006-0 1,870 7,993
1,870
409-110-007-5 1,870 8,384
409-291-009-2 1,870 7,530
409-131-003-9 1,870 9,967
409-120-005-7 1,870 7,710
409-282-005-1
1,870
14,958
1,870
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 298
Bulk Discounted Market Value of Subject 31 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject to the
assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the appraisers that the
fee simple market value of the subject property 31 legal parcels sold in a single transaction (bulk),
as of March 12, 2019, is estimated to be:
SIX MILLION NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,090,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value conclusions
within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is also concluded to be 12
months.
This letter must remain attached to the appraisal report, identified on the footer of each page as
19-WCP-018B-Summary, plus related exhibits, in order for the value opinion set forth to be
considered valid.
CERTIFICATION
We, the undersigned, hereby certify that, to the best of our knowledge and belief: the statements
of fact contained in this report are true and correct; the reported analyses, opinions, and conclusions
are limited only by the reported assumptions and limiting conditions, and are our personal,
impartial, and unbiased professional analyses, opinions, and conclusions; we have no present or
prospective interest in the property that is the subject of this report, and we have no personal
interest with respect to the parties involved; we have no bias with respect to the property that is
the subject of this report or to the parties involved with this assignment; our engagement in this
assignment was not contingent upon developing or reporting predetermined results, our
compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined value or direction in value
that favors the cause of the client, the amount of the value opinion, the attainment of a stipulated
result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event directly related to the intended use of this appraisal;
the appraisal assignment was not based on a requested minimum valuation, a specific valuation,
or the approval of a loan; our analyses, opinions and conclusions were developed, and this report
has been prepared in conformity with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice,
Code of Professional Ethics and the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal
Institute, and is in compliance with FIRREA; Sara Cohn and Mark Watts have made a personal
inspection of the property that is the subject of this report; no one provided significant real property
appraisal assistance to the persons signing this report. The use of this report is subject to the
requirements of the Appraisal Institute related to review by its duly authorized representatives. As
of the date of this report Sara Cohn has completed the requirements under the continuing education
program of the Appraisal Institute. In accordance with the Competency Rule in the USPAP, we
certify that our education, experience and knowledge are sufficient to appraise the type of property
being valued in this report. We have not provided services regarding the property that is the subject
of this report in the 36 months prior to accepting this assignment.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 299
We are pleased to have had this opportunity to be of service. Please contact us if there are any
questions regarding this appraisal.
Sincerely,
WATTS, COHN and PARTNERS, INC.
Sara Cohn, MAI
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG014469
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 102
Email: sara@wattscohn.com
Mark Watts
Certified General Real Estate Appraiser
State of California No. AG015362
Phone: 415-777-2666 x 101
Email: mark@wattscohn.com
Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
582 Market Street, Suite 512
San Francisco, CA 94104
www.wattscohn.com
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 300
I. REPORT SUMMARY .......................................................................................................... 1
A. Property Appraised ........................................................................................................ 1
B. Property Identification .................................................................................................. 1
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User ...................................................... 2
D. Scope of Work................................................................................................................. 2
E. Appraisal Reporting Format ......................................................................................... 2
F. Appraisal and Report Dates .......................................................................................... 2
G. Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................ 3
H. Value Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 3
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ......................................................................... 4
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION ............................................................ 7
A. Contra Costa County ..................................................................................................... 7
B. The City of Richmond .................................................................................................... 8
North Richmond ....................................................................................................................... 9
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs ................................................................... 10
III. MARKET OVERVIEW...................................................................................................... 12
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends .................................................... 12
B. Residential Construction Trends ................................................................................ 13
C. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 15
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................. 16
A. Site Description ............................................................................................................. 16
B. Environmental Observations ...................................................................................... 16
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information ......................................................................... 16
D. Zoning Designation ...................................................................................................... 17
E. Easements and Restrictions ......................................................................................... 18
F. Ownership and Sales History ...................................................................................... 18
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes ................................................................ 18
H. Description of Existing Improvements ....................................................................... 19
I. Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA) ................................................... 21
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY .......................... 22
A. Highest and Best Use .................................................................................................... 22
B. Valuation Methodology................................................................................................ 23
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH ..................................... 25
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 301
A. Presentation and Analysis of Land Sales ................................................................... 25
B. Presentation and Analysis of Single-Family Home Sales ......................................... 26
C. Presentation and Analysis of Duplexes, Fourplexes and Multiplex Unit Sales ...... 26
D. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs ............................................................. 27
E. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties .................................................... 28
VII. DISCOUNTED MARKET (BULK) VALUE.................................................................... 29
A. Summary of Assumptions ............................................................................................ 29
B. Marketing and Administrative Costs ......................................................................... 29
C. Inflation/Appreciation ................................................................................................. 30
D. Discount Rate ................................................................................................................ 30
E. Bulk Market Value Conclusion ................................................................................... 31
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 302
Page
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 - As-Is Valuation 3.1
Table 2 - Subject Identification Table 16.1
Table 3 - Comparable Land and SFH Sales 25.1
Table 4 - Comparable Multifamily Building Sales 26.1
Table 5 - Valuation Worksheet 28.1
Table 6 - Discounted Bulk (Market) Value of Subject Property 29.1
LIST OF EXHIBITS
Regional Map following 7
Neighborhood Map following 10
Aerial Map following 17
Subject Photos following 18
Comparable Land and SFH Sales Map following 25.1
Comparable Multifamily Building Sales Map following 26.1
ADDENDA
Assessor Parcel Maps
Subject Photographs
Comparable Photographs
Qualification and License of Appraisers
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 303
I. REPORT SUMMARY
A. Property Appraised
The subject properties appraised are a portion of the Las Deltas Family Project,
located on 31 noncontiguous parcels in North Richmond, Contra Costa County,
California. The parcels are located on blocks bounded by Chesley Avenue, First
Street, Seventh Street and Wildcat Creek Regional Trail, north of Verde Avenue.
The subject contains a total of 7.69 acres, or 334,836 square feet of land area on 31
parcels.
The subject parcels are improved with a mixture of 4 single-family homes and 38
duplexes, for a total of 80 units. Currently, only seven units are occupied with the
remaining 73 units vacant. The remaining tenants are in the process of moving. The
improvements were built in approximately 1961 and are of uniformly poor
condition and quality. The vacant units are currently boarded-up and most of the
units have been vandalized with the wiring and copper removed. Several of the
units have sustained fire damage and are considered to add no value to the
underlying land. Other properties at the subject are considered viable to be
renovated, and the retention of the existing improvements is concluded as the
highest and best use.
The property interest appraised is fee simple.
B. Property Identification
APNs 409-052-009-1, 409-052-003-4, 409-200-016-7
409-191-009-3, -191-013-5, 409-251-022-3
409-162-018-9, 409-161-001-6, 409-142-005
409-151-011-7,409-152-007-4, 409-282-019-2
409-151-005-9, 409-060-018-2,409-052-001-8
409-060-009-1,409-182-002-9, 409-191-001
409-252-008-1, 409-171-015-4, 409-100-004-4
409-161-008-1, 409-272-009-5, 409-292-001-8
409-281-001-1, 409-110-007-5, 409-120-005-7
409-120-005-7, 409-141-006, 409-291-009-2
409-131-003-9 & 409-282-005-1
General Plan SH - Single Family Residential High Density
Zoning P-1: Planned Unit District
Census Tract No 3650.02
Zip Code 94801-1412
Flood Zone X (Insurance is NOT Required)
Earthquake Fault Zone No
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 304
C. Client, Purpose, Intended Use and Intended User
The client for this appraisal is Mr. Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director of the
Housing Authority of Contra Costa County in Martinez, California. The purpose
of this appraisal is to estimate the current as-is fee simple market value of the
subject property. It is our understanding that the intended use/user of this appraisal
is for the exclusive use by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa County for
assisting in a Demolition/Disposition application to HUD. This report should not
be used or relied upon by any other parties for any reason.
D. Scope of Work
Information pertaining to the subject improvements age, size, use and history was
provided by the current property owner and verified where possible by public
records, as well as based on the visual inspection by the appraiser.
The appraiser contacted Contra Costa County Planning Department for the zoning
of the subject property, likelihood of any change in zoning and/or use, and any
planned updates to the General Plan and/or zoning designations affecting the subject
property.
The subject’s market area was researched for market trends and land
sales/comparables. Sources contacted included commercial and residential real
estate agents.
For the subject property, the Sales Comparison Approach value was used in order to
estimate the market value in as-is condition. The Income and Cost Approaches are
not considered applicable indicators of value for this property type. The scope of this
report is to utilize the appropriate standard approaches to value in accordance with
Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) to arrive at a market
value conclusion.
E. Appraisal Reporting Format
This appraisal report is presented in a narrative format. This report is intended to
be an Appraisal Report prepared in conformance with USPAP Standard 2-2(a).
F. Appraisal and Report Dates
The effective date of valuation and date of inspection is March 12, 2019.
The date of this report is March 29, 2019.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 305
G. Definition of Terms
1. Market Value (OCC 12 CFR 34.42 (g)) (OTS 12 CFR, Part 564.2 (g))
“Market value” means the most probable price which a property should bring
in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale,
the buyer and seller, each acting prudently, knowledgeably and assuming the
price is not affected by undue stimulus. Implicit in this definition are the
consummation of a sale as of a specified date and the passing of title from
seller to buyer under conditions whereby:
a. Buyer and seller are typically motivated;
b. Both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in what they
consider their own best interests;
c. A reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open market;
d. Payment is made in terms of cash in US dollars or in terms of financial
arrangements comparable thereto; and
e. The price represents the normal consideration for the property sold
unaffected by special or creative financing or sales concessions granted
by anyone associated with the sale.
2. Fee Simple Interest (The Appraisal of Real Estate, 13th Edition, 2013, p.114)
A fee simple interest in valuation terms is defined as “... absolute ownership
unencumbered by any other interest or estate, subject only to the limitations
imposed by the governmental powers of taxation, eminent domain, police
power, and escheat.” It is an inheritable estate.
H. Value Conclusions
As-Is Market Values of 31 Individual Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
appraisers that the as-is fee simple individual market values of the subject property
which consists of 31 noncontiguous parcels in Las Deltas Annex 2, as of March 12,
2019, are shown on the following table and are estimated to be:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 306
Table 1 Page 3.1
#SF
Units
1 1520 First Street 584 935 $250,000
1518 First Street 585 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 770 $270,000
1511 Second Street 587 935
$27
(Land Value PSF)
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 935 $250,000
1710 First Street 589 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 935 $250,000
325 Silver Avenue 593 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 1,155 1,155 7,578 $190,000
$25
(Land Value PSF)
6 1844 Truman Street 595 935 $250,000
1840 Truman Street 596 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 935 $250,000
1727 Fourth Street 600 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 1,155 4,998 $190,000
$38
(Land Value PSF)
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 1,155 1,155
1643 Giaramita Street 604 1,155
1639 Giaramita Street 605 935 $290,000
1623 Giaramita Street 606 935
1619 Giaramita Street 607 935
Total SF 5,115 $14
(Land Value PSF)
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 1,155 1,155 5,000 $90,000
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 578 $240,000
525 Silver Avenue 609 578
$32
(Land Value PSF)
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 1,155 $240,000
611 Market Avenue 613 770
$32
(Land Value PSF)
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 935 $250,000
1737 Sixth Street 615 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
409-151-005-9 1,870 9,983
409-152-007-4 1,156 7,580
409-282-019-2 1,925 7,500
409-142-005 21,2992,090
1,870
409-251-022-3 1,870 7,500
409-162-018-9 1,870 7,500
1,870 7,500
409-191-009-3 1,870 10,026
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
409-052-009-1 1,870 7,463
409-052-003-4 1,705 10,040
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 307
Table 1 Page 3.1
#SF
Units
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
14 1572 First Street 616 1,155 $250,000
1574 First Street 617 935
1560 First Street 618 1,155 $17
1558 First Street 619 935 (Land Value PSF)
15 1529 Second Street 620 935 $250,000
114 W Ruby Street 621 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
16 1601 Second Street 622 935 $130,000
1605 Second Street 623 935
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 1,155 $150,000
218 Silver Avenue 625 1,155
18 308 Market Avenue 626 935 $230,000
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 935
322 Market Avenue 628 935 $15
320 Market Avenue 629 935 (Land Value PSF)
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 935 $250,000
317 Verde Avenue 635 935
$31
(Land Value PSF)
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 1,155 $220,000
1622 Fourth Street 637 935
$21
(Land Value PSF)
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 935
1540 Fourth Street 639 935
1534 Fourth Street 640 935
1532 Fourth Street 641 935
1539 Fifth Street 642 935 $230,000
1541 Fifth Street 643 935
$9
(Land Value PSF)
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 935 $250,000
1709 Fifth Street 645 935
$34
(Land Value PSF)
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 1,155 $200,000
1925 Giaramita Street 649 1,155
$20
(Land Value PSF)
24 409-292-001-8 1932 Giaramita Street 650 935 $260,000
1934 Giaramita Street 651 935
1923 Sixth Street 662 935
1925 Sixth Street 663 935
1929 Sixth Street 664 935
1931 Sixth Street 665 935
1945 Sixth Street 666 935 $10
1943 Sixth Street 667 935 (Land Value PSF)
1,870
26,529
1,870
1,870
1,870
409-161-008-1 1,870 7,316
409-272-009-5 2,310 10,208
409-100-004-4
1,870
25,288NA
1,870
409-252-008-1 1,870 8,081
409-171-015-4 2,090 10,557
409-182-002-9 2,310 11,365
409-191-001-0
1,870
15,214
1,870
409-052-001-8 1,870 7,499
409-060-009-1 1,870 9,865
409-060-018-2
2,090
15,065
2,090
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 308
Table 1 Page 3.1
#SF
Units
AS-IS VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Total Bldg
SF
Parcel Size
(SF) 1Address As-Is Market Value
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 1,155 $250,000
542 Verde Avenue 653 1,155
1842 Giaramita Street 654 935
1840 Giaramita Street 655 935
$14
(Land Value PSF)
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 935 $250,000
1527 Giaramita Street 657 935
$30
(Land Value PSF)
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 935 $250,000
1549 Sixth Street 659 935
$32
(Land Value PSF)
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 935 $250,000
1641 Sixth Street 661 935
$31
(Land Value PSF)
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 935 $250,000
1930 Sixth Street 669 935
$33
(Land Value PSF)
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 935 $250,000
1722 Sixth Street 671 935
$25
(Land Value PSF)
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 935 $230,000
1819 Seventh Street 673 935
1829 Seventh Street 674 935 $15
1827 Seventh Street 675 935 (Land Value PSF)
Total:$7,160,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B-Summary
409-282-005-1
1,870
14,958
1,870
409-291-009-2 1,870 7,530
409-131-003-9 1,870 9,967
409-120-005-7 1,870 7,710
409-141-006-0 1,870 7,993
1,870
409-110-007-5 1,870 8,384
409-281-001-1
2,310
17,502
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 309
Bulk Discounted Market Value of Subject 31 Parcels
Based on the research and analyses contained in this appraisal report, and subject
to the assumptions and limiting conditions contained herein, it is the opinion of the
fee simple market value of the subject property 31 legal parcels sold in a single
transaction (bulk), as of March 12, 2019, is estimated to be:
SIX MILLION NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,090,000)
Further, it is our opinion that the subject properties could be sold at the above value
conclusions within a 12-month active marketing period. The exposure period is
also concluded to be 12 months.
I. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Extraordinary and Hypothetical Conditions
1. A title report was not provided to the appraisers. This appraisal assumes that
the subject title is free from easements and encumbrances which would affect
market value.
2. This appraisal assumes that there are no rent restrictions encumbering the
subject properties once they are sold. The buyer is free to demolish the existing
improvements or to rent them at market.
The use of hypothetical conditions and extraordinary assumptions in this report
might have affected the assignment results.
General Assumptions
3. It is the client's responsibility to read this report and to inform the appraiser of
any errors or omissions of which he/she is aware prior to utilizing this report or
making it available to any third party.
4. No responsibility is assumed for legal matters. It is assumed that title of the
property is marketable, and it is free and clear of liens, encumbrances and
special assessments other than as stated in this report.
5. Plot plans and maps are included to assist the reader in visualizing the property.
Information, estimates, and opinions furnished to the appraiser, and contained
in the report, were obtained from sources considered reliable and believed to be
true and correct. However, no responsibility for accuracy of such items
furnished the appraiser is assumed by the appraisers.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 310
6. All information has been checked where possible and is believed to be correct
but is not guaranteed as such.
7. The appraiser assumes that there are no hidden or unapparent conditions of the
property, subsoil, or structures, which would render it more or less valuable.
The appraiser assumes no responsibility for such conditions, or for engineering
which might be required to discover such factors. It is assumed that no
additional soil contamination exists, other than as outlined herein, as a result of
chemical drainage or leakage in connection with any production operations on
or near the property.
8. In this assignment, the existence (if any) of potentially hazardous materials used
in the construction or maintenance of the improvements or disposed of on the
site has not been considered. These materials may include (but are not limited
to) the existence of formaldehyde foam insulation, asbestos insulation, or toxic
wastes. The appraiser is not qualified to detect such substances. The client is
advised to retain an expert in this field.
9. Any projections of income and expenses in this report are not predictions of the
future. Rather, they are an estimate of current market thinking of what future
income and expenses will be. No warranty or representation is made that these
projections will materialize.
10. The appraiser is not required to give testimony or appear in court in connection
with this appraisal unless arrangements have been previously made.
11. Possession of this report, or a copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of
publication. It may not be used for any purpose by any person other than the
party to whom it is addressed without the written consent of the appraiser, and
in any event only with the proper written qualification, only in its entirety, and
only for the contracted intended use as stated herein.
12. Neither all nor part of the contents of this report shall be conveyed to the public
through advertising, public relations, news sales, or other media without the
written consent and approval of the appraiser, particularly as to the valuation
conclusions, the identity of the appraiser, or any reference to the Appraisal
Institute or the MAI designation.
13. Information regarding any earthquake and flood hazard zones for the subject
property was provided by outside sources. Accurately reading flood hazard and
earthquake maps, as well as tracking constant changes in the zone designations,
is a specialized skill and outside the scope of the services provided in this
appraisal assignment. No responsibility is assumed by the appraisers in the
misinterpretation of these maps. It is recommended that any lending institution
re-verify earthquake and flood hazard locations for any property for which they
are providing a mortgage loan.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 311
14. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) became effective January 26,
1992. The appraiser has not made a specific compliance survey and analysis of
the subject development to determine whether or not it is in conformity with
the various detailed requirements of the ADA.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 312
II. AREA AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
A. Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County is located on the east side of San Francisco Bay, directly south
of Suisun Bay. It is one of the nine counties comprising the greater San Francisco
Bay Area. Contra Costa County continues to capture a significant portion of the
region’s population and employment growth.
Contra Costa County covers an area of approximately 798 square miles. The
county is divided into three distinct regions by ranges of hills. The western portion
along San Francisco Bay provides water access and is largely industrial in nature.
Population and development density are greatest along the bay where most of the
original development took place. This western portion of the East Bay is older and
predominantly urban in character. The central portion is developing as a regional
commercial/financial headquarters center. Eastern Contra Costa County has
undergone change from primarily agricultural and undeveloped to a suburban area
over the past decade.
The central portion of Contra Costa County has historically been a bedroom
community for workers employed in San Francisco and Alameda Counties. During
the last several years, major office development has occurred in central Contra
Costa County, resulting in a regional employment center stretching south along the
Interstate 680 corridor from Martinez to San Ramon and on to Pleasanton in
Alameda County. The communities in central Contra Costa County are largely
built out and remain predominantly residential.
Contra Costa County is well served by major transportation systems. Freeways
connect the area to San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose, while the former two can
also be reached using the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. The California
State Department of Finance most recently published estimates show a population
of 1,149,363 as of January 1, 2018. This represents a 0.9 percent increase over the
2017 population figure.
Contra Costa County is also relatively affluent. As estimated by the Association of
Bay Area Governments (ABAG), in their latest publication, Projections 2016 (data
sourced from the most recent 2010-2014 U.S. Census Bureau), the mean household
income was estimated at $107,290 for 2014 and expected to increase. Major
employment is found in management, business, science, and arts occupations,
service occupations, and sales and office occupations, which together account for
84 percent of the total employment in the County.
According to the California Economic Development Department, the
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County was 3.0 percent as of December 2018
(most recent available), which is a slight decrease from 3.2 percent a year prior.
This is based on a labor force of 578,800 with 17,200 unemployed. According to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 313
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 314
the California State Employment Development Department, the unemployment
figure for the State of California for December 2018 was 4.1 percent. The
unemployment rate for Contra Costa County has been lower than the average for
the state and national range over the past several years.
B. The City of Richmond
North Richmond is located adjacent to the City of Richmond and is situated within
the City of Richmond’s sphere of influence. The City of Richmond was
incorporated in 1905 and has historically been industrially oriented. The city
benefitted from its deep harbors, which have been used for shipping port terminals,
and had one of the largest wartime shipbuilding yards during World War II. These
shipyards were closed in 1945, but industrial development continued to occupy
vacated shipyard buildings along the waterfront.
In general, land uses in the city are characterized by older industrial and residential
neighborhoods. The location of the city resulted in its development as an industrial
transportation hub. Shipping and railroad access have created extensive industrial
development along the southern and western portions of Richmond. These older
uses are now slowly being redeveloped to commercial, light industrial and
residential uses.
The city of Richmond is situated in the western portion of Contra Costa County.
As of January 1, 2018, the population of the city was estimated at 110,967
according to the California State Department of Finance. The population increased
0.8 percent from a year prior.
In terms of income and employment, Richmond reflects levels below that of Contra
Costa County as a whole. As of December 2018 (most recent available) the City of
Richmond had an unemployment rate of 3.4 percent, a slight decrease from 3.5
percent year over year. This is slightly higher than the Contra Costa County average
of 3.0 percent. Richmond’s median household income is $57,107 according to the
2012-2016 American Community Survey, which is significantly lower than the
County wide median income of $82,881.
Richmond has the highest level of manufacturing employment in the county. There
are over 300 manufacturing plants in the Richmond area. The major industry in the
area is petroleum products and petrochemicals. Chevron USA and Kaiser
Permanente are the major non-public employers in the area. Other significant
industries are steel fabrication, shipping and warehousing. Heavy industrial and
manufacturing uses remain an important component of the Richmond economy
although the number of these heavy industrial uses has generally been declining
over the past few decades.
The Hilltop Mall shopping center contains anchor tenants such as Macys and Sears
department stores, and Wal-Mart. Although the shopping center has been struggling
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 315
given the decline in retail sales, the shopping center was recently purchased, and
the owners plan to redevelop the shopping center with a movie theater, food hall,
entertainment related tenants, a supermarket, a 24-hour fitness and multifamily
residential units.
Richmond is well served by the Bay Area transportation facilities. Interstate 80
runs predominantly north-south through the eastern portion of the city. Interstate
580 extends west through Richmond and across the Richmond/San Rafael bridge.
The Hoffman Expressway, connecting Interstates 580 and 80, greatly enhances
access between Richmond and Marin County to the west. The Richmond Parkway
connects with the Richmond/San Rafael Bridge in the southwestern part of the city.
This thoroughfare connects Interstate 80 in the northern portion of the city with
Interstate 580 and continues to the Richmond/San Rafael bridge near Point
Richmond. The city is also served by BART rail service and the County Connection
public bus service.
On January 10, 2019 the City of Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation
options by opening a ferry service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the
San Francisco Ferry Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond,
adjacent to the Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time
between Richmond and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs
during morning and evening commute hours. The new $20 million dollar terminal
at Harbour Way South is proving popular with ridership exceeding expectations.
The ferry terminal is also seen as a trigger for economic development as there is
new housing projects underway in this area as well as planned restaurants and
services.
North Richmond
The subject is located in North Richmond, which is located within unincorporated
West Contra Costa County. Contra Costa County currently provides municipal
government services to unincorporated North Richmond, including public works,
planning, law enforcement, and fire services. North Richmond is governed by the
County of Contra Costa and a community council known as the North Richmond
Municipal Advisory Council.
Annexing North Richmond into the City of Richmond has been discussed in recent
years, however as reported by the East Bay Times, efforts have stalled as North
Richmond residents have “overwhelmingly expressed that they didn’t want the
community to be incorporated by the city.” Per the article by the East Bay Times:
“The chief concern among North Richmond residents was having to pay more in
taxes and fees, Richmond city officials said. If the 3,717-person community were
annexed, property taxes would rise $140 per $100,000 of a home’s assessed value.
North Richmond residents would also have to pay a 1-percent higher sales tax, from
the current 8.25 percent to 9.25 percent, and a utility users’ tax that would be 5 to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 316
10 percent higher.” Consequentially, annexation efforts have been halted for the
time being.
North Richmond is developed with a mix of industrial uses east of the Richmond
Parkway and vacant land west of the Parkway. Residential uses are situated in the
central portion between Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west
and south, and the railroad tracks to the east (parallel to Rumhill Boulevard to the
east). Commercial uses are located generally to the south, near Richmond Parkway
and 7th Street, and west of 6th Street. There is a general lack of neighborhood serving
retail in North Richmond, and the national grocery store chains are mostly located
to the west in the City of San Pablo or to the South in the City of Richmond.
Overall, North Richmond is generally underserved due to its status as an
unincorporated portion of Contra Costa County. The majority of the Contra Costa
County vital municipal services are located twenty miles to the east in Martinez,
resulting in large service gaps. Annexation into the City of Richmond was
suggested as a way to provide better service to the area, however North Richmond
residents recently voted against annexation due to tax and budget concerns.
Public transportation access in North Richmond is provided via two main buses that
run along Third Street and a North Richmond Shuttle. Freeway access to and from
Interstate 580 and Interstate 80 is good. Richmond Parkway is a major thoroughfare
with two to three lanes in each direction, signalized intersections and limited access
from adjoining properties.
C. Neighborhood Description and Environs
The subject is part of the Las Deltas public housing project which currently contains
a total of approximately 178 units. The project was originally built in the 1950s and
1960s to provide low cost rental housing and was developed with 244 units. The
property is older and in poor condition.
The subject property is located in an unincorporated portion of West Contra Costa
County, in North Richmond. The subject neighborhood is roughly bordered by
Wildcat Creek to the north, Richmond Parkway to the west and south, freight train
spur tracks to the south, and the Amtrak train tracks to the east (east of 7th Street).
The subject neighborhood is primarily residential and comprised of single-family
residences and multifamily uses. Nearby commercial uses are limited to two small
neighborhood market with more commercial uses located in the neighboring
communities of Richmond and San Pablo.
To the north of the neighborhood is mostly vacant land that is interspersed with
industrial uses such as recycling centers and towing yards. To the south of the
greater subject neighborhood is industrial use with large warehouses. At the eastern
border of the neighborhood is Annie’s Annual and Perennials nursery located off
of Market Avenue to the east of 7th Street as well as other industrial buildings. To
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 317
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 318
the east of the neighborhood across the train tracks is also mostly residential, with
some commercial uses and grocery stores located along Rumhill Boulevard.
The subject immediate neighborhood consists of single family and multifamily
residential units. There are also vacant lots. The homes consist of older and newer
improvements that are in fair to average condition. The listed home prices in the
immediate neighborhood have ranged from $246,000 to $445,000, according to
MLS.
The subject’s Walkscore (www.walkscore.com) is 43, which is a “Car Dependent”,
indicating that most errands require a car. It also has a Transit Score of 30 which
indicates that while there is some transit, there are only a few nearby public
transportation options. Walk Score uses a proprietary algorithm to measure the
proximity of a property to basic services.
The outlook for the area is transitional, with older structures in the area slowly being
replaced or renovated with new residential homes.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 319
III. MARKET OVERVIEW
A. Contra Costa County Residential Market Trends
The subject property is comprised of single-family homes and duplexes and is
located in North Richmond. As an unincorporated part of Contra Costa County,
precise market statistics were limited for the subject neighborhood. However, the
subject is located within the sphere of influence of the City of Richmond, and
adjacent to the City of San Pablo.
The subject is located in North Richmond, in an area roughly bounded by
Richmond Parkway to the west, Wildcat Creek to the North, Rumhill Boulevard to
the east, and Gertrude Avenue to the south. According to data sourced from Paragon
MLS, there were a total of 26 listings in the primary subject market area in 2018.
Listings spent an average of 35 days on the market, with the longest time on market
recorded as 210 days. Of the 26 listings, 20 homes sold. List prices ranged from
$246,000 to $609,950 equating to an average list price of $434,894 or a median list
price of $409,000. Sales prices ranged from $225,000 to $585,000. This equates to
an average sales price of $435,062 and a median sales price of $439,000.
The above data includes sales of the homes located within the Bella Flora
development, located west of Martin Drive, which was built in 1990 – 2006, and is
comprised of newer, larger homes. Excluding the sales of the homes within the
Bella Flora development, there have been 16 listings in the subject neighborhood
in 2018. Listing prices ranged from $246,000 to $445,000, equating to an average
list price of $358,337 and a median list price of $369,500. Of the 16 listings there
were 11 sales, ranging from $225,000 to $475,000. This equates to an average sales
price of $353,437 and a median sales price of $365,000. The sales were on the
market for an average of 28 days.
In 2019, year to date, there has been one sale and one pending sale in the subject
neighborhood. The pending sale is listed at $369,000 and the sale property sold for
its listing price of $260,000.
The table below summarizes the average sales price for the subject and adjacent
neighborhoods, according to market statistics provided by the Contra Costa County
Association of Realtors. The subject is located in both the “Richmond – North &
East” neighborhood, as well as the “Richmond North & West/Parchester”
neighborhood.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 320
Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change Jan 2018 Jan 2019 % Change
Richmond - El Sobrante 682,154$ 604,160$ -12.9% 335,263$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Hilltop/College 516,543$ 472,500$ -9.3% 388,609$ 399,500$ 2.7%
Richmond View 714,812$ 687,250$ -4.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - North & East 525,293$ 482,125$ -9.0%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond North & West/Parchest 406,354$ 433,167$ 6.2% 417,212$ -$ N/A
Richmond - South 427,496$ 421,400$ -1.4% 416,250$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Point/Bayfront 976,193$ -$ N/A 533,461$ 546,143$ 2.3%
Richmond - Annex 638,156$ 500,000$ -27.6%-$ -$ N/A
Richmond - Country Club 651,539$ -$ N/A -$ -$ N/A
Single-Family Townhouse-CondoNeighborhood
As shown on the above table, single family home sales in the subject’s CCAR
neighborhood are on the low end of the range, with average sale prices ranging
from $406,000 to $525,000.
In the Richmond North & West/Parchester neighborhood, there were a total of 21
new listings and 12 closed sales in 2018 of detached single-family houses. The
average sales price was reportedly $394,834, which is well below the Contra Costa
County average. There was an average 24 days on market until sale. There were 2
total attached townhouse-condo listings in the neighborhood in 2018 with no closed
sales.
The subject is far below the county average in terms of sales. The Contra Costa
County Association of Realtors (CCAR) reports that there 7,047 active listings of
single-family homes in Contra Costa County in 2018, and 2,243 listings of
townhouses/condos. Of those listings, there were a total of 4,781 closed sales of
single-family homes in 2018, as compared to 2,073 sales of townhouses/condos.
According to Zillow, the median home price in the City of Richmond is $529,700
as of January 2019. Home values have gone up 11.3 percent over the past year and
Zillow predicts they will rise 8.4 percent within the next year. The median list price
per square foot in the City of Richmond is $426. The median price of homes
currently listed in the City of Richmond is $499,000, while the median price of
homes that sold is $532,800. The median rent price in the City of Richmond is
$2,600.
Overall, relatively little product has sold in the past few years in the subject
immediate neighborhood, at prices below the metro and county averages.
B. Residential Construction Trends
The subject is located in North Richmond, in unincorporated Contra Costa County,
however as stated above, it is located within the City of Richmond’s sphere of
influence. Historically, North Richmond area has seen limited new development
due to its peripheral location and weak demographics. While the greater East Bay
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 321
market has seen spikes in demands, the subject is located in the North Richmond,
which due to its longer commute has remained relatively affordable. CoStar reports
that “limited demand has caused development in the [subject Richmond/Martinez]
submarket to lag behind that in other parts of the East Bay.” According to CoStar,
the subject’s Richmond/Martinez submarket, “marks the far northeast boundary of
the East Bay Metro and comprises a mix of industrial cities and bedroom
communities. The submarket lacks the wealth or urban amenities of popular
neighbors to the immediate south, but recently saw its first developments since
before the recession.”
The City of Richmond, however, has seen an influx of new development as a result
of increasing demand for housing in the larger East Bay market. While the
Richmond area has always been a peripheral location due to its distance from San
Francisco and general commute difficulties, on January 10, 2019 the City of
Richmond expanded their trans-bay transportation options by opening a ferry
service between the Richmond Ferry Terminal and the San Francisco Ferry
Building. The new ferry terminal is located in south Richmond, adjacent to the
Richmond Marina Bay and the Harbor Channel. Transit time between Richmond
and San Francisco is reportedly 35 minutes, with four runs during morning and
evening commute hours. This is expected to draw commuters who would have
otherwise shunned the hour-long vehicular commute from Richmond into San
Francisco, and have been priced out of other Bay Area markets.
Currently, the City of Richmond has several major projects active in their
residential pipeline. There are three major projects under construction in Richmond.
The NOMA project by William Lyon Homes is located at 830 Marina Way South
and will contain approximately 197 townhomes and Live/Work units, as well as a
3,000 square foot business incubator, fitness center and parking. The Terraces at
Nevin (located at Nevin Avenue between 21st and 23rd Streets) is a multifamily
residential project of (2) six-story apartment buildings with a total of 289 units. The
Waterline, located between Canal Boulevard and Seacliff Drive in southern Point
Richmond, is comprised of (60) market rate two- and three-bedroom flats and
townhomes.
Richmond currently has three currently approved major projects as well: the
Miraflores Residential Development located in Park Plaza adjacent to East
Richmond, has been approved for 190 units; the Quarry Residential Project has
been approved for 200 new condos; and Latitude at 1500 Dornan Drive has been
approved for 295 condos, 21 single family homes, 2,000 square feet of retail space
and a 1.9 acre shoreline park. There are four other major projects currently proposed
as well. The 12th and Macdonald development has been proposed for 256 units and
approximately 25,000 square feet of commercial space. Marina Way South
Residential Project by New West Communities has proposed 399 units and 1,800
square feet of retail space. Richmond Central is an affordable housing development
proposed for 172 below market rate apartments. The Point Molate Development is
still under discussion but is expected to dramatically redevelop the 266-acre site.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 322
There is very little current or recent development in the North Richmond
neighborhood. Richmond currently has one multifamily affordable project under
construction, Heritage Point Development. The $27 million-dollar project is
located at 1500 Fred Jackson Way and will consist of a four story, 42 multifamily
units with approximately 4,500 square feet of commercial space. It is proposed to
be completed by late 2019 and is situated across from the Community Heritage
Senior Apartments. The project is being developed by Community Housing
Development Corporation (CDHC) in conjunction with the Contra Costa Housing
Authority.
Overall, the demand for housing in the East Bay remains strong, and the subject’s
submarket is expected to benefit from the overall demand as more centralized areas
become more expensive.
C. Conclusion
The Contra Costa County and Richmond rental housing market is relatively stable,
with moderate gains in rents and low, relatively level vacancy rates. From a supply
perspective, there are new developments in the pipeline in the greater subject
market area. Demand in the greater East Bay has grown, and Richmond is expected
to benefit from the overflow. However, North Richmond has limited new product
coming online in the near future, and their status in unincorporated Contra Costa
County has led to municipal service gaps that have discouraged prospective buyers.
Long term, the outlook is good that steady demand will continue for market rate
housing and rental units.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 323
IV. PROPERTY DATA AND ANALYSIS
A. Site Description
The subject property consists of a total of 31parcels located on various sites in North
Richmond and is part of the Las Deltas Family Project CA 009B - Annex 2. There
are 31 noncontiguous parcels that are situated on the blocks bounded by First Street
to the west, Chesley Avenue to the south, Seventh Street to the east and Wildcat
Creek Regional Trail to the north. The Subject Identification Table on the following
page lists the subject properties and notes the lot area, the condition of the existing
improvements on the parcel, street address and unit identification number as well as
the comments.
The subject lots range in size from 4,998 to 26,529 square feet. The parcels are
typically regular in shape and the topography of the parcels is generally level. The
streets are improved with sidewalks, curbs and gutters. All utilities are available to
the sites.
The immediate environs include vacant lots as well as poor to fair quality single
family homes and duplexes. Many of the units are under the same ownership as the
subject property. Other homes are privately owned and there are several churches
in the area. Uses east of Seventh Street are typically industrial.
B. Environmental Observations
An environmental assessment of the subject property was not provided. Upon
inspection of the subject property, the appraisers did not observe any evidence of
toxic contamination on the property. No further information was available as to the
content of the ceiling material. This appraisal assumes that the site and
improvements are free of toxic contaminants. The reader is referred to the limiting
condition to this effect in chapter one of this report.
C. Flood Zone and Seismic Information
According to Flood Map 06013C0228G, dated September 30, 2015, the subject is
located in Flood Zone X, an area that is determined to be outside the 100- and 500-
year floodplains.
The subject property is not located in the Alquist Priolo zone. According to
governmental geological evaluations, the entire San Francisco Bay Area is located
in a seismic zone. No active faults are known to exist on the subject property.
Inasmuch as similar seismic conditions generally affect competitive properties, no
adverse impact on the subject property is considered.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 324
Table 2 Page 16.1
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
1 1520 First Street 584 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of First Street between
1518 First Street 585 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 W Ruby Street and Chesley Avenue
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 SH P-1 2BD/1 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.770 Duplex
1511 Second Street 587 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA -Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,705
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of First Street between
1710 First Street 589 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex North side of Silver Avenue, mid-block
325 Silver Avenue 593 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 btwn 3rd & Truman Streets. Duplex
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 SF East side of 3rd Street, mid-block between
1,155 Market Avenue & Silver Avenue.
6 1844 Truman Street 595 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Truman Street,
1840 Truman Street 596 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870 mid-block between Verde & Market Ave.
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Fourth Street between
1727 Fourth Street 600 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant 935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 4,998 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.SF SE corner of 4th Street & Market Avenue.
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 SF SW corner of Silver and Giaramita Street
1643 Giaramita Street 604 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street btw
1639 Giaramita Street 605 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090 Grove and Silver Avenues
1623 Giaramita Street 606 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Occupied 935 Duplex 5,115 sf of bldg area
1619 Giaramita Street 607 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
7,578
409-052-003-4 10,040
7,500
409-162-018-9
409-251-022-3
409-191-009-3 10,026
409-142-005 21,299
7,500
7,338
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
409-052-009-1 7,463
NW corner of Chelsley Ave & 2nd St.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 325
Table 2 Page 16.1
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 5,000 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Very Poor SF NE corner of Giaramita St. & Silver Ave.
Structural Damage- Land Value
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 SH P-1 1BD/1BA-Vacant Poor Cond.578 Duplex Northwest corner of Giaramita Street
525 Silver Avenue 609 SH P-1 1BD/1BA-Vacant Poor Cond.578 1,156 and Silver Avenue
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex NE corner of 6th Street & Market Avenue.
611 Market Avenue 613 SH P-1 2BD/1 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.770 1,925
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of 6th Street, mid-block betwn
1737 Sixth Street 615 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market & Silver Avenues. Damage
14 1572 First Street 616 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex East side of 1st Street, mid-block betwn
1574 First Street 617 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090 West Ruby Street & Silver Avenue.
1560 First Street 618 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.1,155 Duplex 4,180 sf of bldg area
1558 First Street 619 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 2,090
15 1529 Second Street 620 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 Duplex
114 West Ruby Street 621 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Occupied 935 1,870
16 1601 Second Street 622 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 2nd Street, mid-block betwn
1605 Second Street 623 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Grove & Silver Aves. Str. Damage. Land Value
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex South side of Silver Ave, mid-block
218 Silver Avenue 625 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 btwn 2nd & 3rd Strs. Str. Damage. Land Value
18 308 Market Avenue 626 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex SE Corner of Market and Third
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 East Side of Third Street
322 Market Avenue 628 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex SS of Market St bwt. Third & Truman St.
320 Market Avenue 629 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 3,740 sf of bldg area
7,580409-152-007-4
9,983409-151-005-9
409-282-019-2 7,500
409-052-001-8 7,499
9,865
409-182-002-9
15,214409- 191-001
11,365
409-060-018-2 15,065
409-060-009-1
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 326
Table 2 Page 16.1
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Verde Avenue mid-block
317 Verde Avenue 635 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 between Fourth and Truman Streets
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex East side of 4th Street, mid-block betwn
1622 Fourth Street 637 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 Grove & Silver Avenues.
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Gutted
1540 Fourth Street 639 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 L Shape Lot. Frontage on 5th and 4th
1534 Fourth Street 640 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Street. Located betwn Grove and
1532 Fourth Street 641 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Chesley Avenues. 2 units Fire Damage
1539 Fifth Street 642 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Gutted
1541 Fifth Street 643 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 5,610 sf of bldg area
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex NW corner of Fifth, Grove and Siliver
1709 Fifth Street 645 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA- Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street
1925 Giaramita Street 649 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310 north of Verde Avenue
24 1932 Giaramita Street 650 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Irregular shaped lot with frontage on
1934 Giaramita Street 651 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870 Sixth and Giaramita Streets, north of
1923 Sixth Street 662 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex Verde Avenue. Adjacent to creek
1925 Sixth Street 663 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 and school.
1929 Sixth Street 664 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex
1931 Sixth Street 665 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
1945 Sixth Street 666 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 7,480 sf of bldg area
1943 Sixth Street 667 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Occupied 935 1,870
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 Duplex SE corner of Verde Ave & Giramita St.
542 Verde Avenue 653 SH P-1 4BD/1.5 BA Vacant- Boarded Up 1,155 2,310
1842 Giaramita Street 654 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 4,180 sf of bldg area
1840 Giaramita Street 655 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
10,208
409-161-008-1 7,316
26,529
409-272-009-5
409-292-001-8
409-281-001-1 17,502
25,288409-100-004-4
409-171-015-4
409-252-008-1 8,081
10,557
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 327
Table 2 Page 16.1
#Unit Unit Type
Size (SF)Total Bldg SF
SUBJECT IDENTIFICATION TABLE
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
APN
Number
Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1
General
Plan
Existing Condition (2)Zoning
CA009B - Annex 2
CommentsAddress
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Giaramita Street, mid-block
1527 Giaramita Street 657 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 btwn Chelsley & Grove Avenues.
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 6th Street, mid-block betwn
1549 Sixth Street 659 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Chelsley & Grove Avenues.
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of Sixth Street mid-block
1641 Sixth Street 661 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 between Silver and Grove Avenues
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Sixth Street North of Verde
1930 Sixth Street 669 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Avenue
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex East side of Sixth Street mid-block betwn
1722 Sixth Street 671 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870 Market and Silver Avenues
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex West side of 7th Street, mid-block betwn
1819 Seventh Street 673 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA Occupied 935 1,870 Market & Verde Avenues.
1829 Seventh Street 674 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 Duplex 3,740 sf of bldg area
1827 Seventh Street 675 SH P-1 3BD/1.5 BA - Vacant Poor Cond.935 1,870
1)Site area based on public records.334,836 SF of Land
2)All vacant improvements boarded-up 7.69 Acres
10 du/ac
Property 9B
BR Size BD Count SF Total SF
1 2 578 1,156
2 2 770 1,540
3 61 935 57,035
4 11 1,155 12,705
4- SF 4 1,155 4,620
80 77,056
4 SF Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
38 Duplexes 19-WCP-018B-Summary
409-110-007-5 8,384
409-282-005-1 14,958
409-131-003-9 9,967
409-141-006-0 7,993
7,530409-291-009-2
409-120-005-7 7,710
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 328
D. Zoning Designation
The subject properties are located in Contra Costa County within the North
Richmond Redevelopment Area and although the Redevelopment Agency has been
dissolved, the guidelines are still applicable. The subject property has a General
Plan land use designation of Single Family Residential High Density, (SH). The
General Plan land use designation allows between 5.0 to 7.2 single family units per
net acre. Attached single family units (duplexes or duets) may be allowed as well as
churches, small residential care and child care facilities. The minimum lot size is
4,500 square feet for a single family and 7,000 square feet for a duplex. The
building height limit is 30 feet or two stories.
The subject has a zoning designation of Planned Unit District (P-1) within the North
Richmond Area. This zoning designation is meant to provide “a large-scale
integrated development or a general plan special area of concern provides an
opportunity for, and requires cohesive design when flexible regulations are
applied; whereas the application of conventional regulation, designed primarily
for individual lot development, to a large-scale development or special area may
create a monotonous and inappropriate neighborhood. The planned unit district is
intended to allow diversification in the relationship of various uses, buildings,
structures, lot sizes and open space while insuring substantial compliance with the
general plan and the intent of the county code in requiring adequate standards
necessary to satisfy the requirements of the public health, safety and general
welfare. These standards shall be observed without unduly inhibiting the
advantages of large-scale site or special area planning.”
This zoning district allows the following permitted uses; a) any land uses with final
plan approval for development which are in harmony, serve to fulfill the function
of the development, and consistent with the General Plan; b) detached single-family
dwelling on each legally established lot with the accessory structures and uses
normally auxiliary to it. Allowed uses also include duplexes, secondary units, and
child care for less than 12 children. Based on the North Richmond Redevelopment
Plan area development guidelines, single family lots require a minimum of 4,500
square feet, a duplex requires 7,000 square feet and a multi-family project requires
a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet. The maximum building height is 30 feet
or two stories.
Interim uses are also allowed under this zoning designation where no preliminary
development plan is approved. These include any nonconforming use existing at
the time of the establishment of the P-1 District which may be repaired, rebuilt, or
enlarged. Administrative use permits can also be granted. The subject property is
currently zoned P-1 and has a General Plan of Single-Family High Density
Residential (SH). Any planned development would need to be reviewed by the
County Planning Department and a Development Permit is required for residential
construction over three units. The subject parcels currently appear to be legally
conforming uses.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 329
3
18
5
4
8
7
22 11 10
13
30
12
31
25
29 24
23
19
6
14
16
1 15
2
17
20
9 28
27
26
21
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 330
21
26
27
28
9
20
17
16
14
1 15
2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 331
SUBJECT
19
23
24
29
31
12
25
6
18
5
4
7
8
22 11 10
13
30 3
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 332
E. Easements and Restrictions
The appraisers were not provided with a preliminary title report for the subject
property. Inspection of the property and review of the parcel maps indicated that
there are several public utility easements affecting the subject parcels, which is
common for this type of property. None of the noted easements or restrictions
appear to adversely impact the utility or marketability of the subject property.
The subject property is currently owned by the Housing Authority of Contra Costa
County. The subject is potentially affected by regulatory agreements recorded on
the site which restrict the development and/or use. This appraisal assumes that there
are no rent restrictions encumbering the subject property.
F. Ownership and Sales History
The appraisers were not provided with title reports for the subject parcels.
According to public records, title to the subject property is currently vested in
Contra Costa County Housing Authority. There have been no transfers of
ownership in the past several decades.
G. Assessed Valuation and Real Estate Taxes
Under California property tax laws instituted by the passage of Proposition 13,
property taxes can only be increased a maximum of two percent annually unless a
property is sold, or additional value is added through new construction or alteration.
Upon sale, property is taxed on the basis of one percent of the reassessed value,
most often equal to the purchase price, plus existing bond indebtedness. The tax
rate for the subject tax rate area for the 2018-2019 fiscal year is reportedly 1.2591
percent. The tax rate is broken down as follows:
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 333
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1529 Second Street 1529 Second Street Interior
1529 Second Street Kitchen 1529 Second Street Bathroom
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 334
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1529 Second Street Interior 317 Silver Avenue
317 Silver Avenue Interior 317 Silver Avenue Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 335
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
317 Silver Avenue Kitchen 317 Silver Avenue Interior
1549 Sixth Street 1549 Sixth Street Kitchen
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 336
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1549 Sixth Street Interior 1623 Giaramita Street
Typical Gutted Interior Typical Gutted Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 337
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1730 Fred Jackson Way 1932 Giaramita Avenue
1923 Sixth Street 1931 Sixth Street
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 338
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1925 Sixth Street 1925 Sixth Street Kitchen
1925 Sixth Street Bathroom 1925 Sixth Street Interior
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 339
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1539 Fifth Street 1639 Sixth Street
611 Market Avenue 423 Silver Avenue
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 340
SUBJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
1725 Fourth Street 315 Verde Avenue
1844 Truman Street
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 341
For the current 2018-2019 tax year, the subject parcel has total assessed values and
special taxes as follows:
Subject Land Improvements Gr oss Value Special Taxes
1 409-052-009-1 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
2 409-052-003-4 10,741$ 26,982$ 37,723$ 576$ 576$
3 409-200-016-7 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
4 409-191-009-3 10,741$ 29,054$ 39,795$ 576$ 576$
5 409-191-013-5 8,587$ 20,438$ 29,025$ 576$ 576$
6 409-251-022-3 8,598$ 31,217$ 39,815$ 576$ 576$
7 409-162-018-9 9,025$ 31,005$ 40,030$ 576$ 576$
8 409-161-001-6 6,433$ 22,584$ 29,017$ 576$ 576$
9 409-142-005 24,757$ 81,846$ 106,603$ 1,506$ 1,506$
10 409-151-011-7 6,433$ 22,584$ 29,017$ 576$ 576$
11 409-152-007-4 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
12 409-282-019-2 9,025$ 19,633$ 28,658$ 576$ 576$
13 409-151-005-9 10,741$ 29,054$ 39,795$ 576$ 576$
14 409-060-018-2 17,201$ 67,849$ 85,050$ 1,004$ 1,004$
15 409-052-001-8 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
16 409-060-009-1 10,741$ 29,054$ 39,795$ 576$ 576$
17 409-182-002-9 10,741$ 34,443$ 45,184$ 1,004$ 1,004$
18 409- 191-001 17,201$ 62,445$ 79,646$ 1,506$ 1,506$
19 409-252-008-1 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 1,004$ 1,004$
20 409-171-015-4 10,741$ 34,443$ 45,184$ 576$ 576$
21 409-100-004-4 27,989$ 91,552$ 119,541$ 3,012$ 3,012$
22 409-161-008-1 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
23 409-272-009-5 10,316$ 34,443$ 44,759$ 1,004$ 1,004$
24 409-292-001-8 32,932$ 127,109$ 160,041$ 2,008$ 2,008$
25 409-281-001-1 19,352$ 65,682$ 85,034$ 1,506$ 1,506$
26 409-110-007-5 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
27 409-120-005-7 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 1,004$ 1,004$
28 409-141-006-0 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 576$ 576$
29 409-291-009-2 8,587$ 31,215$ 39,802$ 1,004$ 1,004$
30 409-131-003-9 10,741$ 29,054$ 39,795$ 576$ 576$
31 409-282-005-1 17,201$ 62,445$ 79,646$ 2,008$ 2,008$
TOTAL 376,107$ 1,265,066$ 1,641,173$ 28,514$ 28,514$ Source: Contra Costa County Tax Collector
The subject property has received an exemption for 99% of the total assessed value
of the land and improvements from ad valorem taxes due to the non-profit
management/ownership of the subject. However, the special assessments are not
exempt and total $28,514. The special assessments include West County
Wastewater District Sewer Charges. According to the County Tax Collector, as of
the date of this appraisal, all taxes due have been paid in full.
H. Description of Existing Improvements
The subject consists of 31 parcels and is improved with duplexes or single-family
rental units for a total of 80 residential units. The subject dwelling units are of wood
frame construction on concrete slabs with stucco exteriors. The units have windows
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 342
which are single pane aluminum frame. The typical interior finishes of the units
consist of vinyl flooring and drywall. The one-bedroom units contain 578 square
feet. The two-bedroom units contain approximately 770 square feet, the three-
bedroom units have 935 square feet and the four-bedroom units consist of 1,155
square feet. The subject contains four single family homes with four bedrooms and
1.5 baths with 1,155 square feet. The duplexes have a concrete driveway for parking
one vehicle at each unit. The duplexes and single-family homes have rear yard with
cyclone fencing and a concrete patio. The units have a dryer connection and a
connection for a washing machine in the kitchen area.
The existing condition of the units are noted on the Subject Identification Table on
the preceding page. The subject units were built in 1961 and are generally in very
poor condition. The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and
uninhabitable. Many of the units have been gutted. Of the 80 units, approximately
7 units are currentl y occupied, and the other 73 units are vacant.
Many of the units have been vandalized with copper piping and wiring removed.
Most of the water heaters appear to have been damaged and some water damage
was observed from broken pipes. Walls have been damaged and in some cases the
ceiling has been partially opened. The vacant units are typically boarded-up to
prevent squatters or additional damage. The front and rear doors have been removed
by VPS (the vacant property security system). Several of the units have been
damaged by fire.
Although the interior of the residential units is in very poor condition and
essentially gutted, the building foundation and framing appears to be in average
condition. The roof structure is tar and gravel and also appears to be in average
condition with no signs of leaking.
Estimated Costs of Renovation
The majority of the units are currently boarded-up and uninhabitable. The vacant
units are typically boarded-up to prevent squatters or additional damage. However,
in many cases the units have been broken into and there has been additional
damage. Essentially the units will need to be completely gutted and renovated to
become occupiable. In 2014 the subject property representative indicated that the
costs to repair vacant units ranged from $25,000 to $90,000 depending of the level
of renovation needed and if there was structural damage. These costs have only
increased over the past five years.
The appraiser acknowledges that the costs to renovate a residential unit can vary
greatly depending on the type of buyer such as an owner user, institutional or
speculator, as well as the ultimate scope of the renovation. According to EMG
which completed a Physical Needs Assessment for a portion of Las Deltas, on
December 2018, the estimated base cost for the renovation of the residential units
was approximately $120,000 per unit. Adding contractor fees of 15% the cost is
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 343
approximately $138,000 per unit. These costs did not include roof replacement,
parking upgrades or ADA installations.
Discussions with broker in the market area indicated that the costs to gut renovate
a red tagged single family home in San Pablo was estimated by a contractor at a
cost of $140,000. The home contained 1,100 square feet and had two bathrooms.
Other information provided to the appraiser by contractors indicated costs in the
range of $100,000 to $120,000 per unit based on two bathrooms and an average
three-bedroom unit of approximately 1,000 square feet.
The subject contains approximately 77,056 square feet of improvements, with an
average unit size of 963 square feet. Based on our research as well as discussions
with brokers and other active participates in the real estate market, a benchmark
renovation cost of $120 per square foot, or approximately $120,000 per unit is
concluded. This cost is applied to all of the units at the subject as they all require
renovation.
I. Conformance to American Disabilities Act (ADA)
An ADA compliance survey was not provided for review, nor was one performed
by the appraiser. The reader is directed to the limiting condition in Chapter I of this
report, which states that any effect on value of potential ADA noncompliance has
not been considered in this appraisal.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 344
V. HIGHEST AND BEST USE AND VALUATION METHODOLOGY
A. Highest and Best Use
The highest and best use is that use, from among reasonably probable and legal
alternative uses, found to be legally permissible, physically possible, financially
feasible, and which results in the highest land value.
The four criteria the highest and best use must meet are physical possibility, legal
permissibility, financial feasibility, and maximum productivity. Analysis of the
subject’s highest and best use is made as if the site were vacant, and as improved
with the existing improvements.
1. As-If Vacant
a) Physically Possible
The subject neighborhood contains primarily residential structures
as well as vacant lots. The subject consists of 31 parcels that range
from 4,998 to 26,529 square feet. The site sizes are sufficient to
support a variety of residential development. Overall, physical
characteristics do not limit the highest and best use of the subject
site.
b) Legally Permissible
The subject properties have a General Plan designation of Single
Family Residential - High Density (SH) and are zoned Planned Unit
(P-1). Residential uses are the primary zoning for the subject
properties with secondary uses allowed of residential care and child
care facilities as well as churches. Based on the legal parameters,
with consideration given to conformance with the surrounding
neighborhood, the highest and best use of the subject property, as if
vacant, appears to be residential development.
c) Financially Feasible
The subject sites are located in a weak residential market area in the
unincorporated area of North Richmond, Contra Costa County.
Market conditions do not support speculative development for the
subject sites. The maximum productive use is that use, from among
financially feasible uses, that provides the highest rate of return or
value. Therefore, the highest and best use of the subject sites as-if
vacant, is considered to be to hold for future development or to be
developed by an owner-occupant.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 345
d) Maximally Productive/Highest and Best Use Conclusion
Overall, based on these factors, the highest and best use of the
subject scattered sites as-if vacant would be to hold the property
until market conditions improve and warrant construction of a new
development consistent with the subject’s zoning.
2. As-Improved
The subject properties consist of poor quality residential single family and
duplex units that were built in the 1960s. Most of the subject units are vacant
and have been vandalized and gutted. These units require renovation to be
habitable.
Discussions with brokers and other construction specialists estimated costs
of renovation ranging between $100,000 to $140,000 per unit or
approximately $100 to $140 per square foot, based on an average 1,000
square foot unit.
Based on an estimated benchmark cost of $120 per square foot, which
includes new plumbing, wiring, heating, bathrooms and kitchens, flooring
and walls, it is considered financially feasible to renovate most of the vacant
units which do not have structural or fire damage.
Several of the units have sustained fire damage and have extensive
structural damage. These improvements are considered to have no value and
should be demolished. The highest and best use of three subject parcels,
Numbers 10, 16 and 17, is to demolish the improvements and hold the land
for future development potential given the condition of the improvements
on the parcels.
There are an additional 28 parcels at the subject that are improved with 75
units. These improvements are considered to contribute value to the
underlying land, and are valued as currently improved, with a deduction
made for the estimated costs to renovate the units.
Therefore, the highest and best use of parcels identified as Numbers 1
through 9, 11 through 15 and Numbers 18 through 31 is to keep the existing
duplex or single-family units and to renovate the residential units.
B. Valuation Methodology
The valuation of any parcel of real estate is derived principally through three
approaches to the market value. From the indications of these analyses, and the
weight accorded to each, an opinion of value is reached. Each approach is more
particularly described below.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 346
1. Cost Approach
This approach is the summation of the estimated value of the land, as if
vacant, and the reproduction or replacement cost of the improvements.
From these are deducted the appraiser's estimate of physical deterioration,
functional obsolescence, and economic obsolescence, as observed during
inspection of the property and its environs. The Cost Approach is based on
the premise that, except under the most unusual circumstances, the value of
a property cannot be greater than the cost of constructing a similar building
on a comparable site.
2. Sales Comparison Approach
This approach is based on the principal of substitution, i.e., the value of a
property is governed by the prices generally obtained for similar properties.
In analyzing the market data, it is essential that the sale prices be reduced to
common denominators to relate the degree of comparability to the property
under appraisal. The difficulty in this approach is that two properties are
never exactly alike.
3. Income Approach
An investment property is typically valued in proportion to its ability to
produce income. Hence the Income Approach involves an analysis of the
property in terms of its ability to provide a net annual income. This
estimated income is then capitalized at a market-oriented rate
commensurate with the risks inherent in ownership of the property, relative
to the rate of return offered by other investments.
The Sales Comparison approach is used in estimating the market value of the
subject as land and as improved. A deduction is made for the repair or demolition
costs to derive an as-is market value. The Cost Approach is not used, because
purchasers in the subject marketplace do not give weight to this approach.
The following chapters further discuss the methodologies used in valuing the
subject property.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 347
VI. VALUATION BY THE SALES COMPARISON APPROACH
The approach utilized in estimating the current market value of the subject properties is the
Sales Comparison Approach. In this analysis, value is estimated by comparing the subject to
similar land sites which have transferred prior to the effective date of appraisal. The index
properties show characteristics which are similar to the property being appraised. The
Comparable Sales Table is on the following page.
Those transactions which are considered appropriate to indexing the value of the subject
parcels are summarized on the table. The prices paid for the comparable properties are shown
on an absolute basis and on a price per square foot basis, which is the most common unit
value used for land. In valuing the subject site, adjustments are made as necessary to each
comparable for location, accessibility, functional utility, date of sale, terms of sale, and size.
For valuing the existing improvements, the prices paid for the comparables is shown on a
absolute basis. Adjustments are made for location, age, condition, quality and size.
A. Presentation and Analysis of Land Sales
The table on the following page show land sales in the North Richmond market
area. Most of the land sale comparables show a range from approximately $75,000
to $130,000 for lots that contain approximately 3,762 and 5,000 square feet. These
lots contain one legal parcel. The price per square foot ranges from approximately
$16.00 to $26.00 per square foot.
Land Sales for larger lots of 7,500 square feet indicate sale prices of between
$98,000 to $250,000. The high end of the range pertains to the sale of three legal
parcels which would allow for up to two legal units with an in-law or accessory
unit. These comparables indicate a price per square foot range between
approximately $13 to $33 per square foot. Less weight is placed on the high end
of the range given that it is above the range of the comparables and could be divided
into two lots.
No recent sale data was available for larger parcels in northern Richmond. A site
containing 31,189 square feet, or 0.72 acres was purchased in February 2014 by
Darryl Hughey for $120,000. The sale consists of three adjacent parcels which
could be subdivided into 12 lots. The property was purchased for $3.85 per square
foot. A significantly higher per square foot land value is indicated for the subject
given the current stronger market conditions.
A recent sale of an entitled multifamily property in the Hilltop neighborhood of
Richmond was purchased in July 2018 for $36 per square foot. The property
contains 2.19 acres and is entitled for 98 units. Given the subject’s lower density
and location a significantly lower land value would be indicated to the subject’s
larger high density residential single-family sites.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 348
Table 3 Page 25.1
Price Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per Zoning/Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre Unit / SF Max. Allowed Density Comments (Document#)
Land Sales
1 236 Vernon Avenue 3/19 $75,000 3,762 SF $19.94 P-1 Three offers on property.William Malbrough/
North Richmond COE Contract 0.09 AC Contra Costa County One Lot NA
APN: 409-021-028-9 Price 1 Unit
2 800 Block Alamo Avenue 3/19 $112,500 7,500 SF $15.00 RL-2 Mid-block site Chinlakozv, Ulian/
Richmond Pending Asking 0.17 AC City of Richmond One Lot NA
APN: 561-252-029-5 Sale Price 3 Units
3 560 Alamo Avenue 12/18 $130,000 5,000 SF $26.00 RL-2 Mid-block site De Leon, Celso E V/
Richmond 0.11 AC City of Richmond One Lot YC & JJ LLC
APN: 561-231-001-0 2 Units #197311
4 1240 York Street 10/18 $250,000 7,500 SF $33.33 RL-2 Mid-block site Ron Ikebe/
Richmond 0.17 AC City of Richmond 3 Lots Veronica Coleman
APNs: 561-151-028-9, -029-7, -027-1 2 Units #024588
5 1541 Giaramita 8/17 $80,000 5,000 SF $16.00 P-1 Mid-block vacant site Prater, Jane H/
North Richmond 0.11 AC Contra Costa County One Lot Yaramala, Krishna & Padmavathi
APN: 409-110-005-9 1 Unit #0154135
6 0 Block Gertrude Avenue 5/17 $98,000 7,500 SF $13.07 P-1 Mid-block site- 3 Lots Domenico, Plinio D/
North Richmond 0.17 AC Contra Costa County Buyer plans to develop Montoya, Ricardo C/De Ceja, Wendy G
APNs: 409-042-018-5, -019, -020 3 Units with three units #093923
Single Family Units
7a 1853 Truman Street 2/19 $283,250 987 SF Bldg.$287 P-1 Fixer Ramiro S. Barrera/
North Richmond 0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1949 Arturo & Yanira R Benavides
APN: 409-240-005-2 2,720 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #015991
7b 10/18 $265,000 987 SF Bldg.$268 P-1 Fixer Frankie M. Fulmore/
0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1949 Ramiro S. Barrera
2,720 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0168878
8 321 Market Avenue 12/18 $410,000 1,000 SF Bldg.$410 P-1 Updated Aaron & Ladonnike Morgan/
North Richmond 0.08 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1965 Audrey Davidson
APN: 409-240-024-3 3,600 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0194226
9 425 Chesley Avenue 11/18 $310,000 1,016 SF Bldg.$305 P-1 Avg Condition Juan C. Cabrera/
North Richmond 0.07 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 1944 Juan and Raquel Ruiz
APN: 409-100-010-1 2,850 SF 3BD/1BA Single Family #0192434
10 423 Market Avenue 11/18 $475,000 1,244 SF Bldg.$382 P-1 Above Avg./New Construction Jinotega Inc./
North Richmond 0.06 AC Contra Costa County Blt in 2018 Juan A Meza
APN: 409-261-010-6 2,500 SF 3BD/2BA Single Family #0189935
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B-Summary
COMPARABLE LAND AND SINGLE FAMILY HOME SALES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 349
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 350
Based on the comparable land sales, and considering the location, density, size,
utility, approval status, and market conditions a per square foot value between
$10.00 and $20.00 per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels as vacant. A
per square foot value of $20 per square foot is concluded for the smaller subject
parcels of approximately 5,000 to 7,500 square feet as vacant. For the larger subject
parcels of 7,600 to 15,000 square feet a unit value of $15 per square is concluded
as vacant. A unit value of $12.50 per square foot is estimated for the subject parcels
which contain 15,000 to 20,000 square feet and for parcels greater than 20,000
square feet a unit value of $10.00 per square foot is concluded as vacant.
These land values are applied to the subject parcels identified as Numbers 10, 16,
17.
B. Presentation and Analysis of Single-Family Home Sales
The table on the preceding page shows sales of single-family homes in the North
Richmond neighborhood. The comparable single-family home sales show a range
from approximately $265,000 to $475,000 for homes that range between 987 and
1,244 square feet. The homes contain three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
The high end of the range reflects the sale of a new home located at 423 Market
Street at $475,000. This home is larger than the subject units and is above average
in quality. A lower unit value is suggested for the subject.
The low end of the range at $265,000 and $283,250 reflects the sale and resale of a
home at 1853 Truman Street. According to the broker the property needed
approximately $40,000 to $50,000 in renovation work, reflecting a total sale price
of approximately $325,000 as renovated. The buyer is planning to renovate and
lease the property.
The remaining home sales indicate a range between $310,000 and $410,000. Both
comparables are similar in size to the subject single-family homes. Given the
condition and quality, a unit value of $325,000 is concluded for the subject single-
family units assuming renovation has been completed.
C. Presentation and Analysis of Duplexes, Fourplexes and Multiplex Unit Sales
The table on the following page indicate sales of duplexes, fourplexes and multiplex
unit properties. Comparables 1 through 5 indicate the sales of duplexes in the
greater market area and indicate sale prices between $375,000 and $540,000. This
is equal to a per unit price of between $187,500 and $270,000. The low end of the
range pertains to a property in poor condition, whereas the higher sale prices pertain
to better quality properties in superior locations. Based on the location, condition,
age and quality of the subject’s duplex units a value of $475,000 is estimated, or
$237,500 per unit is concluded, assuming that the duplex units have been renovated.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 351
Table 4 Page 26.1
Price Zoning/Grantor/
Location /Sale Sale Size Per Unit Type Grantee
# APN Date Price SF/Acre Unit / SF Avg Unit Size SF (GBA)Comments (Document#)
Duplex
1 724 Acacia Avenue 10/18 $375,000 2,070 SF Bldg.$187,500 RL2- City of Richmond Duplex Bank of New York/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 2BD/1BA 1986 Blt Newton RPM Ltd.
APN: 534-191-003-1 4,000 SF $181 1,035 Poor Condition #0163494
2 1645 14th Street 9/18 $480,000 2,070 SF Bldg.$240,000 City of San Pablo Duplex Solomon Gorlock/
San Pablo 0.08 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 2BD/1BA 1952 Blt Juan and Josefina M Torres
APN: 410-251-020-5 3,484 SF $232 1,035 Average Condition #203207
3 119 18th Street 9/18 $520,000 1,573 SF Bldg.$260,000 RM2- City of Richmond Duplex Gundersen, Mark/
Richmond 0.13 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 1BD/1BA 1906 Blt Molina-Ortiz, Silvestre R/Aguilera, Olivia P
APN: 540-220-015-7 5,650 SF $331 787 Average Condition #0139955
4 587 6th Street 9/18 $540,000 1,876 SF Bldg.$270,000 RM1- City of Richmond Duplex Bang Jong S living Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 2 Units - 3BD/1.5BA Blt in 1952 North County LLC
APN: 534-301-004-6 3,840 SF $288 938 Average Condition #010713
5 1627 Lincoln Avenue 6/18 $510,000 1,559 SF Bldg.$255,000 RM1- City of Richmond Duplex Duke Partners II LLC/
Richmond 0.11 AC Per Unit 3BD/2BA, 1BD/1BA 1944 Blt Sean E Haggai
APN: 530-290-008-8 5,000 SF $327 780 Average Condition #0125253
Triplex and Fourplexes
6 1625 Portola Avenue 1/19 $662,500 2,602 SF Bldg.$220,833 RM2- City of Richmond Triplex Scott M. Blasingame/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 3 Units - 2BD/1BA Blt in 1984 Jesus S. Mendez
APN: 514-162-025-1 3,936 SF $255 867 Average Condition #0002619
7 305 Ripley Avenue 3/19 $720,000 2,102 SF Bldg.$180,000 RM1- City of Richmond 4 Unit Moazeni, Behzad/ Rasouli, Ladan Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 1BD/1BA 1927 Blt NA
APN: 534-212-012-7 3,800 SF $343 526 Above Average Condition
8 301 Ripley Avenue 1/19 $630,000 2,102 SF Bldg.$157,500 RM1- City of Richmond 4 Unit Moazeni, Behzad/ Rasouli, Ladan Trust/
Richmond 0.09 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 1BD/1BA 1927 Blt Tewdros, Aron
APN: 534-212-013-5 3,800 SF $300 526 Average Condition #012782
9 465 21st Street 11/18 $550,000 3,431 SF Bldg.$137,500 CM5- City of Richmond 4 Unit McMacgregor LLC/
Richmond 0.12 AC Per Unit 4 Units - 2BD/1BA Blt in 1954 Ahsbaba, Ahmad/ Sedighi Farideh
APN: 514-120-005-4 5,300 SF $160 858 Average Condition #190982
Multiplexes
10 1333 Market Avenue 11/18 $1,240,000 3,988 SF Bldg.$177,143 CMU- City of San Pablo 7 Unit Selbie C Wright Trust/
San Pablo 0.12 AC Per Unit 7 Units - 6 1BD/1BA, 1 2BD/1BA Blt in 1962 Garcia, Estevan/Lindstrom-Garice, Julie L.
APN: 411-041-003-4 5,227 SF $311 570 Good Condition #179493
11 203 Bissell Avenue 7/18 $875,000 3,932 SF Bldg.$109,375 RM2- City of Richmond 8 Unit Eustolia P De Fregoso/
Richmond 0.08 AC Per Unit 4- Studio, 4 1BD/1BA Blt in 1908 Hamilton, B/ Wu S H F
APN: 538-190-021-5 3,655 SF $223 492 Poor Condition #0112249
12 417 Verde Avenue 5/18 $1,100,000 5,410 SF Bldg.$137,500 P1, Contra Costa County 8 Unit Verde Ave, LLC/
North Richmond 0.24 AC Per Unit 8 units -4 3BD/1BA, 4 2BD/1BA Blt in 1957 JWT Capital Holding Group One,LLC
APN: 409-262-010-5 10,500 SF $203 676 Fair Condition #202656
13 2023 Chanslor Avenue 3/18 $1,130,000 6,264 SF Bldg.$141,250 R-3- City of Richmond 8 Unit Tackabary Family Trust 2017/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit 8 2BD/1BA Blt in 1964 Davis, William E Jr. & Silvia G.
APN: 540-190-009-6 8,438 SF $180 783 Average Condition #041392
14 146 19th Street 2/17 $1,190,000 5,966 SF Bldg.$132,222 City of Richmond 9 Unit Community Commerce Bank/
Richmond 0.19 AC Per Unit 9 units -1 1BD/1BA, 8 2BD/1BA Blt in 1961 MW General Ptshp
APN: 540-200-017-7 8,438 SF $199 663 Average Condition #024643
Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B-Summary
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 352
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 353
Comparables 6 through 9 reflect the sale of triplexes and fourplexes. The sales
indicate a range between $550,000 to $720,000, or $137,500 to $220,833 per unit,
with the high end of the per unit range pertaining to the smaller triplex property.
The subject consists of one-story structures, or two duplexes on a property. Based
on the location, condition, age and quality of the subject a fourplex value of
$680,000, or $170,000 per unit is concluded which is within the range of the
comparables assuming the units have been renovated.
Comparables 10 through 14 pertain to the sales of larger multifamily units. The
comparables range in size from 7 to 8 units and the sale prices are between $875,000
to $1,240,000. This is equal to $109,375 to $177,143 per unit. The subject contains
one parcel which contains 4 duplexes, or a total of 8 units. Given the subject’s
location and size, a unit value of $145,000 is concluded.
Several of the parcels which require additional adjustments are discussed below.
The Subject Parcel Number 9 is a larger parcel that contains a single-family home
as well as two duplexes. Given that the single-family home shares the parcel with
the duplexes, a lower market value is attributable to this single-family unit of
$225,000.
The Subject Parcel Number 11 is a duplex that contains one-bedroom units. Given
the smaller size of the property and the lower income potential a lower unit value
of $375,000 is concluded.
The Subject Parcel Numbers 14 and 25 contains two duplexes which has three- and
four-bedroom units as well as relatively large lot size. A unit value of $750,000 is
applied to this comparable as it takes into consideration the additional income
potential less the renovation costs.
The Subject Parcel Number 21 is a larger parcel which contains 25,288 square feet.
The parcel has three duplexes, in which one duplex is fire damaged (Units 640 and
641). The fire damage to the duplex on this portion of the site is considered surplus
land, and the cost of demolition is considered to offset the value of this portion of
the land. No additional value is allocated to the surplus land. The concluded value
of Parcel 21 includes the two duplexes, less renovation costs.
D. Deduction for Renovation/Demolition Costs
The majority of the subject units are not occupied and have been boarded up. The
units are in poor condition and the costs to repair the units is estimated at
approximately $120 per square foot, based our discussions with brokers and real
estate representatives. Currently the renovation cost is lower than the as renovated
value of the properties. Therefore, this cost when required is deducted from the
concluded value of the properties as renovated to derive an as-is value.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 354
The cost to demolish each unit is based on Marshall Valuation Service and is
estimated at approximately $10.00 per square foot. This cost includes asbestos and
lead abatement as well as remediation costs and appears reasonable. These costs
are utilized in the analysis and are deducted from the value conclusions to derive
an as-is value as land.
E. As-Is Value Conclusions as Individual Properties
The valuation of the subject properties is summarized on the table on the following
page. The table includes renovation costs which are applied to the units which are
estimated to not have fire or structural damage. The demolition costs are applied to
the units which have structural or more significant damage to derive a land value.
The total sum of the 31 properties is $7,160,000.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 355
Table 5 Page 28.1
#Address SF Value
Units Conclusions
1 1520 First Street 584 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1518 First Street 585 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
2 121 Chesley Avenue 586 770 $475,000 ($204,600)$270,000
1511 Second Street 587 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$27
(Land Value PSF)
3 409-200-016-7 1714 First Street 588 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1710 First Street 589 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
4 317 Silver Avenue 592 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
325 Silver Avenue 593 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
5 409-191-013-5 1730 Fred Jackson Way 594 1,155 1,155 7,578 $325,000 ($138,600)$190,000
Single Family cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
6 1844 Truman Street 595 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1840 Truman Street 596 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
7 1725 Fourth Street 599 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1727 Fourth Street 600 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
8 409-161-001-6 1744 Fourth Street 602 1,155 4,998 $325,000 ($138,600)$190,000
Single Family cost to renovate
$38
(Land Value PSF)
9 1649 Giaramita Street 603 1,155 1,155 $225,000
1643 Giaramita Street 604 1,155 Single Family
1639 Giaramita Street 605 935 $680,000 ($613,800)$290,000
1623 Giaramita Street 606 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1619 Giaramita Street 607 935 $905,000
Total SF 5,115 Total $14
(Land Value PSF)
10 409-151-011-7 1710 Giaramita Street 608 1,155 1,155 5,000 $100,000 ($11,550)$90,000
land value demo costs at $10 psf
11 1711 Giaramita Street 610 578 $375,000 ($138,720)$240,000
525 Silver Avenue 609 578 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
12 1814 Sixth Street 612 1,155 $475,000 ($231,000)$240,000
611 Market Avenue 613 770 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
13 1741 Sixth Street 614 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1737 Sixth Street 615 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
14 1572 First Street 616 1,155 $750,000 ($501,600)$250,000
1574 First Street 617 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1560 First Street 618 1,155 $17
1558 First Street 619 935 (Land Value PSF)
15 1529 Second Street 620 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
114 W Ruby Street 621 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
16 1601 Second Street 622 935 $147,975 ($18,700)$130,000
1605 Second Street 623 935 land value demo costs at $10 psf
17 220 Silver Avenue 624 1,155 $170,475 ($23,100)$150,000
218 Silver Avenue 625 1,155 land value demo costs at $10 psf
18 308 Market Avenue 626 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1748 Fred Jackson Way 627 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
322 Market Avenue 628 935 $15
320 Market Avenue 629 935 (Land Value PSF)
19 315 Verde Avenue 634 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
317 Verde Avenue 635 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$31
(Land Value PSF)
20 1624 Fourth Street 636 1,155 $475,000 ($250,800)$220,000
1622 Fourth Street 637 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$21
(Land Value PSF)
409-171-015-4 10,557
409-252-008-1 8,081
409-052-001-8 7,499
409-060-009-1 9,865
409-182-002-9 11,365
9,983
409-251-022-3 7,500
409-162-018-9 7,500
409-142-005
409-060-018-2 15,065
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1 Demolition/Repair Costs (2)
409-052-009-1 7,463
409-052-003-4 10,040
7,500
409-151-005-9
Total Bldg
SF
1,870
1,705
1,870
1,870
1,870
2,310
1,870
21,299
409-152-007-4 7,580
409-282-019-2 7,500
1,156
1,925
2,090
2,090
1,870
1,870
2,090
409-191-001-0 15,214
As-Is Market Value
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
10,026
2,090
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
409-191-009-3 1,870
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 356
Table 5 Page 28.1
#Address SF Value
Units Conclusions
APN
Number
ID Unit
Number
Parcel Size
(SF) 1 Demolition/Repair Costs (2)
Total Bldg
SF
As-Is Market Value
VALUATION OF SUBJECT PROPERTIES
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
CA009B - Annex 2
North Richmond, California
21 1542 Fourth Street 638 935 $680,000 ($448,800)
1540 Fourth Street 639 935 2 -Duplexes cost to renovate
1534 Fourth Street 640 935 $0 $0
1532 Fourth Street 641 935 Surplus Land
1539 Fifth Street 642 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1541 Fifth Street 643 935
$9
(Land Value PSF)
22 423 Silver Avenue 644 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1709 Fifth Street 645 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$34
(Land Value PSF)
23 1927 Giaramita Street 648 1,155 $475,000 ($277,200)$200,000
1925 Giaramita Street 649 1,155 Duplex cost to renovate
$20
(Land Value PSF)
24 409-292-001-8 1932 Giaramita Street 650 935 $1,160,000 ($897,600)$260,000
1934 Giaramita Street 651 935 4- Duplexes cost to renovate
1923 Sixth Street 662 935
1925 Sixth Street 663 935
1929 Sixth Street 664 935
1931 Sixth Street 665 935
1945 Sixth Street 666 935 $10
1943 Sixth Street 667 935 (Land Value PSF)
25 1844 Giaramita Street 652 1,155 $750,000 ($501,600)$250,000
542 Verde Avenue 653 1,155 2- Duplex cost to renovate
1842 Giaramita Street 654 935
1840 Giaramita Street 655 935
$14
(Land Value PSF)
26 1525 Giaramita Street 656 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1527 Giaramita Street 657 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$30
(Land Value PSF)
27 1547 Sixth Street 658 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1549 Sixth Street 659 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$32
(Land Value PSF)
28 1639 Sixth Street 660 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1641 Sixth Street 661 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$31
(Land Value PSF)
29 1932 Sixth Street 668 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1930 Sixth Street 669 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$33
(Land Value PSF)
30 1724 Sixth Street 670 935 $475,000 ($224,400)$250,000
1722 Sixth Street 671 935 Duplex cost to renovate
$25
(Land Value PSF)
31 1817 Seventh Street 672 935 $680,000 ($448,800)$230,000
1819 Seventh Street 673 935 2- Duplexes cost to renovate
1829 Seventh Street 674 935 $15
1827 Seventh Street 675 935 (Land Value PSF)
Total:$7,160,000
1)Square Foot of land area based on public records.
2)Demolition Costs provided by Marshall Valuation Service at $10 per square foot.Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
Cost to renovate unit is estimated at $120 psf.19-WCP-018B-Summary
409-291-009-2 7,530
409-131-003-9 9,967
409-282-005-1 14,958
409-120-005-7 7,710
409-141-006-0 7,9931,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
1,870
10,208
26,529
409-100-004-4 25,288
409-281-001-1 17,502
409-110-007-5 8,3841,870
1,870
2,310
409-161-008-1 7,316
409-272-009-5
1,870
1,870
1,870
2,310
1,870
1,870
NA
1,870
1,870
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 357
VII. DISCOUNTED MARKET (BULK) VALUE
In this chapter, the bulk market value of the subject parcels is estimated. The bulk
(discounted) market value estimate is defined as the sale of all 31 legal subject lots in a
single transaction. It assumes that the project is sold to a single buyer. The bulk market
value is determined by discounting the gross retail valuation over a projected absorption
period, with deductions made to account for the cost of sales and entrepreneurial profit.
The discounted analysis necessitates certain assumptions concerning the cost of sales,
absorption rate, profit, discount rate and inflation. Each item in the discounted analysis is
discussed below.
The table on the following page shows the discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. Each
element on the table is discussed below.
A. Summary of Assumptions
• The aggregate retail market value of the 31 individual parcels is calculated on the
table on the previous page. The subject contains 80 residential units situated on the
31 parcels.
Total (Rounded): $7,160,000
• Based on discussions with brokers in the market area it is estimated that absorption
from the time parcels begin to be sold is projected at 3.0 parcels per month. This
is equal to an average sale of 7.7 dwelling units per month. Brokers have indicated
that there is demand for the subject units and this would indicate a total selling
period of approximately 11 months.
• Marketing expenses are estimated at 5.0% of periodic sales revenue. This includes
commissions and some costs associated with closing the units.
• The subject administrative costs are estimated at 1 percent of the gross sales.
• An overall yield rate of 20.0% is estimated for the subject property for the DCF
analysis utilizing an all-inclusive IRR (i.e. profit and interest carry are both
reflected in the rate).
B. Marketing and Administrative Costs
Marketing costs include sales commissions, advertising, and other costs related to a sales
program. Based on market data, these costs are estimated at approximately 5.0% of the
gross revenue derived from the sale of the planned units and are assumed to be incurred
during each periodic sales period. This estimate is sufficient to compensate an outside
sales company.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 358
Table 6 Page 29.1
ASSUMPTIONS:
31 Parcels 0.00%Inflation/Appreciation Rate
$230,968 Avg. retail value per parcel 0.00%Concessions
$7,160,000 Aggregate retail value of 31 Parcels 5.00% Marketing/Escrow Expense
$89,500 Avg retail value per unit.1.00% Administrative Costs
3.00 Parcel per mo absorption -
2.6 Avg No of Units per Parcel
80 Units
MONTH 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
GROSS INCOME
Parcels Sold Per Month 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 1.00
Cumulative Parcels Sold 3.00 6.00 9.00 12.00 15.00 18.00 21.00 24.00 27.00 30.00 31.00
Remaining Unsold Parcels 28.00 25.00 22.00 19.00 16.00 13.00 10.00 7.00 4.00 1.00 0.00
Gross Sales Income $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $230,968
TOTAL GROSS SALES INCOME:$692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $692,903 $230,968
LESS: COSTS OF SALES
Marketing ($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($34,645)($11,548)
Administration ($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($6,929)($2,310)
Special Assessments (Per Parcel/Yr)$919.81 ($2,376)($2,146)($1,916)($1,686)($1,456)($1,226)($996)($767)($537)($307)($77)
Property Tax @ 1.2591%($6,388)($5,770)($5,152)($4,534)($3,915)($3,297)($2,679)($2,061)($1,443)($824)($206)
($50,339)($49,491)($48,642)($47,794)($46,946)($46,098)($45,250)($44,401)($43,553)($42,705)($14,141)
NET SALES PROCEEDS BEFORE PROFIT $642,565 $643,413 $644,261 $645,109 $645,957 $646,805 $647,654 $648,502 $649,350 $650,198 $216,827
Discount Rate 20.0%0.9836 0.9675 0.9516 0.9360 0.9207 0.9056 0.8907 0.8761 0.8618 0.8476 0.8337
Present Value $632,031 $622,490 $613,093 $603,836 $594,718 $585,736 $576,890 $568,175 $559,592 $551,137 $180,779
DISCOUNTED BULK VALUE OF UNITS:$6,088,477
ROUNDED $6,090,000 85.0%Of Aggregate Retail Value
$196,000 per Parcel Watts, Cohh and Partners, Inc., March 2019
19-WCP-018B-Summary
DISCOUNTED BULK (MARKET) VALUE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY
Appraisal of 31 Parcels within the Las Deltas Family Project
North Richmond, California
CA009B - Annex 2
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 359
Administrative costs are also involved in the marketing of a residential project. These
costs include annual recurring costs such as extraordinary insurance, maintenance, and
security costs which are not covered by homeowner association dues. This analysis
estimates these costs at 1% of the gross revenue. Administrative costs are assumed to
be incurred throughout the holding period as a declining function of the value of unsold
inventory, considered to roughly mirror market indications.
Real estate taxes on the unsold units are estimated based on the current tax rate percent.
This figure is applied to the total discounted value indication for the subject property.
The property tax figure and special assessments are reduced proportionately upon the
sale of each unit. The individual units will then be reassessed based on the selling price,
with the buyer responsible for paying the property tax.
C. Inflation/Appreciation
No inflation estimate is included until sales initiate. No inflation is included during the
marketing period, because the sell-out occurs in less than one year.
D. Discount Rate
The appropriate discount rate for the subject analysis is affected by such factors as
anticipated inflation, present and future market interest rates, economic conditions and
overall project risk. The periodic income of the subject property is discounted based on
an overall internal rate of return (IRR) method, or yield analysis. The selected discount
rate for this analysis primarily reflects the cost of funds (both equity and debt) that the
developer would incur over the development period, as well as entrepreneurial
incentives.
Presently, developers are reporting yield expectations ranging from approximately 10%
to 25% of retail sales revenue for residential developments. The PwC Real Estate
Investor Survey, as of 4th Quarter 2018, conducted a specific survey for the development
of land market and based on their survey discount rates (including developer’s profit)
reportedly range from 10% to 20% for entitled development land nationwide, with an
average of 15.40%. The average was reported to have increased by 40 basis points since
April 2018.
Furthermore, according to RealtyRates.com Developer Survey, as of the first quarter
2019, on an unleveraged basis, discount rates, including developers’ profit, for the
national condominium market range from approximately 9.93% to 27.65% and average
19.26%. These reflect historical rates achieved by survey respondents and most likely
larger projects on average. California and the Bay Area have historically experienced
rates towards the lower end of the range given the demand and lack of available land
sites.
The subject consists of 80 units located on 31 parcels in North Richmond. The subject
is a relatively large in size for the community and represents some risk to a potential
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 360
bulk buyer. Although it only has a fair location, there is demand for affordable housing
and the subject has good proximity to job centers. Overall, considering current market
conditions, as well as the relatively short absorption period of 11 months, an overall
yield rate of 20% is estimated for the subject for the discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis
utilizing an all-inclusive IRR.
E. Bulk Market Value Conclusion
The table on the previous page shows the DCF Analysis and summarizes the calculations
utilized in this analysis, which produces a rounded, bulk sale value estimate for the
subject property if sold to a single buyer. Based on an overall sell-out period of 11
months, an inclusive yield rate of 20% which includes the developer profit, the bulk
market value estimate for the subject is estimated to be $6,090,000, or approximately
$196,000 per parcel, as follows:
SIX MILLION NINETY THOUSAND DOLLARS
($6,090,000)
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 361
ADDENDA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 363
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 364
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 365
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 366
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 367
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 368
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 369
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 370
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 371
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 372
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 373
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 374
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 375
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 376
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 377
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 378
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 379
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
724 Acacia Avenue
Richmond
1645 14th Street
San Pablo
119 18th Street
Richmond
587 6th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 380
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
1627 Lincoln Avenue
Richmond
1625 Portola Avenue
Richmond
305 Ripley Avenue
Richmond
301 Ripley Avenue
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 381
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
465 21st Street
Richmond
1333 Market Avenue
San Pablo
203 Bissell Avenue
Richmond
417 Verde Avenue
North Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 382
COMPARABLE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING SALES PHOTOGRAPHS
2023 Chanslor Avenue
Richmond
146 19th Street
Richmond
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 383
QUALIFICATIONS OF SARA A. COHN, MAI
California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
EXPERIENCE
Sara A. Cohn is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc. a new firm providing commercial real
estate valuation. From 1988 to 2016, she worked for Carneghi and Partners and was a Senior Project
Manager/Partner in their San Francisco office. Carneghi and Partners, and now Watts, Cohn and
Partners, provide real estate appraisal and consulting services in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Clients include financial institutions, government agencies, law firms, development companies and
individuals. Typical assignments include both valuation and evaluations of a broad variety of
property types, uses and ownership considerations.
Ms. Cohn has over 30 years of appraisal experience. She has completed a wide variety of valuation
and evaluation analyses. Ms. Cohn has extensive knowledge of the San Francisco Bay Area and has
appraised many property types including office buildings, industrial properties, retail centers, hotels,
residential projects, mixed-use properties and development sites. Recent work has involved the
analysis of commercial buildings, residential subdivisions, valuation of affordable housing
developments with bond financing and/or Lo w-Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs), assessment
districts, as well as co-housing projects.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Berkeley, 1978
Successful completion of all professional appraisal courses offered by the Appraisal Institute as a
requirement of membership.
Continued attendance at professional real estate lectures and seminars.
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION AND STATE CERTIFICATION
Appraisal Institute - MAI Designation (Member Appraisal Institute) No. 12017
Continuing Education Requirement Complete
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG014469
Certified Through March 2021
State of California Licensed Landscape Architect No. 2102
Member, Board of Directors, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute,
2008-2010
Seminars Co-Chair, Northern California Chapter of the Appraisal Institute, 2005-2007
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 384
QUALIFICATIONS OF MARK A. WATTS
Mark A. Watts is a Partner with Watts, Cohn and Partners, Inc.
Following is a brief summary of his background and experience:
EXPERIENCE
Commercial Real Estate Appraisal Experience
Mr. Watts has been a commercial real estate appraiser since 1987, and has over 20 years experience in the
analysis of commercial real estate. He has completed valuation assignments on a variety of projects, including
industrial facilities, residential subdivisions, apartments, shopping centers, cemeteries and recreational facilities.
He has also performed feasibility studies and assisted owners in making asset management decisions.
Mr. Watts has provided litigation support and served as an expert witness in court. He has also served in
arbitrations as an expert witness. He has been qualified as an expert in San Francisco and San Mateo County
Superior Courts.
He served on the San Francisco County Assessment Appeals Board from 2011 to 2016.
Commercial Real Estate Investment Experience
Simultaneous to his work as a commercial appraiser, Mr. Watts has been an active real estate investor/developer.
He is experienced in the acquisition, redevelopment and management of commercial properties. He has witnessed
and experienced many real estate cycles and stays abreast of current trends. His personal experience as an
investor makes him uniquely qualified to appraise commercial real estate.
Over the last 20 years he has completed more than 30 investment real estate transactions, an average of 1.5
transactions per year. He has negotiated with buyers and sellers directly as a principal. He has completed nearly
a dozen 1031 exchanges. Beginning with a small initial capital investment, he has built a large real estate
portfolio. Based on his ownership experience, Mr. Watts is keenly aware that the success or failure of an
acquisition is closely related to its location. Likewise, he is sensitive to locational differences in the appraisal of
real estate.
Mr. Watts has broad experience with the construction, maintenance and repair of real estate. He has demolished
and re-built two structures from the ground up. He has completed fire damage repairs and remediated toxic mold.
He has remodeled kitchens and baths. He has replaced foundations on structures, made additions, and made other
improvements. As the quality and condition of real estate has a strong correlation with its value, his experience
enables superior judgement of these attributes in his work as a commercial real estate appraiser.
Community Involvement
Mr. Watts served on the Board of Managers of the Stonestown Family YMCA from 2002 to 2017. This is an
approximately 30,000 square foot health club facility. He was active on the Facilities Committee. He served as
the Board Chair in 2008. He has been a member of the Olympic Club in San Francisco since 1976. He served
the Forest Hill Neighborhood Association as President from 2013 to 2017.
EDUCATION
Bachelor of Arts, University of California, Davis
PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION
State Accredited Affiliate of the Appraisal Institute
State of California Certified General Real Estate Appraiser No. AG015362
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 385
RELOCATION PLAN
FORTHE
RAD CONVERSION
OFTHE
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING SITE
Housing of the
County of Contra Costa
(HACCC)
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez CA, 94553
Prepared By
7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4800, Oakland, CA 94621
June 13, 2016
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 386
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 4
A. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS .................... 9
B. PROGRAM ASSURANCES AND STANDARDS ............................................... 10
C. RELOCATION PLANNING AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ... 11
D. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND OCCUPANT DATA & DESCRIPTIONS ... 13
E. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY ...................................................... 16
F. REPLACEMENT HOUSING NEEDS ................................................................. 18
G. CONCURRENT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT ............................................ 22
H. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM ........................................................ 22
I. PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS ......................................................... 29
J. IMMIGRATION STATUS .................................................................................... 30
K. EVICTION POLICY ............................................................................................ 31
L. APPEALS POLICY ............................................................................................ 31
M. PROJECTED RELOCATION SCHEDULE AND PHASING PLAN .................... 32
N. ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS ................................................................. 32
O. RESIDENT PARTICIPATION/PLAN REVIEW ................................................... 34
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 387
INDEX OF TABLES
Table 1:North Richmond Income Distribution……………………………..14
Table 2:HUD Annual Income Limits – Contra Costa County 2015……..15
Table 3:Las Deltas Income Distribution……………………………………15
Table 4:Existing Units ……………………………………………………….16
Table 5:Replacement Housing Survey Results………………………… 21
Table 6:Federal Fixed Move Payment Schedule………………………… 22
Table 7:Example Computation of Rent Differential Payment ………….. 27
Table 8:Relocation Phasing Analysis……………………………………… 28
Table 9:Pro-forma Relocation Budget…………………………………..... 32
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 388
INTRODUCTION
TheHousing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) owns and manages
1,168 units of public housing in 13 different properties spread throughout
the County. All but one of these properties was built during the 1940s,
50s and 1960s and all are in need of significant modernization. As is true
with many housing authorities around the country, HACCC does not
receive enough federal funding and tenant rent to fund all of the required
modernization and maintenance at these properties. In order to improve
its affordable housing stock, HACCC is pursuing several strategies to
address the inadequate financing structure underlying its public housing.
The Las Deltas property is located in unincorporated North Richmond and
is comprised of 214 units built in three phases in 1952, 1960 and 1961.
There are 76 units in the phase built in 1952 . These are a mix of duplexes
and six-unit row houses located together in a roughly 2x4 block area. Of
these 76 units, 4 are being used for service delivery and 46 are vacant.
The remaining two phases are comprised of 138 units scattered
throughout North Richmond, all but 5 of which are duplexes (the 5 are
single unit homes). Of these 138 units, 64 are vacant. The 46.7% overall
occupancy rate at Las Deltas is an anomaly for HACCC. All 12 of
HACCC's other properties have occupancy rates ranging from 96% to
100%.
The strategy at Las Deltas is to utilize the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's (HUD) Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program to convert
public housing units to project-based vouchers (PBVs) that will be used to develop new,
high-quality affordable housing off-site. While HACCC may commit PBVs to future
projects in North Richmond, it does not expect to do so as part of the RAD Conversion
process. Under RAD, HACCC intends to sell most, or all, of the vacant units and land at
Las Deltas and use the proceeds to upgrade its remaining public housing stock.
HACCC has been awarded RAD for 90 units at Las Deltas and Las Deltas Annex, but
has since amended its request to include all 214 units for RAD conversion. The
proposed permanent relocation of all remaining occupants, disposition of the property,
and conversion to RAD is hereinafter referred to as the Project.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 389
Las Deltas will hereinafter be referred to as the Subject Property or Site. Figure 1 below
provides the area location of the Subject Property.Figure 2 provides the approximate
location of the Site.
Figure 1: Area Map
Figure 2: Subject Property Location Map
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 390
Overview of RAD Conversion Strategy
Following HUD approval of the RAD Application amendment request, HACCC will
proceed with the relocation of the remaining households at Las Deltas. These
households will be made eligible for permanent relocation assistance including a
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and either a fixed moving payment or payment of
their actual and reasonable moving expenses by HACCC.
All eligible households in good standing (current on their rent and in compliance with
their lease) will be offered a Voucher. If available, a household may choose to transfer
to another public housing unit or offered a Project Based Voucher unit, and receive
actual and reasonable relocation expenses.
Being “current on rent” means the household has paid the prior month’s rent and does
not owe any back rent to HACCC or, if there is back rent owed, the household has
entered into a repayment agreement with HACCC and is following the terms of that
agreement. Being “in compliance with the lease” means the household has not been
served with an eviction notice, written notice of violation or have been evicted. If a
household or one of its members has been issued a Notice to Vacate, or has otherwise
been informed in writing they are not in compliance with their lease, and the case has
not been resolved at the time the Housing Choice Vouchers are available, HACCC will
not issue the household a Voucher at that time. If the case is resolved, or if a court
rules in favor of the resident, HACCC will provide a Voucher at that time.
Scope and Purpose of This Relocation Plan
This Relocation Plan(Plan) is designed to do the following:
1. Satisfy legal and regulatory requirements for a relocation plan in accordance with
the Uniform Relocation Act (URA) and California Relocation Assistance Law
(CRAL) and Guidelines;
2. Describe and analyze the laws, statutes and regulations governing the relocation
of the Project occupants, including the requirements for a relocation plan;
3. Describe the persons to be displaced by the Project and their relocation needs;
4. Describes the roles and responsibilities of HACCC and its designated relocation
team;
5. Outline the relocation rights and benefits that HACCC is obligated to provide to
the persons that may be displaced by the Project;
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 391
6. Outline the relocation process and mitigation measures required to ensure the
Project residents are provided the relocation assistance that reasonably meets
their needs;
7. Describe the relocation program to be provided, including the rights of the
existing households, required notifications, benefits, and other services they are
eligible to receive, and criteria for eligibility for assistance;
8. Describe the replacement housing resources that may be available to rehouse
the residents including access to HCV’s and other Low Income Public Housing
Units (LIPH) in HACCC’s portfolio;
9. Describe the process to develop, approve and update the Plan;
10. Describe the process for any appeals of the relocation benefits and services
provided; and
11. Provide the general schedule and budget for relocation activities.
12. Attend resident meetings as needed with or on behalf of HACCC.
The Plan is limited to this scope, which is consistent with the guidance for relocation
planning described under the URA, RAD Relocation Guidelines, CRAL and the
Guidelines.
Beyond being a legal requirement, a relocation plan is a communication and
management toolfor the stakeholders involved in the relocation process. Identified
stakeholders include the residential occupants who may be displaced, HACCC,
community-based service organizations, housing counseling organizations and other
interested parties.
Overview of Relocation Planning and Implementation
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. (OPC), a public real estate services consulting firm
specializing in relocation planning and implementationservices, was hired by the
HACCC toprepare this Plan.OPC has also been retained to implement this relocation
plan and provide relocation services to the households who may be displaced by the
Project.
Acopy of this Planwill be made available to Las Deltas households and interested
parties for a period of a minimum of 30calendar days. Each household will be notified in
writing where and how they can review the draft Plan, with directions to provide written
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 392
comments directly to OPC for analysis and inclusion in the Final Relocation Plan to be
reviewed and adopted by the HACCC Board of Commissioners.
Appendix A of this Plan provides definitions of many of the technical and regulatory
relocation terms found in this Plan.
Overview of Relocation Assistance Program
HACCC must offer each displaced household, “comparable housing”. Such
comparable housing may include, if available, tenant-based assistance such as a
HCV, project based voucher assistance or, occupancy in a unit operated, or assisted
by HACCC at a rental rate paid by the household that is comparable to the rental rate
applicable to the unit which the household presently occupies. Those residents, who
are required to move, are also entitled to payment of actual and reasonable relocation
expenses and are eligible to receive relocation advisory services.
In the event any of HACCC’s actions resulting from the implementation of the RAD
Application result in residential displacement, such displacement will be pursuant to the
policies and procedures which would be necessary to conform to the statutes and
regulations established by the federal and state law for residential displacements. No
mandatory displacement activities will take place prior to the required reviews and
approval of this Plan.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 393
RELOCATION PLAN
A. REGULATORY FRAMEWORK AND REQUIREMENT ANALYSIS
The laws, regulations and statutesmay become applicable to the relocation of the
households at Las Deltas are listed below.
• Section 18 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (Section 18);
• 24 CFR Part 970 – Public Housing Program – Demolition or Disposition of Public
Housing Projects (Part 970);
• 49 CFR part 24 - Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act
of 1970, as amended (URA);
• HUD Handbook 1378 - HUD’s implementing guidelines of the URA;
• HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) relocation guidelines
• California Government Code Title 1, Chapter 16, Section 7260-7277 – State of
California Relocation Assistance Law (CRAL); and
• California Code of Regulations Title 25, Division 1, Chapter 6 - State of California
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines (Guidelines);
The primary relocation regulations that guide the Plan and the relocation process are
the URA, CRAL and the Guidelines.HACCC and their Legal Counsel shall have the
responsibility of making the final determination regarding the laws, regulations and
statutes applicable to the Project.
Disposition of public housing projects is subject to the provisions of Section 18 of the
U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and implementing regulations found at 24 CFR Part 970
(collectively, "Section 18"), and is not subject to the Uniform Relocation Act (46 U.S.C.
§4600 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (49 CFR Part 24)(collectively, "URA").
However, the ultimate utilization of RAD triggers the URA and makes this Project
subject to it. Pursuant to both the federal and state laws, relocation planning is required
to minimize displacement to affected Project occupants.
HACCC as the Displacing Agency is a local public agency in the State of California
making the Project subject to CRAL and the Guidelines.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 394
The regulatory requirement for the preparation of a relocation plan, 30-day review and
comment period, approval, and adoption of the plan by the appropriate local legislative
body comes from CRAL and the Guidelines.
It has been determined the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
Commission (“Commission”) is the appropriate legislative body to approve the
Plan,because they make all legislative and policy decisions for the HACCC, including
those necessary and required for the conversion and disposition of the Site.
These regulations require that eligible persons relocated by a publicly assisted project
receive the following services and benefits, which are explained in detail throughout this
Plan:
1. Required advanced notice of the relocation.
2. Written information statement describing their rights to relocation benefits and
services for which they are eligible.
3. Assistance locating replacement housing that is decent, safe and sanitaryand
meets the household’s needs.
4. Assistance moving to replacement housing, including relocation of personal
property and transfer of any household owned utility accounts.
5. Other advisory services and financial assistance that may be necessary to
reasonably assist the household permanently relocate.
6. Right to appeal decisions made within the relocation program that affect them.
Appendix B of this Plan provides a side by side comparison of the URA, Section 18,
CRAL, and RAD.
B. PROGRAM ASSURANCES AND STANDARDS
Adequate funds will be made available for the relocation of all households within the
Project’s budget. HACCC will pay all actual, reasonable and necessary relocation
expenses through its own Project or general funds.
Relocation assistance services will be provided to ensure that displacement does not
result in different, or separate treatment of households based on race, nationality, color,
religion, national origin, sex, marital status, familial status, disability or any other basis
protected by the federal Fair Housing Amendments Act, the Americans with Disabilities
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 395
Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and
the Unruh Act, as well as any otherwise arbitrary or unlawful discrimination. Relocation
notices will be provided in the household’s primary language.
All eligible residential occupants will be provided relocation assistance and benefits
under the URA and RAD Relocation Guidelines. Where the Guidelines or CRAL provide
a higher level of benefit, the resident will receive benefits under the Guidelines or CRAL.
The opportunity for review and to provide written comments to the Plan by the residents
and other interested stakeholders for a period of no less than 30 days is required before
any displacements may occur.
Each household eligible for relocation assistance lawfully occupying a Las Deltas unit
as of the Initiations of Negotiations (ION) datemust be provided a Notice of Eligibility
(NOE) for relocation assistance prior to, or concurrently with, a 90-Day Notice to
Vacate. If a household is deemed ineligible for relocation assistance, they must be
informed in writing of the reasons why the household is not eligible to receive relocation
assistance and the procedures to appeal this decision.
Any resident, who disagrees with the determination of eligibility or ineligibility for
relocation assistance, or the type and amount of relocation assistance that is being
offered, is afforded the right to appeal the decision to the HACCC and their designated
appeals hearing body.
C. RELOCATION PLANNING AND NEEDS ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
Early Resident Outreach
A relocation committee was not established for this Project. Instead, a series of
informational community meetingswill be conducted. Translation services will be
provided as necessary.Materials related to these meetings will be included in Appendix
C of this Plan.
The questions, comments and concerns raised at these meetings will be documented
by OPC and used to develop a list of policy questions for HACCCto consider.
Documentation of these meetings will be provided in Appendix D of this Plan.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 396
Analysis of Existing Data
Preliminary needs assessment was conducted by OPC based on data provided by the
HACCC in March 2016. From the results of this household survey, OPC was able to
ascertain household information such as the number of households, the ages of
members of the households, and special needs. This data has been used to describe
the impacted residential populationfound later in this Plan.This data and other data will
be updated and ascertained through the resident interview process as described below.
Resident Interview Process
An important process in relocation planning is collecting primary information from the
impacted households. This typically occurs by conducting an interview with the
household in their home. Through these meetings, household composition, special
needs, and specific concerns regarding relocation are gained, which will be used by
OPCto better plan for the household’s relocation needs on an individual basis.
OPC will be responsible for conducting interviews with all households impacted.
Resident interviews are expected to take approximately one hour to complete.Resident
interview services will be made available in other languages other than English as
needed.
OPC will mail each household an Interview Request Letter that provides them direction
and contact information to arrange a time to meet. OPC Staff will use multiple methods
to make contact with residents, including phone calls and door-to-door outreach to
attempt to make contact with the household and conduct the interview.OPC Staff will
document the interview in the household’s relocation file, which will be maintained by
OPC.
Plan Preparation, Approval and Updates
HACCC has elected to make this plan available for a 45-day comment and review
period to theProject occupantsand other interested parties. This exceeds the required
30-day period under the Guidelines.After this review and comment period, this Plan will
be sent to the HACCC Commission for adoption.Section O of this Plan describes the
review and comment period in more detail.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 397
Adoption of the Plan is requiredbefore anydate specific Notice to Vacate can be served.
No residential occupant can be served a 90-day Notice to Vacate without being
provided an NOE and at least one decent, safe and sanitary housing unit that meets
their needs is made available to them.
This Plan should be periodically reviewed for consistency with the Project’s goals and
process as changes occur. The Plan should be updated substantive changes occur in
the Project such as, but not limited to,additional resident information, housing resource
alternatives identification, utilization of a phased approach to the relocation that may
create additional projects, and/or regulatory changes that impact relocation
requirements.
In accordance with the Guidelines, should implementation of the Plan not occur within
12 months of the Plan’s approval, the Plan must be updated.If substantial changes are
made to thePlan once it is approved, it may be necessary to recirculate the Plan for
public comment and re-submit the Plan to the Board for approval.
D. GENERAL DEMOGRAPHICS AND OCCUPANT DATA & DESCRIPTIONS
Geography
The public housing units which are the subject of this Relocation Plan are located in
North Richmond, California (Contra Costa County), in the “East Bay” region of the
San Francisco Bay Area; carved between the Cities of Richmond and San Pablo.
General Demographics and Housing Characteristics
Population
As of 2010, it was estimated that there were 3,717 people, residing in North Richmond.
Race and Ethnicity
The U.S. Census Bureau’s 2010 estimates provide that the racial, and ethnic group
break-out of North Richmond's population as being 17.06% ‘White’; 33.33% ‘African
American’; 50.01% ‘Hispanic or Latino of Any Race’; 11.60% ‘Asian American’;
32.04% ‘Some Other Race’; 4.87% ‘Two or More Races’. 62% ‘Native-American’; and,
.48% ‘Pacific Islander’.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 398
Income
According to 2013 American FactFinder data, the median household income in North
Richmond was $37,396 per annum with approximately 22.1% of the total population
living below the poverty line. Incomes were distributed as follows in Table 1:
Table 1: Income Distribution
Median earnings (dollars) 21,955.00
Full-time, year-round workers with earnings 928
$1 to $9,999 or loss 0.00%
$10,000 to $14,999 7.80%
$15,000 to $24,999 27.00%
$25,000 to $34,999 20.30%
$35,000 to $49,999 24.50%
$50,000 to $64,999 13.80%
$65,000 to $74,999 0.00%
$75,000 to $99,999 4.00%
$100,000 or more 2.70%
Las Deltas Households
Of the 214 public housing units in Las Deltas, 95 units are currently occupied by 215
persons of all ages. The average household size within the occupied, Las Deltas units
is 2.3 persons.
Of the 95 households, 73 heads of household are female and 22 heads of household
are male.
Table 2 below provides HUD’s Extremely Low-, Very Low-, Lower-income upper limits,
effective March 28, 2016, reflecting the Median and Moderate income limits for
households of from one to eight persons. The State income limits are informational
only. For households to be assisted with Housing Choice Voucher tenant-based or
project-based vouchers, the HUD income limits in the Table are applied in determining
the household’s income category in qualifying the household for one program, or
another. The Area Median Income (AMI) for a household of four in Contra Costa
County is $92,900
The ‘Extremely Low’ income category represents “thirty percent (30%)” or less of
Area Median Income (AMI); the ‘Very Low ’income category represents 30% to “fifty
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 399
percent (50%)” of the AMI; and, the ‘Lower ’income category represents 50% to
“eighty percent (80%)”of AMI. All incomes are adjusted by household size.
Table 2: HUD Annual Income Limits – Contra Costa County (2016)
Household
Size
Extremely
Low Annual
Income
Very
Low Annual Income
Lower Annual
Income
One Person $20,500 $34,150 $52,650
Two Person 23,400 39,000 60,150
Three Person 26,350 43,900 67,650
Four Person 29,250 48,750 75,150
Five Person 31,600 52,650 81,200
Six Person 33,950 56,550 87,200
Seven Person 36,730 60,450 93,200
Eight Person 40,890 64,350 99,200
By comparison with the County Median incomes above, Table 3 below shows the
income distribution of the 95 households presently residing in Las Deltas public
housing site, determined by their household income and respective household size.
Table 3: Las Deltas Income Category Distribution
Measurement Extremely
low
Very Low
Low
Total
All Households (#) 82 11 2 95
All Households (%) 86% 12% 2% 100%
Disabilities
There are an estimated 57 households with one or more members who have some
degree of a physical or mental disability. It is not known at this time whether anyone
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 400
with disabilities currently requires special accommodations. HACCC is prepared to
provide all necessary and required accommodations.
Existing Low Income Public Housing Units and Unit Needs
Monthly tenant rent portions at Las Deltas range from $0.00/month to $1152/month.
Table 4 below shows the unit mix of the existing units at Las Deltas that are planned to
be demolished compared to the number presently occupied where a household will be
relocated from.
Table 4: Existing Units
Las Deltas Units
BR Size Total # of Units Total # Occupied
1 BR 34 15
2 BR 54 22
3 BR 97 48
4 BR 29 10
Total 214 95
Based upon a recent survey of households and the occupancy standards of HACCC as
they apply to establishing the size of the replacement household by bedroom count,
there appears to be 4% that are under-housed and require a larger unit, approximately
33 % of the households are over-housed and require a smaller-sized unit and 63 % are
in a right-sized unit at this time.
HACCC's occupancy standard for the Housing Choice Voucher program provides for
a bedroom for the head of household and spouse and a bedroom for each additional
two persons in the household regardless of age or sex.
E. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY
Relocation Eligibility Under 24 CFR Part 970 and the URA
Part 970.5 (h) determines that it is the responsibility of HACCC to comply with the URA
and to ensure compliance with the URA (not withstanding any third party contractual
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 401
agreements).As applied to this project, 970.5 (i) defines a displaced person as any
person (household, business or non-profit organization) that moves from Las Deltas as
a direct result of the demolition. Notwithstanding that definition, in accordance with
970.5 (i) (2) (v) (B) (3) a person does not qualify as a displaced person if they have
been:
• Evicted for serious or repeated violation of the terms and conditions of their
lease, violation of applicable Federal, State or local law or other good cause, and
HACCC determines that eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading
the obligation to provide relocation assistance;
• The person moved into the property after submission of the application for
demolition or disposition and the person was informed of the impact the Project
could have on them in writing (also referred to as a Move-In Notice); or
• The person is otherwise ineligible for relocation assistance under the URA as
described in in 24.2 (9) (ii) of the URA.
All relocation programs must establish the date on which a person becomes eligible to
receive relocation assistance. This date is known as the Initiation of Negotiations (ION).
Per 970.5 (k), the ION is the date that HUD approves the HACCC demolition and
disposition application for all 214 units, which may occur late 2016 or early 2017. In
accordance with the URA, the ION is the date the project agrees to accept federal
assistance, which will be the date that a RAD Conversion Certificate (RCC) is received
and HACCC agrees to accept to RAD assistance per its Conversion Strategy outlined in
the Introduction of this Plan.
For the purposes of this Plan, the ION date for the intent of establishing the date a
person became is eligible for relocation assistance will be determined by the date HUD
approves the RAD Conversion Commitment (RCC) for all 214 units. This date is used to
establish the ION for determining relocation assistance eligibility under the Guidelines
and CRAL. Households who were lawful tenants on thisdate will be eligible to receive
relocation assistance, so long as they are in good standing, did not sign a move in
notice, and do not vacate the property prior to receiving an NOE from HACCC or OPC.
HACCC issued a General Information Notice (GIN) to all households on October 22,
2015. This notice advises the household not to move until they receive further notice.
Any household or person who vacates after receiving this notice and prior to receiving
anNOE or notice of ineligibility will not be eligible to receive relocation assistance. After
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 402
HUD approves the demolition and disposition of the Site, an NOE may be issued to all
households immediately or shortly thereafter. The NOE will be issued to each
household at least 90-days prior to the date the household must vacate before
demolition of the unit.
Relocation Eligibility Under RAD
RAD is a source of federal participation that requires relocation to be in accordance with
the URA. Under the RAD program, a household is eligible to receive permanent
relocation assistance if they are displaced by a project such as what is planned for Las
Deltas. The household becomes eligible for relocation assistance once HUD issues an
RCC. An RCC has not been issued by HUD for all 214 units.
Each household will receive a RAD Relocation Notice after the RCC is issued. The
notice will explain their relocation rights under the RAD program, including the
requirement to be provided permanent relocation assistance in accordance with the
URA including advisory services, replacement housing, and moving assistance. This
notice will be in addition to other notices required under the URA.
Ineligibility for Relocation Assistance
Any residential household that has been evicted for cause, voluntarily movesfrom the
property after receiving the General Information Notice (GIN), ordoes not have a lease
documenting lawful occupation of their unit will not be eligible to receive relocation
assistance.
F. REPLACEMENT HOUSING NEEDS
Residents will have four months from the point at which their HCV and/or Notice of
Eligibility are issued to them, to move from their unit. During that time, the resident will
be offered advisory assistance to assist them in the move. HACCC will consider an
extension of the 120-day period, on a case-by-case basis for extenuating
circumstances. Should the request for an extension of time be denied, families will
have the right to grieve this determination pursuant to the grievance procedure outlined
in this document.
Generally, the Housing Choice Voucher Program is limited to families earning 50% of
Annual Median Income (AMI), by household size, as compared to an income-limit of
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 403
80% of AMI for the public housing program. However, because families at Las Deltas
will be treated as “continuing participants”, all families in good standing will be offered a
HCV.
Any household in good standing will be afforded, depending upon availability, the
opportunity to transfer to ‘comparable replacement housing’ utilizing occupancy
standards applicable to public housing units or the Housing Choice Voucher program,
depending on choice of continuing housing assistance, and payment of actual and
reasonable moving expenses.
In addition to meeting Housing Choice Voucher Housing Quality Standards (HQS),
“comparable replacement housing” includes standards such as:
• Comparable as to the number of bedrooms, living space, and type and
quality of construction, but neither lesser, nor greater in rooms or living
space than necessary to accommodate the household pursuant to
HACCC’s occupancy standards;
• Inanareathatdoesnothaveunreasonableenvironmentalconditions;
• Is not generally less desirable than the Las Deltas unit with respect to
proximity to schools, employment, health and medical facilities and other
public and commercial facilities and services; and,
• Is within the financial means of the household as defined in Section
6008, subdivision (c)(5) of the Guidelines.
Replacement Housing and Re-housing Plan
All households will be required to permanently vacate their current unit. This will result
in a permanent displacement of all households. No eminent replacement housing
construction project is planned for the site. No opportunities have been identified for the
household’s to return to a new replacement housing unit at the Site. The primary
replacement housing resources will be,
• Housing Units accepting a HCV available on the market in Contra Costa County
and other jurisdictions,
• Other low income housing units such as Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) units available on the market in Contra Costa County and in other
jurisdictions,
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 404
• Existing and under construction affordable housing projects with Project Based
Voucher contracts (which may require the household to forgo its HCV),
• Units within below market rate housing programs that accepts a HCV,
• Other LIPH units in the HACCC portfolio,
• Other housing on the market not owned or controlled by HACCC and not
presently participating in the Housing Choice Voucher Program that may elect to
do so.
Should a household elect to leave HACCC jurisdiction they would be required to “port”
their voucher. HACCC and OPC would provide assistance to the household to do so.
Replacement Housing Survey
An estimated 95 replacement housing units will be required to provide permanent
replacement housing for those displaced from Las Deltas.
To assess the current availability of potential replacement housing units, OPC
conducted a preliminary housing surveyin March and April of 2016 of units currently
available in the North Richmond area, other communities in Contra Costa County, and
outside of HACCC jurisdiction. This survey provides a sample of unit availability at this
point in time.OPC included studio up to 5 bedroom units in its search to provide as
broad of search possible given the potential for a household to elect to downsize, move
to a larger unit to alleviate over-crowding, or find opportunities to lease a larger unit
within the payment standard of their voucher size.
Table 5 provides the results of this survey. OPC will conduct periodic survey updates
and track the progress of new affordable housing projects currently under construction.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 405
Table 5: Replacement Housing Survey Results Housing Choice Voucher Units
Housing Authority
Jurisdiction
Unit Size
Studio 1 BR 2 BR 3 BR 4 BR 5 BR
Contra Costa County 7 10 7 4
Richmond 2 2
Alameda County 1 3 2
Oakland 31 15 5
Berkeley 2 2 1
Vallejo 2 1 2
Solano County 2 10 5
Marin 1 2
Napa County 1
Total Located 2 11 63 31 11 2
Grand Total
Located/Needed 120/95
More in-depth replacement housing searches, based on the residents’ needs and
location requests prior to relocations will occur as often as necessary to provide ample
rehousing information to the displaced households. Outreach will be necessary by
HACCC and OPC to promote acceptance of the HCV. OPC will work with households
early in the process (as early as the interview stage) to place their names on waitlists
for affordable housing and below market rate housing programs. Table 6 below
provides a tally of properties that currently have open waitlists in various locations.
Based on the limited availability of units located within HACCC jurisdiction, a phased
relocation process or a longer duration under the notice to vacate may be warranted.
Any over-income households will be offered a transfer to other public housing units or
referred to open-market housing.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 406
Table 6: Open Waitlist Properties by Location
Location # of
Alameda 1
Concord 4
El Cerrito 1
Emeryville 1
Hayward 1
Hercules 1
Martinez 3
Oakland 3
Orinda 1
San Pablo 1
Walnut Creek 1
Total Properties 18
G. CONCURRENT RESIDENTIAL DISPLACEMENT
There are no major public housing conversion projects or large redevelopment,
dispositions, conversion, or repositioning of other forms of affordable housing that are
expected to impact the ability of HACCC, through OPC, to relocate the displaced
households. There are three active and proposed rehabilitation projects in the City of
Richmond that could reduce unit availability; however, these projects are largely utilizing
on-site temporary housing units, extended stay style hotels and properties that are
primarily market rate with rents priced above the current HACCC payment
standard.These projects do not pose a substantial impact or threat to a successful
rehousing program for this Project.
H. RELOCATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
Relocation Staff Availability and Responsibilities
OPC’s Oakland, CA based staff will be available to assist all displaced household with
questions about relocation and/or assistance in relocating.For the time being, OPC staff
can be contacted at 510.638.3081 between the hours of 9 am and 5 pm Monday-Friday.
After business hour appointments will be made as needed for households who cannot
meet during normal business hours. The households will be notified in the future of the
names, phone numbers and email addresses of the team assigned to the Project.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 407
Should staff contact information change, this relocation plan will be updated, and the
households will receive a notice of the change.
OPC mayutilize space at Las Deltas for a relocation office. In the interim, OPC’s main
office in the area is located at 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 480, Oakland, CA 94621.
OPC staff should be contacted in advance to schedule an appointment at this office to
ensure that a knowledgeable person is available to meet with the household.
Specific activities performed by relocation staff will include:
1. Personally present and explain the household’s NOE.
2. Distribute the 90 Notice to Vacate, and where applicable, a 30-Day Notice to
Vacate and other reminder notices related to the household’svacate date.
3. Provide referrals to at least three comparable replacement housing units with
the household’s NOE and provide additional referralsas needed and required.
4. Provide the households with relocation counseling services to assist them in
making good decisionsto plan their move.
5. Coordinate moves to the household’s permanent replacement unit.
6. Assist with the completion and filing of relocation claims, rental applications,
and appeals forms, if necessary.
7. Other assistance that may be appropriate to ensure the household receives
services and benefits that are reasonably permitted and/or required under the
URA and necessary to ensure that hardships and impacts are reduced as much
as possible in the relocation process.
8. Document receipt of all required notices, housing referrals provided, signed
claims and receipts of payments, and demonstration of advisory services and
relocation assistance provided to the residents in the household’s relocation
file.
9. Attend tenant meetings, as needed, with or in place of HACCC.
Noticing
Notices may be personally served where needed or mailed with a certified return
receipt. All notices and proof of service will be maintained in OPC’s relocation case files.
At a minimum, each householdwill receive the following from OPC. Samples of these
notices are provided in Appendix E. All notices and other informational documents
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 408
provided will include OPC’s contact information and any directions to the resident to
contact OPC.Notices will be provided to the household in their primary language.
1. Interview request letter. This letter shall be the first formal notification the
household’s will receive from OPC. This letter shall invite the household to
contact OPC to conduct their relocation interview.
2. A relocation assistance informational brochure or statement.These statements
will be personally served in all cases with the exception of cases where the
household does not make itself available to meet with OPC. In such a case this
statement will be mailed certified returned receipt mail.
3. A RAD Relocation Notice in addition to their NOE, if applicable.These notices will
be personally served in all cases with the exception of cases where the
household does not make itself available to meet with OPC. In such a case this
notice will be mailed certified returned receipt mail.
4. NOE. This notice describes the relocation assistance the householdis eligible to
receive and the households and HACCC’s rights and responsibilities. This notice
provides the maximum level housing assistance payment the household may be
eligible to receive and the maximum fixed move payment (aka self-move
payment) they will be eligible to receive. These notices will be personally served
in all cases with the exception of cases where the household does not make itself
available to meet with OPC. In such a case this notice will be mailed certified
returned receipt mail.
5. A notice of ineligibility. Any person not eligible forrelocation assistance will
receive a notice of ineligibility. The notice will statewhy they are not eligible to
receive relocation assistance. This notice will be mailed certified mail.
6. A 90-Day Notice to Vacate prior to their required vacation date. These notices
will be mailed to each household via certified mail/return receipt requested and
first class mail unless served concurrently with the NOE.
7. A 30-Day Notice to Vacate prior to their required vacation date. These notices
will be mailed to each household via certified mail/return receipt requested and
first class mail. NOTE: A 30-Day Notice to Vacate would only be served in cases
were a household is still occupying their unit 30 days prior to the expiration of the
90-Day Notice.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 409
Replacement Housing Assistance
Advisory Assistance:All households will be required to permanently relocate from Las
Deltas. OPC will meet with all households to ascertain their replacement housing needs,
locations they will consider, and other information to assist them locate appropriate
replacement housing. OPC will provide assistance to all households to locate and
secure a suitable replacement housing unit including providing them referrals, assisting
prepare and submit applications and coordinating transportation for them where
needed. HACCC will work with OPC to provide residents with assistance to be placed
on waiting lists for properties that HACCC holds Project Based Voucher Housing
Assistance Payment (HAP) contracts on.
Permanent Replacement Housing Assistance Payment:
Households Transferring to Other Public Housing
Householdsmay have the opportunity to move into anotherpublic housing unit within
HACCC’s portfolio. In these cases the household would lease a unit with a rent at no
greater than 30% of their income with adjustments for utility services such as electricity
and gas. The household would not receive any further housing assistance.
Housing Choice VoucherEligibleHouseholds
As residents of public housing, on-going rental assistance will be provided pursuant to
the provisions of the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) program of the U.S. Department
of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The HCV program provides for a
household to continue paying thirty percent (30%) of the household adjusted income for
their monthly housing rental costs. The provision is subject to the gross rent not
exceeding the HCV Payment Standard for that household's voucher size.
In order to alleviate hardships for tenants who must pay “move-in costs” (such as credit
report fees and security deposits), HACCC will provide up to seventy-five dollars
($75.00) for credit checks and a maximum of two months’ security deposit based upon
the maximum monthly rent payment standards as approved by HACCC.
Housing Choice Voucher Program (HCVP) Payment Standards are set by HACCC
based upon the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)-published
Fair Market Rents. They're updated, at least, annually. A payment standard is the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 410
maximum allowable monthly assistance payment in HACCC's jurisdiction for an
assisted household's (1) contract rent; and (2) those essential utilities for which the
tenant is responsible, including a stove or refrigerator provided by the household.
Payment standards are used to determine how much of the rent is paid by HACCC,
and how much by the household. Payment standards do NOT determine or limit the
rent a landlord may charge.
The maximum contract rent a landlord may charge is based on the reasonable rent for
the unit and the household's income. HACCC Payment Standards are listed below.
Households can request the payment standards for other areas from OPC.
HACCC HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PAYMENT STANDARDS
Voucher
Size 0-BR 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR
Payment
Standard * $1242 $1497 $1,893 $2,639 $2,941 $3,383
Manufactured Home Space Rent $841 -40% of 2 BR FMR
* Antioch, Bay Point, Bethel Island, Brentwood, Byron, Discovery Bay, Knightsen, Oakley Only
HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PAYMENT STANDARDS:
HACCC HIGH COST AREA
Voucher
Size 0-BR 1-BR 2-BR 3-BR 4-BR 5-BR
Payment
Standard $1,449 $1,746 $2,208 $3,079 $3,431 $3,946
The above listed payment standards, which includes all utilities, represent the
maximum amount the contract rent may be for each bedroom size indicated. Once a
Request for Tenancy Approval (RTA) has been received, the Program Specialist will
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 411
negotiate the contract rent with the owner. The rents offered will be based on
comparable rents in the area and the condition of the unit submitted on the RTA.
If a household cannot find a comparable replacement home at a monthly rent that is at
or below HACCC’s payment standard, that household may be eligible to receive a gap
differential, called a “rental assistance payment. ”This differential will enable the
household to cover the gap for 42 months.
The household may receive this adjustment only if without such assistance, in
HACCC’s determination, the household cannot lease a comparable home or apartment
that is affordable at 30% of their adjusted monthly income. If a household qualifies for a
rental assistance payment, the household’s rent share plus utilities still must not
exceed 40% of their adjusted monthly income.
Table 7on the following page provides a sample calculation of this payment.
Table 7: Example Computation of Rent Differential Payment *
1. Rent of Displacement
Unit $800 Displacement Rent plus Utility Costs
or
2. Ability to Pay $750 30% of the Gross Household Income
3. Lesser of lines 1 or 2 $750
Subtracted From:
4. Actual New Rent $950 Actual New Rent including Utility Allowance
or
5. Comparable Rent $1,000 Determined by Agency; includes Utility
Allowance
6. Lesser of lines 4 or 5 $950
7. Yields Monthly Need: $200 Subtract line 3 from line 6
8. Rental Assistance $8,400 Multiply line 7 by 42 months
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 412
*Note: This is a sample case only and is not reflective of actual market
conditions. Not all households will receive this type of relocation assistance. The
household should discuss their eligibility for this type of relocation assistance
prior to making any decisions regarding their replacement housing options. This
form of payment will be provided based on need.
Moving Assistance
Households will have two options for moving assistance; a professional or self-move.
OPC Staff will meet with each household to explain the moving assistance services that
will be made available to them and ascertain the move option that best suit their needs
and abilities.
Option 1: Self-Move (Fixed Payment In-lieu of Actual and Reasonable Move
Costs): Should a household choose to conduct a self-move to their replacement
housing, they will receive a Fixed Move Payment (FMP) based on the current number of
rooms of personal property in their Las Deltas unit in lieu of having a professional mover
relocate their personal property for them. The current federal FMP schedule for the
state of California is presented in Table 8 on the following page. The household would
not receive moving compensation for costs such as labor, boxes and other packing
materials, utility transfers, or other costs related to the physical move of their home, if
they elect the FMP, because the intent of the FMP is to provide funds to the household
to pay for all costs associated with the move per the URA.OPC will prepare and process
the appropriate claim for the household to receive assistance.
Table 8: Federal Fixed Move Payment Schedule
# of Moveable
Rooms
Typical Unit Size
Equivalent
Payment
Amount
3 Rooms Typical 1 BR $1,100
4 Rooms Typical 2 BR $1,295
5 Rooms Typical 3 BR $1,570
6 Rooms Typical 4 BR $1,815
Additional Rooms i.e. outdoor storage $250
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 413
Option 2: Professional Move. HACCC will directly pay for any professional moving
services required.OPC staff will obtain multiple bids for HACCC’s consideration to hire
the lowest responsible bidding moving contractor (or contractors if multiple contractors
may serve the Project’s needs better) to provide moving services to senior and disabled
households. Vendors will be licensed by the California Public Utilities Commission
(CPUC), insured and bonded.
Services would include full packing, moving, loading, unloading, unpacking, and full
replacement value insurance necessary to move the household’s personal property to
their permanent housing unit. Additional vendors may be needed for debris hauling
services and other services that may be needed by senior and/or disabled households.
These needs will behandled on a phase by phase, case by case basis. Such services
are referred to as related services. OPC will coordinate all services needed by the
resident for their move.
Utility Transfer Fee Reimbursement
All households that elect to be moved by the mover will be reimbursed for the actual
cost of transferring/reconnecting existing telephone, utility and cable services. HACCC
will not cover the cost of modifying existing telephone, utility or cable bill arrangements,
or cost associated with new service. Residents are responsible for notifying the
telephone, cable, electric, gas, and other utility companies of the need for a transfer.
Special assistance will be provided to elderly, disabled and non-English speaking
households as necessary. HACCC will reimburse residents for the actual transfer cost
upon presentation of an itemized bill from the appropriate company. Advance payments
may be considered, if a household demonstrates a financial hardship.
I. PAYMENT OF RELOCATION BENEFITS
Should there be any payment of relocation assistance payments payable to the
household, the payment will be made expeditiously. In order to receive any applicable
replacement housing payments, the household must rent and occupy a decent, safe
and sanitary replacement housing within 12 months after they vacate Las Deltas. All
persons eligible to receive a payment must submit claims and supporting
documentation for relocation benefits to OPC no later than 18 months after the date
they vacate the Project Site in order to remain eligible for payment.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 414
A sample claim form is provided in Appendix E of this Plan. The procedure for the
preparation and filing of claims and the processing and delivery of payments will be as
follows:
1. Claimant(s) will provide all necessary documentation to substantiate eligibility for
assistance;
2. OPC will review all necessary documentation before reaching a determination as
to which expenses are eligible for compensation;
3. Required claim forms will be prepared by OPC and be presented to the claimant
for their review and signature. Signed claims and supporting documentation will
be returned to relocation staff for processing of payment;
4. OPC will review and approve claims for payment or request additional
information;
5. OPC will issue benefit checks to claimants in the most secure, expeditious
manner possible;
6. Receipts of payment and all claims materials will be maintained in the relocation
case file;
7. In cases where the displacee disputes the amount of payment they are awarded
in the claim, they may make a written appeal in accordance with the appeals
process defined in Section L of this plan. Further details regarding the appeals
process and a sample appeals request form is provided in Appendix F of this
Plan.
J. IMMIGRATION STATUS
Federal legislation (PL105-117) prohibits the payment of relocation assistance benefits
under the URA to any alien not lawfully present in the United States unless such
ineligibility would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s
spouse, parent, or child any of whom is a citizen or an alien admitted for permanent
residence. Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is defined as significant and
demonstrable adverse impact on the health or safety, continued existence of the
household unit, and any other impact determined by HACCC to negatively affect the
alien’s spouse, parent or child.
In order to track and account for relocation assistance and benefit payments, OPC will
be required to seek immigration status information from each displacee 18 years of age
or older by having them self-certify as to their legal status. Each household will be
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 415
required to sign a certificate of lawful presence prior to any direct payment of relocation
payments. Any residents not lawfully present in the United States that are paid
relocation assistance will not be paid with any source of federal funds.
HACCC will pay relocation assistance with a non-federal source of funds to eligible
persons not lawfully present in the United States.
K. EVICTION POLICY
It is recognized that eviction is permissible only as a last resort and that relocation
records must be documented to reflect the specific circumstances surrounding any
eviction. Eviction will only take place in cases of nonpayment of rent; a serious violation
of the rental agreement; a dangerous or illegal act in the unit; violation of federal, state,
or local laws; or, if the household refuses all reasonable offers to move.
L. APPEALS POLICY
HACCC’s Grievance Policy will follow the standards described in Article 5, Section
6150 et seq., Title 25, Chapter 6, State of California, Department of Housing and
Community Development (H&CD) Program guidelines.
Briefly stated, a displaced household will have the right to ask for review when there is a
perceived grievance regarding any of its (the household’s) rights to relocation and
relocation assistance, including the determination as to eligibility, the amount of
payment, or the failure to provide a comparable replacement housing referral. Appeals
regarding HACCC property management practices may also be considered.
AppendixFprovides a full description of the appeals process.
Requests for review will be directed first to OPC to attempt to resolve between the
Household and the relocation agent. If the matter cannot be resolved in this manner, the
appeal would then be sent
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa,
Attn: TBD
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 416
Should the appellant and HACCC not be able to resolve the appeal, the appellant may
forward their appeal to the HACCC Commission or a duly appointed body serving as the
Appeals Board.
Pursuant to California Code of Regulations Section 6156(d), a complainant shall have18
months from the time s/he moves from the property to file a request for an informal
settlement of a grievance or a formal grievance hearing under HACCC’s Grievance
Procedure.
M. PROJECTED RELOCATION SCHEDULE
The general relocation planning and implementation schedule is shown below. The
relocation schedule is subject to change and will be updated in future updates to this
Plan.
• Relocation Plan Development: March – April, 2016
• Household interviews – 3rd Quarter of 2016
• Plan Public Comment Period: 4th Quarter of 2016
• Board Adoption Hearing: 4th Quarter of 2016
• Relocation Status Update Meetings With Tenants: Periodically 2016 –2017
• Relocations: 1st and 2nd Quarter of 2017
The relocation schedule will be developed in greater detail by OPC once more detailed
project schedules are available from the HACCC.OPC will prepare and provide periodic
schedule updates to the HACCC as requested and to the households as needed to
keep them advised and informed of upcoming relocation activity that may affect them.
N. ESTIMATED RELOCATION COSTS
The estimated relocation cost provided below is based on the best current available
data related to the overall project schedule, potential number of relocations, and the
estimated vendor costs as of April 4, 2016.
This cost estimate includes the cost of professional services, utility transfer, security
deposit and application fee reimbursements, and potential rental assistance payments
that may be required.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 417
The cost estimate is considered conservative at this time and should remain as such
until certain factors are better understood and more easily controlled, including the
number of total relocations and the number of household that may be able to conduct
self-moves.
A 20% contingency has been used to mitigate against potential cost increases,
including the provision of services not yet considered in the Plan, higher than estimated
rent differential payments, moving cost increases based on formal bids and ultimate
vendor contracts, and other unforeseen factors that could increase the cost of
implementing this Plan. A 20% contingency is used, because there is a lengthy time
horizon between its approval and actual implementation of relocation.
The approval of this Plan does not constitute the approval of the relocation budget for
the purposes of determining maximum levels of eligible compensation. These
maximums will be based on actual data at the time of the preparation of an NOE in
accordance with the URA. The HACCC cannot offer lesser relocation payments than
those required by the URA, Guidelines or CRAL in order to conform to the parameters
of the preliminary budget that is included in the approved relocation plan.
This is an important Section of the Plan to be monitored and periodically updated.
As the project variables become more reliable, updates to the budget will be prepared.
Table 9 below provides the preliminary proforma cost estimate for the Project. As
stated, the cost estimate is subject to change as the project details are solidified in
greater detail.
Table 9: Proforma Relocation Cost Estimate *
Cost Estimate Line Item Estimated Cost
Estimated Residential Relocation Costs $1,338,000.00
*Cost estimate is subject to change. Estimate is not an assumption of any cash
payout to any household.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 418
O. RESIDENT PARTICIPATION/PLAN REVIEW
In accordance with the Guidelines, the Plan is required to be circulated for a minimum of
a 30-day public review and comment period. HACCC has elected to exceed this
requirement.
The Plan will be made available to each Project household for a 45-day review period
and their written comments will be collected. Households will receive a notice of the
Plan’s availability and a summary of the Plan. Non-Las Deltas residents, including
public agencies, advocacy groups and other interested parties, will also be invited to
provide written comments to the Plan. The comment period will open on June 17, 2016
and the public will have the opportunity to comment on the document until the public
hearing on August 9, 2016 when it is submitted to the Board of Commissioners for
approval.
A copy of this Plan will be available for review at the following locations beginning on
June 17, 2016:
• Las Deltas Housing Development: 1601 No. Jade Street, North Richmond, CA
• El Pueblo Housing Development: 875 El Pueblo Ave., Pittsburg, CA
• Oakley Housing Development: 909 A Rosemary Lane Oakley, CA
• Rodeo Housing Development: 2 California Street, Rodeo, CA
• Main Office: 3133 Estudillo Street, Martinez, CA
• Housing Choice Voucher Office: 2870 Howe Rd., Martinez, CA
The Plan may also be accessed online at www.contracostahousing.org. A summary of
the draft Relocation Plan will also be presented at a resident meeting on July 21, 2016
at the Las Deltas site.
The Plan will be presented for approval to the HACCC Commission Board on or around
August 9, 2016. Further notice will be provided to the Project residents regarding the
Commission hearing.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 419
Any written comments or questions received will be included in Appendix G of the Final
Relocation Plan to be presented to the Commission for approval.
All written comments should be mailed, faxed, or emailed to:
Chad Wakefield
Senior Project Manager
Overland, Pacific and Cutler
7901 Oakport Street, Suite 4800
Oakland, CA 94621
Email: cwakefield@opcservices.com
Fax: (562) 304-2020
Once approved, this Plan will be updated if regulatory changes occur that impact the
Project and relocation of the households.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 420
LIST OF APPENDICES:
A. RELOCATION TERMS GLOSSARY .................................................................. 36
B. APPLICABLE RELOCATION REGULATIONS .................................................. 52
C. RESIDENT MEETING MATERIALS ................................................................... 48
D. RESIDENT MEETING DOCUMENTATION ........................................................ 49
E. SAMPLE RELOCATION FORMS ....................................................................... 50
F. RELOCATION APPEAL / GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES ................................... 73
G. WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE RELOCATION PLAN ..................................... 81
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 421
A. GLOSSARY OF RELOCATION TERMS
90-Day Notice This is a notice that may be given to a person who will be required to
move a residence, business or personal property as a result of the agency's project. It
informs the person that he or she must move the residence, business or personal
property 90 days from the date of the notice. This notice can only be given after a
relocation plan is approved and a Notice of Eligibility or other form of eligibility notice for
relocation benefits has been given to the displaced person(s).
30-Day Notice This is a notice that may be given to a person who will be required to
move a residence, business or personal property as a result of the agency's project. It
informs the person that he or she must move the residence, business or personal
property 30 days from the date of the notice. This notice can only be given after a 90-
day notice is given to the displaced person(s).
Comparable Replacement Dwelling The term comparable replacement dwelling
means a dwelling which is:
(i) Decent, safe and sanitary; (ii) Functionally equivalent to the displacement dwelling.
The term functionally equivalent means that it performs the same function, and provides
the same utility. While a comparable replacement dwelling need not possess every
feature of the displacement dwelling, the principal features must be present. Generally,
functional equivalency is an objective standard, reflecting the range of purposes for
which the various physical features of a dwelling may be used. However, in determining
whether a replacement dwelling is functionally equivalent to the displacement dwelling,
the Agency may consider reasonable trade-offs for specific features when the
replacement unit is equal to or better than the displacement dwelling; (iii) Adequate in
size to accommodate the occupants; (iv) In an area not subject to unreasonable
adverse environmental conditions; (v) In a location generally not less desirable than the
location of the displaced person’s dwelling with respect to public utilities and commercial
and public facilities, and reasonably accessible to the person’s place of employment;
(vi) on a site that is typical in size for residential development with normal site
improvements, including customary landscaping. The site need not includespecial
improvements such as outbuildings; (vii) Currently available to the displaced person on
the private market; and (viii) Within the financial means of the displaced person: A
replacement dwelling rented by an eligible displaced person is considered to be within
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 422
his or her financial means if, after receiving rental assistance under this part, the
person’smonthly rent and estimated average monthly utility costs for the replacement
dwelling do not exceed the person’s base monthly rental for the displacement dwelling;
For a displaced person who is not eligible to receive a replacement housing payment
because of the person’s failure to meet length-of occupancy of occupancy
requirements, comparable replacement rental housing is considered to be within the
person’s financial means if an Agency pays that portion of the monthly housing costs of
a replacement dwelling which exceeds the person’s base monthly rent for the
displacement dwelling. Such rental assistancemust be paid under Replacement housing
of last resort. (ix) For a person receiving government housing assistance before
displacement, a dwelling that may reflect similar government housing assistance. In
such cases any requirements of the government housing assistance program relating to
the size of the replacement dwelling shall apply.
Decent, Safe, and Sanitary Dwelling The term decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling
means a dwelling which meets local housing and occupancy codes. However, any of
the following standards which are not metby the local code shall apply unless waived for
good cause by the Federal Agency funding the project. The dwelling shall: (i) Be
structurally sound, weather tight, and in good repair; (ii) Contain a safe electrical wiring
system adequate for lighting and other devices; (iii) Contain a heating system capable
of sustaining a healthful temperature (of approximately 70 degrees) for a displaced
person, except in those areas where local climatic conditions do not require such a
system; (iv) Be adequate in size with respect to the number of rooms and area of living
space needed to accommodate the displaced person. The number of persons
occupying each habitable room used for sleeping purposes shall not exceed that
permitted by local housing codes or, in the absence of local codes, the policies of the
displacing Agency. In addition, the displacing Agency shall follow the requirements for
separate bedrooms for children of the opposite gender included in local housing codes
or in the absence of local codes, the policies of such Agencies; (v) There shall be a
separate, well lighted and ventilated bathroom that provides privacy to the user and
contains a sink, bathtub or shower stall, and a toilet, all in good working order and
properly connected to appropriate sources of water and to a sewage drainage system.
In the case of a housekeeping dwelling, there shall be a kitchen area that contains a
fully usable sink, properly connected to potable hot and cold water and to a sewage
drainage system, and adequate space and utility service connections for a stove and
refrigerator; (vi) Contains unobstructed egress to safe, open space at ground level; and
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 423
(vii) For a displaced person with a disability, be free of any barriers which would
preclude reasonable ingress, egress, or use of the dwelling by such displaced person.
Displacement The act of requiring a displaced person to move permanently from the
dwelling in which they occupy for a federally or State funded or sponsored project.
Displacement Dwelling The term displacement dwelling means the dwelling unit on
the real property that the displaced person moves from or moves his or her personal
property from the real property.
Displacing Agency The term displacing Agency means any Federal Agency carrying
out a program or project, and any State, State Agency, or person carrying out a
program or project with Federal financial assistance, which causes a person to be a
displaced person.
Displaced Person (i) General the term displaced person means any person who
moves from the real property or moves his or her personal property from the real
property. This includes a person who occupies the real property prior to its acquisition,
but who does not meet the length of occupancy requirements. (A) As a direct result of a
written notice of intent to acquire, the initiation of negotiations for, or the acquisition of,
such real property in whole or in part for a project; (B) As a direct result of rehabilitation
or demolition for a project. (ii) Persons not displaced. The following is a nonexclusive
listing of persons who do not qualify as displaced persons under this part: (A) A person
who moves before the initiation of negotiations, unless the Agency determines that the
person was displaced as a direct result of the program or project; (B) A person who
initially enters into occupancy of the property after the date of its acquisition for the
project; (C) A person who has occupied the property for the purpose of obtaining
assistance under the Uniform Act; (D) A person who is not required to relocate
permanently as a direct result of a project. Such determination shall be made by the
Agency in accordance with any guidelines established by the Federal Agency funding
the project, or as a result of the rehabilitation or demolition of the real property.
(However, the displacement of a tenant as a direct result of any acquisition,
rehabilitation or demolition for a Federal or federally assisted project is subject to this
part.); (E) A person who, after receiving a notice of relocation eligibility, is notified in
writing that he or she will not be displaced for a project. Such written notification shall
not be issued unless the person has not moved and the Agency agrees to reimburse
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 424
the person for any expenses incurred to satisfy any binding contractual relocation
obligations entered into after the effective date of the notice of relocation eligibility.
Fixed Residential Moving Cost Schedule This schedule is used to calculate the
amount of reimbursement that displaced persons may be eligible to receive if they
decide to move their own personal property. The Federal Highways Administration
periodically updates and distributes this schedule. A copy can be found on our web site
at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/index.htm in the section Relocation
Assistance. Payment per this schedule is also known as a fixed move payment.
Good Standing means that a household is the lawful tenant of the unit and the
household must not have been evicted or be in the process of an eviction to maintain
their eligibility.
Household means one or more persons occupying a housing unit.
Low -income Families means families whose annual incomes do not exceed 80
percent of the median income for the area, as determined by HUD with adjustments for
smaller and larger families, except that HUD may establish income ceilings higher or
lower than 80 percent of the median for the area on the basis of HUD findings that such
variations are necessary because of prevailing levels of construction costs or fair market
rents, or unusually high or low household incomes.
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) The term Memorandum of Understanding is
used to describe the document that explains the temporary relocation benefits to be
provided to an occupant of a residential dwelling unit that is required to move from the
unit temporarily. The MOU will be provided the occupant for their review and signature
prior to the expected move date.
Notice of Eligibility (NOE) The term Notice of Eligibility, also referred to as an NOE, is
the written description of the type of permanent relocation benefits and the monetary
amount(s) of those benefits a displaced person is eligible to receive under the
appropriate relocation statutes or laws (for example the URA.) This notice can be given
prior to the approval of the relocation plan as deemed appropriate by the displacing
agency.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 425
Relocation The act of moving permanently or temporarily from a dwelling unit as a
result of a federally or State funded or sponsored project where the URA or other
relocation statutes or laws are triggered.
Rent Differential Payment Amount of assistance paid to a displaced person, who is a
renter, to compensate for the difference between the monthly rent and utility payment
that they will pay at the replacement dwelling unit and what was paid for rent and
utilities at the displacement dwelling. This difference is calculated over a 42 month
period. If Tenant-based Rental Assistance such as Housing Choice Voucher is available
to the displaced person, that amount of assistance will offset a portion of the difference
and any un-met portion of the difference is eligible to be paid for with a rent differential
payment. The payment must be claimed within 18 months after the displaced person
moves from the displacement dwelling.Also referred to as a Rental Assistance Payment
(RAP) or Replacement Housing Payment (RHP).
Replacement Dwelling A replacement dwelling is the unit the displaced person elects
to move to from the displacement dwelling. A displaced person must locate and move
into a replacement dwelling within 12 months of the date they vacate the displacement
dwelling to claim a RAP.
Tenant-based Rental Assistance is a form of rental assistance in which the assisted
tenant may move from a dwelling unit with a right to continued assistance. Tenant-
based rental assistance under this part also includes security deposits for rental of
dwelling units. A common form of Tenant Based Rental Assistance is a Housing Choice
Voucher.
Uniform Act Relocation (URA) The term Uniform Act means the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real PropertyAcquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Pub. L.91–646, 84 Stat.
1894; 42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.), and amendments thereto. Also known as the URA.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 426
B. APPLICABLE RELOCATION REGULATIONS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 427
Permanent Relocation Assistance for Displaced Public Housing Tenants: URA, 104(d), California, and RAD Relocation Requirements 1
URA Section 18 California Law RAD
Relocation Plan Must plan for relocation which may
include conducting a survey of needs
including:
• Estimate of the number of
households to be displaced
including information such as
owner/tenant status, estimated
value and rental rates of properties
to be acquired, household
characteristics, and special
consideration of the impacts on
minorities, the elderly, large
families, and persons with
disabilities when applicable
• Estimate of comparable
replacement housing available
(including price ranges and rental
rates).
• Consideration of any special
relocation advisory services that
may be necessary from the
housing authority and other
cooperating agencies.
No formal plan documents are required,
and no approval process is required.
Relocation Plan must include:
• The number of individual
residents to be displaced;
• The type of counseling and
advisory services the PHA plans
to provide;
• What housing resources are
expected to be available to
provide housing for displaced
residents; and
• An estimate of the costs for
counseling and advisory services
and resident moving expenses,
and the expected source for
payment of these costs.
Relocation must be executed on a
nondiscriminatory basis
PHA must provide in disposition
application the following information:
• The number of occupied units;
• A schedule for relocation on a
month-to-month basis;
As soon as possible following
initiation of negotiation PHA must
prepare relocation plan and
submit for approval of PHA board
of Head of PHA. Plan must be
available for public comment and
review at least 30 days prior to
approval. Plan must contain -
• Analysis of relocation needs
• Projected dates of
displacement
• Analysis of comparable
housing resources
• Description of relocation
advisory services
• Description of relocation
payments
• Cost of carrying out
relocation plan
• Last resort housing plan if
necessary
• Temporary relocation plan if
applicable
• Plans for citizens
participation
• Comments from relocation
committee if applicable.
• Written relocation plan is not
required but strongly encouraged
• Must conform w/ URA 49 CFR
24.205(a)
• Relocation budget
• Certificate of URA Compliance
The Relocation Plan should provide a
general description of and purpose for
the project (e.g., year built, location, # of
units, configuration, occupancy
information, and funding sources.)
The basic components of a plan include:
• A general description of the
project and the site, including
acq., demolition, rehab, and
construction activities and
funding sources;
• A detailed discussion of the
specific steps to be taken to
minimize the adverse impacts
of relocation, including when
transferring the assistance to
a new site;
• Info on occupancy (including
the # of residents, residential
owner-occupants and non-
residential occupants, if any,
to be permanently or temp
relocated);
1 California Relocation Law (California Government Code Section 7260 et seq. (the CRAL"), and the California Relocation Assistance and real Property Acquisition Guidelines, Title 15,
CCR, Section 6000 et seq. (the "Guidelines") (collectively, the "California Relocation Law"); Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, and implementation regulations at 24 CFR Part
970) (collectively, "Section 18"); the Uniform Relocation Act (46 U.S.C. §4600 et seq.), and its implementation regulations (49 CFR Part 24)(collectively, "URA"); RAD is subject to the URA.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 428
URA Section 18 California Law RAD
• Info on relocation needs and
costs (including the # of
residents who plan to relocate
with Housing Choice Voucher
assistance);
• General moving assistance
info;
• Temp move assistance
(including info on duration of
temp moves);
• Permanent move assistance;
and
• Appeals process
Moving &
Related
Expenses (PHA
unit move to a
PHA unit)
PHA choice!
• PHA move resident with force
account staff or contractor ($100
allowance to resident), or allow
resident to choose:
o Payment for actual costs
of a self-move, or
o Payment for self-move at
DOT schedule amount
Or
o A combination of both
• Actual and reasonable relocation
expenses
PHA choice!
• PHA move resident with force
account staff or contractor ($100
allowance to resident), or allow
resident to choose:
o Payment for actual costs of a
self-move, or
o Payment for self-move at DOT
schedule amount
Or
o A combination of both
• PHA responsible for covering all
reasonable moving expenses
incurred in connection with
temporary relocation of a resident.
• The PHA will not make fixed
payments since such payments
may not be representative of actual
reasonable costs incurred.
However, in order for a resident to
be sure of full reimbursement, the
resident should submit a moving
cost estimate to the PHA for
approval prior to the move unless
the PHA is directly carrying out the
move and the resident will incur
any reasonable out-of-pocket
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 429
URA Section 18 California Law RAD
moving expenses.
Moving &
Related
Expenses (PHA
unit move to
non-public
housing—with
or without
Voucher
assistance)
Resident’s choice!
• Payment for actual costs of a Self-
move, or
• Payment for self-move at DOT
schedule amount, or
• A combination of both.
(Optional) PHA may offer to move
resident with force account staff or
contractor ($100 allowance to resident)
• Actual and reasonable relocation
expenses
Actual and reasonable moving
costs including costs for
• Transportation not to exceed
a distance of 50 miles except
where justified
• Packing and unpacking
• Storage of personal property
if necessary
• Replacement value of
property lost, stolen or
damaged
Resident’s choice!
• Payment for actual costs of a Self-
move, or
• Payment for self-move at DOT
schedule amount, or
• A combination of both.
(Optional) PHA may offer to move
resident with force account staff or
contractor ($100 allowance to
resident)
Replacement
Housing
• Offer comparable replacement
dwelling which may be:
o Tenant based assistance
(voucher)
o Project-based
assistance
o Public housing unit
• Provide comparable housing which
may be:
o Tenant based assistance
(voucher)
o Project-based assistance
o Public housing unit
• Provide at least three offers
of comparable replacement
housing – no specific
provisions regarding the use
of subsidized housing as an
offer of comparability.
• Offer comparable replacement
dwelling which may be:
o Tenant based assistance
(voucher)
o Project-based assistance
Public housing unit
o Homeownership housing
o Private-market rental housing
(affordable, non-subsidized).
Replacement
Housing
Payment (RAP)
• Computed on 42-month period
• Amount needed to reduce new
rent/utility costs to the lower of old
rent/utility costs or (for low income
persons only, 30% of gross
monthly income)
• “Gap” payments may be necessary
even between old PHA rent/utilities
and new subsidized rent/utilities
• No Replacement Housing Payment
• No provisions for “gap” payments
• Computed on 42-month
period
• Amount needed to reduce
new rent/utility costs to the
lower of old rent/utility costs
or 30% of gross monthly
income
• “Gap” payments may be
necessary even between old
PHA rent/utilities and new
subsidized rent/utilities
• Computed on 42-month period
• Amount needed to reduce new
rent/utility costs to the lower of old
rent/utility costs or (for low income
persons only, 30% of gross
monthly income)
“Gap” payments may be necessary
even between old PHA rent/utilities
and new subsidized rent/utilities
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 430
URA Section 18 California Law RAD
Notices • General Information Notice (GIN)
• Notice of Eligibility or Non-
displacement at ION
• 90 day notice to vacate
• 90 day notice to move
• General Information Notice
(GIN) within sixty days of
Initiation of Negotiations
• Notice of Eligibility o
• 90 day notice to vacate
• General Information Notice (GIN)
• RAD Notice of Relocation
• Notice of Intent to Acquire
• URA Notice of Relocation
Eligibility-for residents whose
temporary relocation exceeds one
year
• 90 day notice to vacate
Services • Advisory services
o Determine resident
needs and preferences
o Explain payments and
assistance
o Current and continuing
information on
comparable housing
o Inspection of
replacement housing
o Assistance filling out
claim forms
o Mobility counseling
o Transportation to inspect
replacement housing
o Advice on other
assistance sources
o Information on federal
and state housing
programs
• Necessary counseling
• Mobility counseling
• Advisory services
o Determine resident
needs and preferences
o Explain payments and
assistance
o Current and continuing
information on
comparable housing
o Inspection of
replacement housing
o Assistance filling out
claim forms and
applications
o Mobility counseling
o Transportation to
inspect replacement
housing
o Advice on other
assistance sources
• Information on federal and
state housing programs
• Inform all persons about
eviction policies
• Advisory services
o Determine resident needs and
preferences
o Explain payments and
assistance
o Current and continuing
information on comparable
housing
o Inspection of replacement
housing
o Assistance filling out claim
forms
o Mobility counseling
o Transportation to inspect
replacement housing
o Advice on other assistance
sources
o Information on federal and
state housing programs
• May include housing counseling that
should be facilitated to ensure that
residents affected by the project
understand their rights and
responsibilities and the assistance
available to them
• Must also inform residents of their
fair housing rights
• PHAs should inform residents that if
they believe they have experienced
unlawful discrimination, they may
contact HUD at 1-800-669-9777
(Voice) or 1-800-927-9275 (TDD) or
at http://www.hud.gov.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 431
URA Section 18 California Law RAD
Aliens not
lawfully present
in country
• Aliens not lawfully in the country
are not eligible for relocation
benefits
• No prohibition on benefits for illegal
aliens
• No prohibition on benefits for
illegal aliens
• Aliens not lawfully in the country
are not eligible for relocation
benefits
Impact of
eviction on
eligibility
• Persons who are evicted before or
after initiation of negotiation are
ineligible for benefits
• No provisions • Eviction does not impact
eligibility for benefits.
Displaced persons do not
include unlawful occupants
(those persons evicted by
court order or who vacated
after receipt of a termination
notice) unless persons was
occupant of permanently
affordable housing.
• Persons who are evicted before or
after initiation of negotiation are
ineligible for benefits
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 432
C. RESIDENT MEETING MATERIALS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 433
D. RESIDENT MEETING DOCUMENTATION
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 434
E. SAMPLE RELOCATION FORMS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 435
General Information Notice
Residential Occupant to Be Displaced
<<DATE>>
<<HEAD-OF-HOUSEHOLD>> and All Other Occupants
<<MAILING ADDRESS>>
<<CITY, STATE ZIP>>
Dear Occupants:
The <<CLIENT NAME>> (called here the “Displacing Agency”) is interested in
<<INSERT ACTION: e.g. acquiring, rehabilitating, demolishing>> the property you
currently occupy at <<SITE ADDRESS>> for the <<PROJECT NAME>> (Project). This
notice is to inform you of your rights under Federal and or State law. If the Displacing
Agency acquires the property and you are displaced for the Project, you will be eligible
for relocation assistance under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property
Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (URA), as amended and California Relocation
Assistance Law (Sec 7260 et. seq. of the CA Government Code.
However, you do not have to move now.
This is not a notice to vacate the premises or a notice of relocation eligibility.
The Displacing Agencyhas retained the professional firm of Overland, Pacific & Cutler,
Inc. (OPC) to represent the Agency and assist in the relocation process.
In order to assess and better plan for the relocation needs of possible displaced
households in the Project, the Displacing Agencyis preparing a Relocation Plan. In
order to prepare this relocation plan, OPC staff will need to meet with you to assess
your relocation needs. OPC will be out in the neighborhood beginning the week of
<<INTERVIEW DATE>>, and will be trying to contact you then. If you want to make an
appointment that is convenient for you, please call the relocation agent identified below.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 436
If you rent your unit, you should continue to pay your monthly rent to your landlord
because failure to pay rent and meet your obligations as a tenant may be cause for
eviction and loss of relocation assistance. You are urged not to move or sign any
agreement to purchase or lease a unit before receiving formal notice of eligibility for
relocation assistance. If you move or are evicted before receiving such notice, you will
not be eligible to receive relocation assistance. Please contact us before you make any
moving plans.
If the Displacing Agency acquires the property and you are eligible for relocation
assistance, you will be given advisory services, including referrals to replacement
housing, and at least 90 days advance written notice of the date you will be required to
move. You would also receive a payment for moving expenses and may be eligible for
financial assistance to help you rent or buy a replacement dwelling. Any person
aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment authorized
by the Displacing Agency’s Relocation Assistance Program may have the appeal
application reviewed by the Displacing Agency in accordance with its appeals
procedure. Complete details on appeal procedures are available upon request from the
Displacing Agency.
Note that pursuant to Public Law 105-117, aliens not lawfully present in the United
States are not eligible for relocation assistance, unless such ineligibility would result in
exceptional hardship to a qualifying spouse, parent, or child. All persons seeking
relocation assistance will be required to certify that they are a United States citizen or
national, or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
Again, this is not a notice to vacate and does not establish eligibility for relocation
payments or other relocation assistance. If the Displacing Agency decides not to
purchase the property, you will be notified in writing.
If you have any questions about this or any other relocation issues, please contact me
at the address and the phone number below.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 437
Sincerely,
<<PROJECT MANAGER NAME>>
<<PROJECT MANAGER TITLE>>
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
<<OFFICE ADDRESS>>
Phone <<PHONE>>
Carbon Copy To:
<<CC NAME>>
<<CC ADDRESS>>
____________________________ Delivered on/by: ____________/_____________
Received by
X___________________________ Posted on/by: ____________/_______________
Recipient’s Signature
____________________________ Mailed/receipt received on: _________/________
Date
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 438
Relocation Assistance
Informational Statement
for Families and Individuals
(Federal)
Displacing Agency:
<< CLIENT NAME>>
Project Name:
<<PROJECT NAME>>
Displacing Agency Representative:
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
<< OFFICE ADDRESS>>
<< OFFICE CITY>>
Phone: <<OFFICE PHONE>>
Informational Statement Content:
1. General Information
2. Assistance In Locating A Replacement Dwelling
3. Moving Benefits
4. Replacement Housing Payment - Tenants And Certain Others
5. Housing Choice Voucher Tenants
6. Replacement Housing Payment – Homeowners
7. Qualification For And Filing Of Relocation Claims
8. Last Resort Housing Assistance
9. Rental Agreement
10. Evictions
11. Appeal Procedures – Grievance
12. Tax Status of Relocation Benefits
13. Legal Presence Requirement
14. Non-Discrimination and Fair Housing
15. Additional Information And Assistance Available
Spanish speaking agents are available. Si necesita esta información en español, por favor llame a su
agente.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 439
Informational Statement for Families and Individuals
(Federal)
1. GENERAL INFORMATION
The dwelling in which you now live is in a project area to be improved by, or financed through,
the Displacing Agency using federal funds. If and when the project proceeds, and it is
necessary for you to move from your dwelling, you may be eligible for certain benefits. You will
be notified in a timely manner as to the date by which you must move. Please read this
information, as it will be helpful to you in determining your eligibility and the amount of the
relocation benefits you may receive under the federal law. You will need to provide adequate
and timely information to determine your relocation benefits. The information is voluntary, but
if you don’t provide it, you may not receive the benefits or it may take longer to pay you. We
suggest you save this informational statement for reference.
The Displacing Agency has retained the professional firm of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
(OPC) to provide relocation assistance to you. The firm is available to explain the program and
benefits. Their address and telephone number is listed on the cover.
PLEASE DO NOT MOVE PREMATURELY. THIS IS NOT A NOTICE TO VACATE YOUR
DWELLING. However, if you desire to move sooner than required, you must contact your
representative with Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., so you will not jeopardize any benefits.
This is a general informational brochure only, and is not intended to give a detailed description
of either the law or regulations pertaining to the Displacing Agency’s relocation assistance
program.
Please continue to pay your rent to your current landlord, otherwise you may be
evicted and jeopardize the relocation benefits to which you may be entitled to
receive. Once the Displacing Agency acquires the property, you will also be required
to pay rent to the Displacing Agency.
2. ASSISTANCE IN LOCATING A REPLACEMENT DWELLING
The Displacing Agency, through its representatives, will assist you in locating a comparable
replacement dwelling by providing referrals to appropriate and available housing units. You are
encouraged to actively seek such housing yourself.When a suitable replacement dwelling unit
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 440
has been found, your relocation agent will carry out an inspection and advise you as to whether
the dwelling unit meets decent, safe and sanitary housing requirements. A decent, safe and
sanitary housing unit provides adequate space for its occupants, proper weatherproofing and
sound heating, electrical and plumbing systems. Your new dwelling must pass inspection
before relocation assistance payments can be authorized.
3. MOVING BENEFITS
If you must move as a result of displacement by the Displacing Agency, you will receive a
payment to assist in moving your personal property. The actual, reasonable and necessary
expenses for moving your household belongings may be determined based on the following
methods:
• A Fixed Moving Payment based on the number of rooms you occupy (see below); or
• A payment for your Actual Reasonable Moving and Related Expenses based on at
least two written estimates and receipted bills; or
• A combination of both (in some cases).
For example, you may choose a Self-Move, receiving a payment based on the Fixed Residential
Moving Cost Schedule shown below, plus contract with a professional mover to transport your
grand piano and /or other items that require special handling. In this case, there may be an
adjustment in the number of rooms which qualify under the Fixed Residential Moving Cost
Schedule.
A. Fixed Moving Payment (Self-Move)
A Fixed Moving Payment is based upon the
number of rooms you occupy and whether or not
you own your own furniture. The payment is
based upon a schedule approved by the Displacing
Agency, and ranges, for example, from $450.00
for one furnished room to $2,365.00 for eight
rooms in an unfurnished dwelling. (For details see
the table). Your relocation agent will inform you
of the amount you are eligible to receive, if you
choose this type of payment.
If you select a fixed payment, you will be
responsible for arranging for your own move, and
the Displacing Agency will assume no liability for
Fixed Moving Schedule
CALIFORNIA (Effective 2012)
Occupant Owns Furniture:
1 room $685
2 rooms $880
3 rooms $1,100
4 rooms $1,295
5 rooms $1,570
6 rooms $1,815
7 rooms $2,090
8 rooms $2,365
Each additional room $250
Occupant does NOT Own
Furniture:
1 room $450
Each additional room $85
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 441
any loss or damage of your personal property. A fixed payment also includes utility
hook-ups and other related moving fees.
B. Actual Moving Expense (Commercial Move)
If you wish to engage the services of a licensed commercial mover and have the
Displacing Agency pay the bill, you may claim the ACTUAL cost of moving your personal
property up to 50 miles. Your relocation agent will inform you of the number of
competitive moving bids (if any) which may be required, and assist you in developing a
“mover” scope of services for Displacing Agency approval.
4. REPLACEMENT HOUSING PAYMENT – TENANTS AND CERTAIN OTHERS
You may be eligible for a payment up to $7,200.00 to assist in renting or purchasing a
comparable replacement dwelling. In order to qualify, you must either be a tenant or owner
who has occupied the present dwelling for at least 90 days immediately prior to the initiation of
negotiations.
A. Rental Assistance. If you wish to rent your replacement dwelling, your maximum rental
assistance benefits will be based upon the difference over a forty-two (42) month period
between the rent you must pay for a comparable replacement dwelling and the lesser of
your current rent or thirty percent (30%) of your monthly household income if your total
gross income is classified as “low income” by the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development’s (HUD) Annual Survey of Income Limits for Public Housing and Housing
Choice Voucher Programs. You will be required to provide your relocation agent with
monthly rent and household income verification prior to the determination of your eligibility
for this payment.
- OR –
B. Down-payment Assistance. If you qualify, and wish to purchase a home as a
replacement dwelling, you can apply up to the total amount of your rental assistance
payment towards the down-payment and non-recurring incidental expenses. Your relocation
agent will clarify procedures necessary to apply for this payment.
5. HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER TENANTS
When you do move, you may be eligible to transfer your Housing Choice Voucher eligibility to a
replacement site. In such cases, a comparable replacement dwelling will be determined based
on your household composition at the time of displacement and the current housing program
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 442
criteria. This may not be the size of the unit you currently occupy. Your relocation agent will
provide counseling and other advisory services along with moving benefits.
6. QUALIFICATION FOR, AND FILING OF, RELOCATION CLAIMS
To qualify for a Replacement Housing Payment, you must rent or purchase and occupy a
comparable replacement unit within one year from the following:
• For a tenant, the date you move from the displacement dwelling.
• For an owner-occupant, the latter of:
a. The date you receive final payment for the displacement dwelling, or, in the case
of condemnation, the date the full amount of estimated just compensation is
deposited in court; or
b. The date the Displacing Agency fulfills its obligation to make available
comparable replacement dwellings.
All claims for relocation benefits must be filed with the Displacing Agency within eighteen
(18) months from the date on which you receive final payment for your property, or the date,
on which you move, whichever is later.
7. LAST RESORT HOUSING ASSISTANCE
If comparable replacement dwellings are not available when you are required to move, or if
replacement housing is not available within the monetary limits described above, the Displacing
Agency will provide Last Resort Housing assistance to enable you to rent or purchase a
replacement dwelling on a timely basis. Last Resort Housing assistance is based on the
individual circumstances of the displaced person. Your relocation agent will explain the process
for determining whether or not you qualify for Last Resort assistance.
If you are a tenant, and you choose to purchase rather than rent a comparable replacement
dwelling, the entire amount of your rental assistance and Last Resort eligibility must be applied
toward the down-payment and eligible incidental expenses of the home you intend to purchase.
8. RENTAL AGREEMENT
As a result of the Displacing Agency's action to purchase the property where you live, you may
become a tenant of the Displacing Agency. If this occurs, you will be asked to sign a rental
agreement which will specify the monthly rent to be paid, when rent payments are due, where
they are to be paid and other pertinent information.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 443
9. EVICTIONS
Eviction for cause must conform to applicable State and local law. Any person who occupies
the real property and is not in unlawful occupancy on the date of initiation of negotiations, is
presumed to be entitled to relocation benefits, unless the Displacing Agency determines that:
• The person received an eviction notice prior to the initiation of negotiations and, as a
result, was later evicted; or
• The person is evicted after the initiation of negotiations for serious or repeated violation
of material terms of the lease; and
• The eviction was not undertaken for the purpose of evading relocation assistance
regulations.
Except for the causes of eviction set forth above, no person lawfully occupying property to be
purchased by the Displacing Agency will be required to move without having been provided
with at least 90 days written notice from the Displacing Agency.
10. APPEAL PROCEDURES - GRIEVANCE
Any person aggrieved by a determination as to eligibility for, or the amount of, a payment
authorized by the Displacing Agency’s Relocation Assistance Program may have the appeal
application reviewed by the Displacing Agency in accordance with its appeals procedure.
Complete details on appeal procedures are available upon request from the Displacing Agency.
11. TAX STATUS OF RELOCATION BENEFITS
California Government Code Section 7269 indicates no relocation payment received shall be
considered as income for the purposes of the Personal Income Tax Law, Part 10 (commencing
with Section 170 01) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or the Bank and
Corporation Tax law, Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001) of Division 2 of the Revenue
and Taxation Code. Furthermore, federal regulations (49 CFR Part 24, Section 24.209) also
indicate that no payment received under this part (Part 24) shall be considered as income for
the purpose of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, which has been redesignated as the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. The preceding statement is not tendered as legal advice in
regard to tax consequences, and displacees should consult with their own tax advisor or legal
counsel to determine the current status of such payments.
(IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you
that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) was not intended or
written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding tax-related penalties under the
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 444
Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting marketing or recommending to another party any matters
addressed herein)
12. LAWFUL PRESENCE REQUIREMENT
In order to be eligible to receive relocation benefits in federally-funded relocation projects, all
members of the household to be displaced must provide information regarding their lawful
presence in the United States. Any member of the household who is not lawfully present in the
United States or declines to provide this information may be denied relocation benefits, unless
such ineligibility would result in an exceptional and extremely unusual hardship to the alien’s
spouse, parent, or child, any of whom is a citizen or an alien admitted for permanent residence.
Exceptional and extremely unusual hardship is defined as significant and demonstrable adverse
impact on the health or safety, continued existence of the household unit, and any other impact
determined by the Displacing Agency to negatively affect the alien’s spouse, parent or child.
Relocation benefits will be prorated to reflect the number of household members with certified
lawful presence in the US.
13. NON-DISCRIMINATION AND FAIR HOUSING
No person shall on the grounds of race, color, national origin or sex, be excluded from
participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under the
Displacing Agency’s relocation assistance program pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and other applicable state and federal anti-
discrimination and fair housing laws. You may file a complaint if you believe you have been
subjected to discrimination. For details contact the Displacing Agency.
14. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE
Those responsible for providing you with relocation assistance hope to assist you in every way
possible to minimize the hardships involved in relocating to a new home. Your cooperation will
be helpful and greatly appreciated. If you have any questions at any time during the process,
please do not hesitate to contact your relocation agent at Overland, Pacific & Cutler.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 445
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 446
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 447
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 448
SAMPLE RAD RELOCATION NOTICE
PHA Letterhead
[Date]
[Head of Household] and All Other Lawful Occupants
[Address]
Dear [Head of Household]:
The property you currently occupy at the Las Deltas Public Housing property is
participating in the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Rental
Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program.
On [date], the [Public Housing Authority] (PHA) notified you of proposed plans to
completely vacate the property you currently occupy at [address]. On [date], HUD
issued the RAD Conversion Commitment (RCC) and committed federal financial
assistance to the project.
You will receive permanent relocation assistance and payments consistent with the
URA instead of returning to the completed RAD project.
However, you do not need to move now. You will not be required to move sooner
than 90 days after you receive written notice that at least one comparable replacement
unit is available to you in accordance with 49 CFR 24.204(a).
NOTE: Aliens not lawfully present in the United States are not eligible for URA
relocation assistance, unless such ineligibility would result in exceptional and extremely
unusual hardship to a qualifying spouse, parent, or child as defined at 49 CFR
24.208(h). All persons seeking relocation assistance will be required to certify that they
are a United States citizen or national, or an alien lawfully present in the United States.
Permanent relocation assistance, this assistance will include:
Relocation Advisory Services. You are entitled to receive current and continuing
information on available comparable replacement units and other assistance to help you
find another home and prepare to move.
Payment for Moving Expenses. You will be able to elect to have a professional
moving company move your household goods to your replacement housing unit. This
service will be paid for on your behalf by the HACCC. Or you may choose your own
mover. The movers cost cannot exceed the lowest responsible bid received by the
HACCC. You will be required to enter into a self-move agreement should you elect to
hire your own mover. Or you may elect a fixed move payment based on the current
federal fixed move payment schedule provided below, which is based on the number of
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 449
moveable rooms. Your relocation specialist will calculate this payment for you and
prepare the appropriate claim form.
Applicable Fixed Move Payment Schedule
# of Moveable Rooms Typical Unit Size
Equivalent Payment Amount
3 Rooms Typical 1 BR $1,100
4 Rooms Typical 2 BR $1,295
5 Rooms Typical 3 BR $1,570
6 Rooms Typical 4 BR $1,815
Additional Rooms i.e. outdoor storage $250
Replacement Housing Payment – Housing Choice Voucher Eligible. If a Housing
Choice Voucher is available and you are eligible for it, you will be notified under a
separate notice. The HCV may satisfy all of your monthly housing cost. If you have
increased out of pocket cost you may be eligible for a replacement housing payment to
rent or buy a replacement home. The payment is based on several factors including: (1)
the monthly rent and cost of utility services for a comparable replacement unit, (2) the
monthly rent and cost of utility services for your present unit, and (3) 30% of your
average monthly gross household income. This payment is calculated on the difference
between the old and new housing costs for a one-month period and multiplied by 42.
OR
Replacement Housing Payment – Non Housing Choice Voucher Eligible. You may be
eligible for a replacement housing payment to rent or buy a replacement home. The
payment is based on several factors including: (1) the monthly rent and cost of utility
services for a comparable replacement unit, (2) the monthly rent and cost of utility
services for your present unit, and (3) 30% of your average monthly gross household
income. This payment is calculated on the difference between the old and new housing
costs for a one-month period and multiplied by 42.
Listed below are three comparable replacement units that you may wish to consider
for your replacement home. If you would like, we can arrange transportation for you to
inspect these and other replacement units.
Address Rent & Utility Costs Contact Info:
1. ________________________________________________________________
2. ________________________________________________________________
3. ________________________________________________________________
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 450
[Applies to Non-Housing Choice Voucher Eligible Occupants] We believe that the
unit located at [address] is most representative of your original unit in the converting
RAD project. The monthly rent and the estimated average monthly cost of utilities for
this unit is [$ amount] and it will be used to calculate your maximum replacement
housing payment. Please contact us immediately if you believe this unit is not
comparable to your original unit. We can explain our basis for selecting this unit as most
representative of your original unit and discuss your concerns.
Based on the information you have provided about your income and the rent and utilities
you now pay, you may be eligible for a maximum replacement housing payment of
approximately [$ (42 x monthly amount)], if you rent the unit identified above as the
most comparable to your current home or rent another unit of equal cost.
Replacement housing payments are not adjusted to reflect future rent increases or
changes in income. This is the maximum amount that you would be eligible to receive. If
you rent a decent, safe and sanitary home where the monthly rent and average
estimated utility costs are less than the comparable unit, your replacement housing
payment will be based on the actual cost of that unit. All replacement housing payments
must be paid in installments. Your payment will be paid in [#] installments.
You may choose to purchase (rather than rent) a decent, safe and sanitary replacement
home. If you do, you would be eligible for a down-payment assistance payment which is
equal to your maximum replacement housing payment, [$amount.] Let us know if you
are interested in purchasing a replacement home and we will help you locate such
housing.
Please note that all replacement housing must be inspected in order to ensure it is
decent, safe and sanitary before any replacement housing payments are made.
[Applies to Housing Choice Voucher Eligible Occupants] We believe that the unit
located at [address] is most representative of your original unit in the converting RAD
project. The monthly rent and the estimated average monthly cost of utilities for this unit
is [$ amount]. This rent and utility is within the current payment standard for the area. If
Housing Choice Voucher eligible rents increase, you may be entitled to additional
relocation assistance. If this is the case, the information will be used to calculate your
maximum replacement housing payment. Please contact us immediately if you believe
this unit is not comparable to your original unit. We can explain our basis for selecting
this unit as most representative of your original unit and discuss your concerns.
Based on the information you have provided about your income and the rent and utilities
you now pay, you may be eligible for a replacement housing payment on the monthly
rent differential amount between either 30% of your income or your current rent and
utilities, and the contract rent for the replacement housing unit. If you rent the unit
identified above as the most comparable to your current home or rent another unit of
equal cost.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 451
Replacement housing payments are not adjusted to reflect future rent increases or
changes in income. This is the maximum amount that you would be eligible to receive. If
you rent a decent, safe and sanitary home where the monthly rent and average
estimated utility costs are less than the comparable unit, your replacement housing
payment will be based on the actual cost of that unit. All replacement housing payments
must be paid in installments. Your payment will be paid in [#] installments.
Please note that all replacement housing must be inspected in order to ensure it is
decent, safe and sanitary before any replacement housing payments are made.
If you have any questions about this notice and your eligibility for relocation assistance
and payments, please contact [Name, Title, Address, Phone, Email Address] before you
make any moving plans. He/she will assist you with your move to a new home and help
ensure that you preserve your eligibility for all relocation payments to which you may be
entitled. Please do not rent or purchase a replacement property prior to discussing your
relocation assistance with us.
This letter is important to you and should be retained.
Sincerely,
Print name:
Title:
Enclosure/s
RESIDENT ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT/PROOF OF SERVICE
_________________________ Delivered on/by: ____________/_______________
Received by
X________________________ Posted on/by: ____________/_________________
Recipient’s Signature
_________________________ Mailed/receipt received on: _________/_________
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 452
Residential 90-Day Notice to Vacate
<<DATE>>
<<HEAD-OF-HOUSEHOLD>> and All Other Occupants
<<MAILING ADDRESS>>
<<CITY, STATE ZIP>>
Dear Occupants:
On <<RCC DATE>> the <<CLIENT NAME>>(called here the “Displacing Agency”)
received approval from HUD to dispose of the property which you occupy at <<SITE
ADDRESS>> (called here the “Premises”). The Displacing Agency has now determined
that it will be necessary for you to vacate the Premises.
Notice is hereby given that the Displacing Agency elects to terminate
your tenancy in ninety (90) days beginning <<90DAY START>> and
ending <<90DAY END>> and you are hereby to quit and deliver up
possession of the property you occupy on or before <<90DAY END>>.
If you do not vacate the Premises by that date, the Displacing Agency
will initiate legal proceedings to recover possession of the Premises,
along with any rents and damages.
During this period, Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc. will be available to provide
assistance with referrals to replacement sites, coordination with movers and other
vendors, the processing of relocation benefit claim forms, and other tasks to help
facilitate your relocation. Please contact your relocation agent listed below if you have
any questions regarding this notice or the relocation process. Upon vacating your unit,
Your OPC Relocation Agent
Name: <<AGENT NAME>>
Phone: <<OFFICE PHONE>>
Case ID: <<CASE ID>>
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 453
you are responsible for removing all of your personal property, delivering the Premises
in satisfactory condition and turning in the keys to your relocation agent.
Sincerely,
<<AGENT NAME>>
<<AGENT TITLE>>
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
<<OFFICE ADDRESS>>
Phone <<OFFICE PHONE>>
Carbon Copy To:
<<CC NAME>>
<<CC ADDRESS>>
_________________________ Delivered on/by: ___________/____________
Received by
X________________________ Posted on/by: ___________/______________
Recipient’s Signature
_________________________ Mailed/receipt received on: _______/_______
Date
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 454
Residential 30-Day Notice to Vacate
(Federal/State)
<<DATE>>
<<HEAD-OF-HOUSEHOLD>> and All Other
Occupants
<<MAILING ADDRESS>>
<<CITY, STATE ZIP>>
Dear Occupants:
On <<RCC DATE>> the <<CLIENT NAME>>(called here the “Displacing Agency”)
received HUD approval to dispose the property which you occupy at <<SITE
ADDRESS>> (called here the “Premises”). The Displacing Agency has now determined
that it will be necessary for you to vacate the Premises.
Previously you received a 90-Day Informational Notice advising that
the Displacing Agencyhad elected to terminate your tenancy of the
Premises. In accordance with that notice, the Displacing Agency is
again notifying you that they have elected to terminate your tenancy
in thirty (30) days beginning <<30DAY START>> and ending
<<30DAY END>>, and you are hereby to quit and deliver up
possession of the Premises you occupy on or before <<30DAY
END>>. If you do not vacate the Premises by that date, the
Displacing Agency will initiate legal proceedings against you to
recover possession of the Premises, along with any rents and
damages.
Please be reminded that the firm of Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc., hired by the
Displacing Agency, is available to provide you with relocation assistance and to answer
any questions you may have. Please continue to coordinate your move with your
relocation agent listed below. Upon vacating your unit, you are responsible for removing
all of your personal property, delivering the Premises in satisfactory condition and
turning in the keys to your relocation agent.
Your OPC Relocation Agent
Name: <<AGENT NAME>>
Phone: <<OFFICE PHONE>>
Case ID: <<CASE ID>>
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 455
Sincerely,
<<AGENT NAME>>
<<AGENT TITLE>>
Overland, Pacific & Cutler, Inc.
<<OFFICE ADDRESS>>
Phone <<OFFICE PHONE>>
Carbon Copy To:
<<CC NAME>>
<<CC ADDRESS>>
________________________________ Delivered on/by:
__________
___/_______
________
Received by
X_______________________________ Posted on/by:
__________
___/_______
__________
Recipient’s Signature
________________________________ Mailed/receipt received on:
_____
_____
/____
_____
_
Date
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 456
SAMPLE RELOCATION EXPENSE
PAYMENT/REIMBURSEMENT
CLAIM FORM
Relocation Information
Project Name:
Claimant Name:
Project Address:
Temporary/Permanent Replacement Address:
Purpose/Type of Payment:
Backup Documentation Used in Calculation of Payment:
Total Payment Amount:
Issue Check Payable To:
Certification by Claimant: I certify that I have not submitted any other claim for the
relocation payment listed and I have not been paid by any other source. Furthermore, I
certify that by accepting the “Total Payment Amount” described above represents the
entire claim for the relocation expense described above.
Claimant
Signature/Date:
Claim Approval
Payment
Action (Initial
Payment)
Initial
Payment
Amount Signature Date
Recommended
Approved
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 457
F. RELOCATION APPEAL / GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 458
Purpose
The purpose of this procedure is to set forth the Housing Authority of the County
of Contra Costa's ("Authority") guidelines for processing appeals to
determinations as to relocation eligibility, the amount of a relocation payment, or
the failure to provide comparable replacement housing referrals.
Right of Review
(a) Any appellant, that is any person who believes him/herself aggrieved by a
determination by the Authority as to eligibility, the amount of a relocation
payment or failure to provide comparable replacement housing referrals, may, at
his or her election, have his/her claim reviewed and reconsidered by the
Authority, other than by the person who made the determination in question, in
accordance with the procedures set forth herein, as supplemented by the
procedures the Authority may establish for the conduct of hearings.
(b) A person or organization directly affected by the relocation project may
petition the California Housing and Community Development Department
(“HCD”) to review the Authority's final relocation plan to determine if the plan is in
compliance with state laws and guidelines, or to review the implementation of the
relocation plan to determine if the Authority is acting in compliance with its
relocation plan. Failure to petition HCD shall not limit a complainant's right to
seek judicial review.
Notification to Appellant
If the Authority denies or refuses to consider a claim, the Authority’s notification
to the appellant of its determination shall inform the appellant of its reasons, and
the applicable procedures for obtaining review of the decision. If necessary, such
notification shall be printed in a language other than English.
Stages of Review by the Authority
(a) Request for Further Written Information. An appellant may request the
Authority to provide him or her with a full written explanation of its determination
and the basis therefore, if he/she feels that the explanation of the Authority’s
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 459
determination accompanying the payment of the claim or notice was incorrect or
inadequate. The Authority shall provide such an explanation to the appellant
within three weeks of its receipt of his or her request.
(b) Informal Oral Presentation. An appellant may request an informal oral
presentation before seeking formal review and reconsideration. A request for an
informal oral presentation shall be filed with the Authority within the period
described in subsection (d) of this section. The Authority shall afford the
appellant the opportunity to make such presentation before a management-level
Housing Authority staff person, designated by the Executive Director, who has
not previously participated in the relocation decision, within 15 days of the
request. The appellant may be represented by an attorney or other person of
his/her choosing at his/her expense.
This oral presentation shall enable the appellant to discuss the claim with the
designated Housing Authority staff person. The designated Housing Authority
staff person shall make a summary of the matters discussed in the oral
presentation to be included as part of the Authority’s file on the appellants
relocation. The right to formal review and reconsideration shall not be
conditioned upon requesting an oral presentation.
(c) Written Request for Review and Reconsideration. At any time within the
period described in subsection (d) below, an appellant may file a written request
with the Authority for formal review and reconsideration. The appellant may
include in the request for review any statement of fact within the appellant’s
knowledge or belief or other material that may have a bearing on the appeal. If
the appellant requests more time to gather and prepare additional material for
consideration or review and demonstrates a reasonable basis therefore, the
Authority may grant the appellants request by granting the appellant a definite
period of time to gather and prepare materials.
(d) Time Limit for Requesting Review. An appellant desiring either an informal
oral presentation or seeking formal review and reconsideration, shall make a
request to the Authority within eighteen (18) months following the date he/she
moves from the property or the date that he/she receives final compensation for
the property, whichever is later.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 460
Formal Review and Reconsideration by HACCC
(a) General. The Authority shall consider the request for formal review and shall
decide whether a modification of its initial determination is necessary. The
arbitrator shall have the authority to revise the initial determination or the
determination of a previous oral presentation. This formal review shall be
conducted by an independent arbitrator (the “Arbitrator”). The Arbitrator shall
consider the appeal regardless of form, and the Authority staff shall, if necessary,
provide assistance to the claimant in preparing the written claim. When a
claimant seeks review, Authority staff shall inform him/her that he/she has the
right to be represented by an attorney at the claimant’s expense, to present
his/her case by oral or documentary evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, to
conduct such cross-examination as may be required for a full and true disclosure
of facts, and to seek judicial review once he/she has exhausted the
administrative appeal.
(b) Scope of Review. The Arbitrator shall review and reconsider the initial
determination of the claimant’s case in light of: (1) all material upon which the
Authority based its original determination, including all applicable rules and
regulations, except that no evidence shall be relied upon where a claimant has
been improperly denied an opportunity to controvert the evidence or cross-
examine the witness(es); (2) the reasons given by the claimant for requesting
review and reconsideration of the claim; (3) any additional written or relevant
documentary material submitted by the claimant; (4) any further information
which the Arbitrator, in its discretion, obtains by request, investigation, or
research, to ensure fair and full review of the claim.
(c) Determination on Review. The determination on review by the
Arbitratorshall include, but is not limited to: (1) the Arbitrator’s decision on
reconsideration of the claim; (2) the factual and legal basis upon which the
decision rests, including any pertinent explanation or rationale; and (3) a
statement to the claimant that administrative remedies have been exhausted and
judicial review may be sought. The determination shall be in writing with a copy
provided to the claimant. The Arbitrator’s decision shall be binding on the
Authority.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 461
(d) Time Limits. The Authority and/or arbitrator shall issue its determination on
review as soon as possible but no later than six weeks from receipt of the last
material submitted for consideration by the claimant or the date of the hearing,
whichever is later. In the case of appeals dismissed for un-timeliness or for any
other reason not based on the merits of the claim, the Authority shall furnish a
written statement to the claimant stating the reason for the dismissal of the claim
as soon as possible but not later than two weeks from receipt of the last material
submitted by the claimant, or the date of the hearing, whichever is later.
Refusals to Waive Time Limitation
Whenever the Authority rejects a request by a claimant for a waiver of the time
limits, the claimant may file a written request for reconsideration of this decision
in accordance with the review procedure set forth herein, except that such written
request for reconsideration shall be filed within 90 calendar days of the claimant’s
receipt of the Authority’s determination.
Extension of Time Limits
The time limits specified in the stages of review may be extended for good cause by the
Authority.
Recommendations by Third Party
Upon agreement between the claimant and the Authority, a mutually acceptable
third party or parties may review the claim and make advisory recommendations
thereon to the Authority for its final determination. In reviewing the claim and
making recommendations to the Authority, the third party or parties shall be
guided by the provisions of this Appeals/Grievance Procedure.
Review of Files by Claimant
Except to the extent the confidentiality of material is protected by law or its
disclosure is prohibited by law, the Authority shall permit the claimant to inspect
all files and records bearing upon his or her claim or the prosecution of the
appellant’s grievance.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 462
If an appellant is improperly denied access to any relevant material bearing on
his or her claim, such material may not be relied upon in reviewing the initial
determination.
Effect of Determination on Other Persons
The principles established in all determinations by the Authority shall be
considered as precedent for all eligible persons in similar situations regardless of
whether or not a person has filed a written request for review. All written
determinations shall be kept on file and available for public review.
Right to Counsel
Any aggrieved party has a right to representation by legal or other counsel at his
or her expense at any and all stages of the proceedings set forth in this
procedure.
Stay of Displacement Pending Review
If an appellant seeks to prevent displacement, the Authority shall not require the
appellant to move until at least twenty (20) calendar days after the Authority has
made a determination and the appellant has had an opportunity to seek judicial
review. In all cases the Authority shall notify the appellant in writing, twenty (20)
calendar days prior to the proposed new date of displacement.
Joint Appellants
Where more than one person is aggrieved by the failure of the Authority to refer
them to comparable permanent or adequate temporary replacement housing, the
appellants may join in filing a single written request for review. A determination
shall be made by the Authority for each of the appellants.
Judicial Review
Nothing in this Appeals/Grievance Procedure shall in any way preclude, or limit a
claimant or the Authority from seeking judicial review of a claim upon exhaustion
of such administrative remedies as are available herein.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 463
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE APPEAL FORM
INSTRUCTIONS: This is an appeal of a determination made by the Displacing Agency under the California
Relocation Assistance Law (Government Code, Section 7260 et seq.) or Federal Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 USC §§4601 et. seq.).
Complete this document, explaining the nature of your complaint and reasons for this appeal below. Attach
extra pages if needed. You will be notified of the date when your complaint will be considered.
Claimant: Agency:
Site Address: Project:
Mailing Address: Consultant:
Phone number: OPC case ID:
Claimant Type:
Residential Tenant
This appeal is based on:
[ ] Eligibility only
[ ] Amount of Payment only
[ ] Eligibility amount
Appeal Type:
[ ] Request for Further Written Information
[ ] Informal Oral Presentation
[ ] Formal Review and reconsideration
Will you be present at the hearing?:
[ ] Yes [ ] No
Will you be represented by counsel?:
[ ] Yes [ ] No
. . . . continued next page.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 464
Claimant’s Statement:
I certify that the information provided on this form is accurate and complete.
___________________________________ ________________________________
Claimant Signature Date
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 465
G. WRITTEN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES TO MASTER RELOCATION PLAN
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 466
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 467
From:Tony Ucciferri
To:"Amerson, Patricia A"; "Windt, Gerard"
Cc:Joseph Villarreal ; Rod Solomon ; Elizabeth Campbell
Subject:Draft Letter - Las Deltas Early Relocation
Date:Monday, June 19, 2017 3:01:55 PM
Attachments:Las Deltas Pictures for Early Relocation Request.pdf
HACCC RAD Early Relocation Request to HUD 6-19-17 edit for Pat.doc
Hi Pat and Gerard,
See attached the draft letter requesting clarification of HACCC's ability to do early
relocation. The letter will accompany the attached photos which document the existing
conditions including a unit found with a squatter when we went to take pictures.
Please make any comments or edits you think we should include and forward back to us as
soon as possible so we can formally present it to HUD.
Thanks for your help on this matter.
Tony
Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 468
From:Tony Ucciferri
To:"Amerson, Patricia A"
Subject:RE: Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) CHAP Awards - Contra Costa, CA
Date:Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:12:20 PM
Super. Also want to look at getting relocation going.
Tony
Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
From: Amerson, Patricia A [mailto:patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 12:12 PM
To: Tony Ucciferri
Subject: RE: Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) CHAP Awards - Contra Costa, CA
Sounds great
We will start the process of dividing up the chaps into 14 and creating the RAD desk homes for all
the deals
From: Tony Ucciferri [mailto:tucciferri@contracostahousing.org]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 3:02 PM
To: Amerson, Patricia A <patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) CHAP Awards - Contra Costa, CA
Couldn't have done this without you. THANK YOU, again. Look forward to continuing to work
through this process with you. Will begin with the process of updating PIC and as soon as we have a
place to start uploading material, we will do so.
Tony
Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
From: Amerson, Patricia A [mailto:patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 11:15 AM
To: Tony Ucciferri
Subject: FW: Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) CHAP Awards - Contra Costa, CA
Importance: High
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 469
From: RADapplications
Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2016 1:49 PM
To: jvillarreal@contracostahousing.org
Cc: Amerson, Patricia A <patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov >; Byrne, Gregory A
<Gregory.A.Byrne@hud.gov >; Ruppel, Chad <Chad.X.Ruppel@hud.gov >; Glover-Johnson, Sarah J
<Sarah.J.Glover-Johnson@hud.gov >; ecampbell@contracostahousing.org;
tucciferri@contracostahousing.org; rmoore@contracostahousing.org; Windt, Gerard
<Gerard.Windt@hud.gov>; Moses, Edward L <Edward.L.Moses@hud.gov>
Subject: Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) CHAP Awards - Contra Costa, CA
Importance: High
Thank you for your applications under the Rental Assistance Demonstration for the conversion of
assistance at the below properties. Your applications have been accepted and we are pleased to be
able to issue the attached Commitments to Enter into Housing Assistance Payment Contracts (CHAP).
CA011600000B
CA011700000B
We have included some additional information below to assist you as you begin the conversion
process:
RAD Transaction Manager
As referenced in PIH Notice 2012-32, Rev-2, there are various requirements that must be met in order
to successfully complete the RAD conversion. To assist you with completing these requirements, Pat
Amerson (copied) will be serving as your Readiness Transaction Manager and will be your main point
of contact.
RAD Resource Desk
The RAD Resource Desk (www.radresource.net) will serve as the primary portal for communicating
with your RAD Readiness Transaction Manager, uploading documents, and tracking your progress.
These CHAPs will be added to your existing RAD Resource Desk account and will be available for
viewing by the end of the week. Please email resourcedesk@radresource.net if you have any questions
regarding accessing or navigating the website.
Required RAD PIC Updates Within 30 Days of CHAP Issuance
You must submit an application in the Inventory Removals module in PIC for all units under the
CHAPs within 30 days of CHAP issuance. HUD has developed a streamlined PIC Inventory Removal
application for PHAs with RAD CHAPs. Detailed instructions are included in the PDF attached to this
email.
We look forward to working with you to complete your RAD conversions, and encourage you to stay in
constant contact with your Readiness Transaction Manager.
Sincerely,
RAD Team
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 470
From:Tony Ucciferri
To:"Amerson, Patricia A"; Joseph Villarreal
Cc:Windt, Gerard; Elizabeth Campbell ; Robert Moore ; "Glover-Johnson, Sarah J"
Subject:RE: Early relocation
Date:Wednesday, June 15, 2016 4:59:49 PM
Attachments:HACCC - Las Deltas Relocation Plan - Revised June 2016.pdf
Tabora Gardens - Early Relocation Request.pdf
RAD TM Relocation Checklist March 2015 - Las Deltas Annex 1.docx
RAD TM Relocation Checklist March 2015 - Las Deltas.docx
Hi Pat,
Per your request, attached please find the items listed below needed for requesting Early
Relocation. In the RAD Relocation Checklists, I split the units by AMP and also the replacement units
and relocation budget so it would all align with everything else. Hope I got it right!! Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks for all your help on this.
Tony
BTW, we have uploaded all items to the Resource Desk for Tabora Gardens.
Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
From: Amerson, Patricia A [mailto:patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:15 PM
To: Tony Ucciferri; Joseph Villarreal
Cc: Windt, Gerard
Subject: Early relocation
Ok, here we go,
The following are required to be submitted to the Early Relocation Committee.
1 -Memo from the HA stating your request for early relocation. outlining why you want to relocate
early – it will be going to a committee in multifamily -not RAD, so I would suggest attaching the
pictures to the memo
2- Relocation Plan
3. TM Early Relocation Approval Recommendation Memo, -That will be my internal memo in
support of your request and plan -I’ll add that piece before forwarding to committee
4. Approved RAD Relocation Checklist, - I have attached a blank one for you to complete.
You will need to complete one for las deltas and one for annex. At the moment use the
numbers for each piece in full as if all 214 units were in RAD. For questions like change in
unit configuration or change in occupancy, when you check the box yes you can add a few
lines that will explain the how’s and whys of the transfers of assistance to the new sites and
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 471
the over housing issues. I will then get it approved by the Regional Relocation Specialist.(in
LA) This piece is required of all transactions prior to approval committee.
5. Approved FHEO Accessibility and Relocation Checklist and Relocation Plan – this is already
done
Let me know if you have any questions,
Thanks
Pat
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 472
From:Tony Ucciferri
To:"Amerson, Patricia A"
Subject:RE: Early relocation
Date:Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:52:51 PM
Awesome. Thanks, Pat.
Tony
Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
From: Amerson, Patricia A [mailto:patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov]
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 3:49 PM
To: Tony Ucciferri
Subject: RE: Early relocation
Tony
Thank for the super quick turnaround. I have pushed these documents on to the Regional
Relocation Specialist for review and approval. Will keep you posted.
Thanks
Pat
From: Tony Ucciferri [mailto:tucciferri@contracostahousing.org]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 8:00 PM
To: Amerson, Patricia A <patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov>; Joseph Villarreal
<jvillarreal@contracostahousing.org>
Cc: Windt, Gerard <Gerard.Windt@hud.gov>; Elizabeth Campbell
<ECampbell@contracostahousing.org>; Robert Moore <RMoore@contracostahousing.org>; Glover-
Johnson, Sarah J <Sarah.J.Glover-Johnson@hud.gov>
Subject: RE: Early relocation
Hi Pat,
Per your request, attached please find the items listed below needed for requesting Early
Relocation. In the RAD Relocation Checklists, I split the units by AMP and also the replacement units
and relocation budget so it would all align with everything else. Hope I got it right!! Please let me
know if you have any questions.
Thanks for all your help on this.
Tony
BTW, we have uploaded all items to the Resource Desk for Tabora Gardens.
Tony Ucciferri
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 473
Special Assistant to the Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, CA 94553
(925) 957-8055
From: Amerson, Patricia A [mailto:patricia.a.amerson@hud.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 4:15 PM
To: Tony Ucciferri; Joseph Villarreal
Cc: Windt, Gerard
Subject: Early relocation
Ok, here we go,
The following are required to be submitted to the Early Relocation Committee.
1 -Memo from the HA stating your request for early relocation. outlining why you want to relocate
early – it will be going to a committee in multifamily -not RAD, so I would suggest attaching the
pictures to the memo
2- Relocation Plan
3. TM Early Relocation Approval Recommendation Memo, -That will be my internal memo in
support of your request and plan -I’ll add that piece before forwarding to committee
4. Approved RAD Relocation Checklist, - I have attached a blank one for you to complete.
You will need to complete one for las deltas and one for annex. At the moment use the
numbers for each piece in full as if all 214 units were in RAD. For questions like change in
unit configuration or change in occupancy, when you check the box yes you can add a few
lines that will explain the how’s and whys of the transfers of assistance to the new sites and
the over housing issues. I will then get it approved by the Regional Relocation Specialist.(in
LA) This piece is required of all transactions prior to approval committee.
5. Approved FHEO Accessibility and Relocation Checklist and Relocation Plan – this is already
done
Let me know if you have any questions,
Thanks
Pat
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 474
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 475
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 476
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 477
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 478
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes479
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes480
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes481
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes482
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes483
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 484
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 485
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 486
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 487
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes488
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes489
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes490
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes491
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes492
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes493
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes494
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes495
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes496
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes497
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes498
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes499
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes500
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes501
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes502
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes503
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes504
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes505
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes506
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes507
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes508
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes509
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes510
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes511
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes512
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes513
MEMORANDUM
DATE: June 15, 2016
TO: Patricia Amerson, Transaction Manager
FROM: Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
RE: Early Relocation Request
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) is in the process of
converting 214 units of public housing at the Las Deltas development, PIC numbers
CA011600000/CA011700000, to Project Based Vouchers (PBV). HACCC submitted
two RAD applications for a total of 90 units in December of 2013 and they were
approved in March of 2015. These 90 units were vacant and intended for disposition.
Upon approval, it was decided that the entire property should be disposed of and a third
and fourth application were submitted for the remaining 124 units not approved for RAD
conversion. Those applications were submitted in November of 2015.
Conditions at Las Deltas have deteriorated significantly and the property is now more
than half empty and boarded up. However, squatters continue to break into the units
and severely vandalize them by stealing the electrical wiring and copper piping from the
walls. The extent of the damage is severe and has attracted an additional element of
crime since the units have become a haven for drug use and evading law enforcement.
The photos attached to this memorandum can attest to the severity of the living
conditions at the property.
HUD has informed HACCC that the approval of applications 3 and 4 is imminent. 95
households remain in occupancy at Las Deltas. HACCC would like to begin the process
of relocating the families remaining at Las Deltas in advance of the issuance of the RAD
Conversion Commitments (RCC) that will arise from this process. At best, the RCCs
are 6 to 9 months away from issuance. This would force the 95 households to continue
to live in this hazardous environment and be subjected to daily security risks. Moreover,
their continued presence poses significant liability risks for the housing authority.
HACCC has engaged a relocation specialist and prepared a relocation plan to
undertake the relocation effort. There are approximately 26 households who would like
to transfer to another public housing development. These units are available and ready
for transfer. However to wait on the issuance of the RCCs could not only result in the
units being occupied by waiting list applicants, but has the potential to cost HACCC a
significant amount of operating funds if the units are held vacant for to 9 months. An
expedited relocation approval can resolve this issue. In addition, HACCC is prepared to
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 514
issue tenant-based vouchers to the families who choose not to relocate to another
public housing development so that they can have greater choice in where they relocate
to.
For these reasons, HACCC respectfully requests that the Early Relocation Committee
consider our request to begin relocation process prior to issuance of the RCCs.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 515
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes516
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes517
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes518
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes519
I wanted to summarize what is pending for our transactions after our call this morning. As I see it, we
have four issues needing follow up.
1. The RAD team is working to separate the 4 awarded CHAPs into 14 separate CHAPs so that we can
upload the material submitted by each project to the RAD Resource Desk. For the moment we have
4 CHAPs in the Resource desk but 1 CHAP, for AMP 6, has been allocated to Tabora Gardens when
only 22 units should have been allocated to it, another has been allocated to Hana Gardens,
although that actually belongs in the same AMP as Tabora Gardens. A correction will be needed to
amend that project's placement in AMP 6 under its own CHAP. Pat will notify us when we have all
14 CHAPs carved out in the Resource Desk so we can resume uploading project data.
2. There was some discussion on the early relocation we requested in an email sent to Pat on June 15,
2016. Pat mentioned that the waiver process would be cumbersome and time consuming and that
Greg Byrne mentioned that we could do the relocation through the Local PIH office. This advice
seems to contradict the PIH Notice 2012-32 that states that relocation cannot start prior to closing
unless approved by HUD. It is assumed that the reference to HUD is HUD-HQ. Also, does local HUD
approving early relocation authorize the payment of relocation benefits to the residents of Las
Deltas. It would seem that we would be violating Fair Housing statues by doing this. In addition,
Local HUD staff are not quite clear on what is meant by Greg in his assertion that Local staff can
handle the early relocation issue. What does that look like and how is it triggered? The Admin Plan
and ACOP have been amended to authorize the issuance of HCV Vouchers to most of the families
and a number have request to go to other public housing units. It was agreed that Gerard and Pat
would discuss the matter with Greg Byrne and get back to us with a viable option. That said, it
stands to reason that if waivers are needed, then we don't really need to get Field Office
involvement on our request. Moreover, early relocation will not only get the families living in
deplorable conditions out of the units, but it will permit us to effectively begin to take on the
selling/disposition of the scattered sites.
3. The issue of the Rehab Assistance Payment was raised. While the first 90 units we close on are
targeted to the replacement of the 90 units included in the first 2 CHAPs representing 90 vacant
units at Las Deltas, the 3rd and 4th CHAPs include the 89 remaining occupied units in the total of
124 units awarded. Those units will be eligible for the Rehab Assistance Fee. Are we interpreting
the notice correctly on this matter? If so, the notice references the payment being made to the
owner of the project, but that would not be appropriate in our particular transactions since we are
incurring the relocation costs while the construction is completed and once HAP is executed new
residents will be assisted through the remaining public housing operating, and eventually, HCV
funds. In our transactions, the Housing Authority is the owner of the originating units only. After
construction the non-profit owns the replacement site and HACCC no longer has ownership interest
in the project. A discussion was going to take place with Will Lavy to see what we are entitled to
regarding the Rehab Assistance Payment and how and to whom do we submit an application to for
those funds.
4. The last item for discussion has to do with the disposition of the Las Deltas Public Housing units. As
you know, we are replacing the 214 units at Las Deltas at 14 PBV properties throughout the County.
They are all on different time schedules for construction/rehab but to leave the units vacated at Las
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 520
Deltas boarded up and blighted will only spark greater concern with local politicians and
neighborhood groups. Our efforts to do early relocation directly tie into tour desire to dispose of
the units as they close for the various deals so we don't have to flood the market with units for sale
and burden all interests, including HACCC, given the cost to market and close sales. Until now, we
have been under the understanding that RAD included a disposition process that would facilitate our
efforts to release the Declarations of Trust on the property as needed and sell the old public housing
units at Las Deltas, as long as we used the proceeds from any sale to benefit other public housing
developments in our portfolio. We're now suddenly hearing that we must pursue a Section 18
disposition to do this. The PIH Notice actually states that if we pursue Section 18, we could have our
RAD award rescinded. So this new development doesn't make sense. Also, had we been able to do
Section 18 disposition from the start, we would not have needed to go through this complicated
RAD process. We don't believe we should be doing a Section 18 disposition to sell off the units,
especially in light of the fact that both Rod and Pat have worked on deals that did not call for Section
18 as part of the disposition. Further discussion was going to be had internally with Pat, Greg and
Gerard (Not sure if Will Lavy is part of this too). Once we are all on the same page, we need to bring
the OGC folks into the conversation to confirm our determined path so that when we get to the
disposition stage, amnesia doesn't kick in.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 521
Property Unit #Code SS#First Name
ca006 398 t0018199 xxx-xx-3266 FAANAPE
ca006 400 t0001039 xxx-xx-2900 TERRIETTA
ca006 401 t0001092 xxx-xx-2855 ASA
ca006 402 t0001017 xxx-xx-3813 ANDRE
ca006 405 t0009033 xxx-xx-9774 MICHELLE
ca006 406 t0001103 xxx-xx-6587 CHANEL
ca006 412 t0019539 xxx-xx-4377 NICOLE
ca006 413 t0008176 xxx-xx-8866 MALLECA
ca006 414 t0015281 xxx-xx-5667 CAROL A
ca006 415 t0018292 xxx-xx-3265 MELVIN
ca006 417 t0010697 xxx-xx-2545 TAMIKA
ca006 428 t0014883 xxx-xx-5686 JOETTA
ca006 430 t0013537 xxx-xx-1174 CHARLES
ca006 431 t0019209 xxx-xx-8996 RHONDA
ca006 434 t0011277 xxx-xx-5500 VICKI
ca006 441 t0018998 xxx-xx-1207 LAQUISHA
ca006 443 t0001111 xxx-xx-2876 BERTHA
ca006 448 t0017440 xxx-xx-8375 DEBRA
ca006 450 t0010544 xxx-xx-1509 CLAUDIA
ca006 461 t0001122 xxx-xx-8804 J. B.
ca006 465 t0017409 xxx-xx-0540 JEROME W.
ca006 467 t0014950 xxx-xx-7980 TANIA
ca006 468 t0014175 xxx-xx-2397 ROGELIO
ca006 469 t0001181 xxx-xx-3837 MARIA
ca006 470 t0000999 xxx-xx-5661 FREDERICK
ca009a 526 t0001148 xxx-xx-8041 GWENDOLYN
ca009a 528 t0014907 xxx-xx-8824 JENNIFER
ca009a 529 t0011837 xxx-xx-4138 ANNIE
ca009a 530 t0015043 xxx-xx-0349 ANGEL
ca009a 532 t0000911 xxx-xx-8778 VIRGINIA
ca009a 534 t0001170 xxx-xx-0066 DOMINGA
ca009a 536 t0000941 xxx-xx-7879 OLACHI
ca009a 539 t0011313 xxx-xx-6596 MUHAMMAD
ca009a 541 t0000908 xxx-xx-6141 LONNIE
ca009a 544 t0011055 xxx-xx-3253 FIFI
ca009a 545 t0010777 xxx-xx-7022 NATHAN
ca009a 546 t0000405 xxx-xx-8796 JIMMIE
ca009a 547 t0017570 xxx-xx-7866 LENWOOD
ca009a 548 t0014107 xxx-xx-8830 MARK
ca009a 551 t0020146 xxx-xx-8679 ALMETRA
ca009a 552 t0017301 xxx-xx-9059 JENNIFER L.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 522
ca009a 553 t0012486 xxx-xx-2056 KHADIJA
ca009a 555 t0020265 xxx-xx-8900 MARKISHA
ca009a 556 t0020315 xxx-xx-5267 TRACY
ca009a 560 z0018337 xxx-xx-2655 MARTIKA
ca009a 561 t0015319 xxx-xx-4653 L.C.
ca009a 562 t0017956 xxx-xx-2978 LA DONYA
ca009a 563 t0001165 xxx-xx-6330 AMALIA
ca009a 564 t0001021 xxx-xx-2140 FREDA
ca009a 565 t0001094 xxx-xx-5596 SHARON
ca009a 566 t0019163 xxx-xx-4797 PATRICIA
ca009a 567 t0012525 xxx-xx-2076 DARLENE
ca009a 569 t0000996 xxx-xx-2908 LINETTA
ca009a 570 t0013185 xxx-xx-3005 MARCIA
ca009a 572 t0012550 xxx-xx-9040 JANICE
ca009a 573 t0018202 xxx-xx-2316 STANDLEY
ca009a 575 t0001082 xxx-xx-1664 KASHAWNDA
ca009a 578 t0020277 xxx-xx-3786 MARIA
ca009a 579 t0019551 xxx-xx-8110 CAMILLE
ca009a 581 t0020267 xxx-xx-4068 CATRINA
ca009a 582 t0020102 xxx-xx-9134 CHANTEA
ca009a 583 t0019385 xxx-xx-5136 RUTH
ca009a 589 t0017835 xxx-xx-8954 CHARLES
ca009a 592 t0000881 xxx-xx-0084 LORRAINE
ca009a 594 t0000979 xxx-xx-3737 DAVID
ca009a 596 t0001020 xxx-xx-1954 RAYMOND
ca009a 599 t0001067 xxx-xx-2806 TAMMY
ca009a 600 t0000899 xxx-xx-6873 LILLIE
ca009a 603 t0014944 xxx-xx-8093 CHARLENE
ca009a 605 t0000896 xxx-xx-6230 MATTHEW
ca009a 606 t0021238 xxx-xx-3094 JUANITA
ca009a 607 t0019152 xxx-xx-1655 CORIALE
ca009a 609 t0001114 xxx-xx-8012 RACHEAL
ca009b 619 t0012063 xxx-xx-3509 FRANK
ca009b 620 t0001145 xxx-xx-1547 DONNA
ca009b 621 t0008321 xxx-xx-9970 DAPHNE
ca009b 627 t0020268 xxx-xx-8117 DEVIN
ca009b 634 t0015022 xxx-xx-2340 OLANDA
ca009b 635 t0001038 xxx-xx-8090 ROSLYN
ca009b 640 t0001091 xxx-xx-5112 MARTHA
ca009b 645 t0014855 xxx-xx-3155 REBECCA
ca009b 648 t0001134 xxx-xx-0885 MARIA
ca009b 649 t0001125 xxx-xx-9895 MARTIN
ca009b 650 t0013509 xxx-xx-8137 CHERYL
ca009b 651 t0001023 xxx-xx-4812 AARON
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 523
ca009b 656 t0001069 xxx-xx-3785 LA SHANDA
ca009b 659 t0001018 xxx-xx-1268 JOYCE
ca009b 661 t0001164 xxx-xx-2627 BIENVENIDA
ca009b 662 t0011251 xxx-xx-2802 FLOR
ca009b 667 t0001087 xxx-xx-2965 LENA
ca009b 668 t0001152 xxx-xx-7606 GERALDINE
ca009b 671 t0000938 xxx-xx-2764 MARILYN
ca009b 672 t0001173 xxx-xx-2560 SILVIA
ca009b 673 t0000963 xxx-xx-6879 LOLA
ca009b 675 t0014893 xxx-xx-9644 ARGELIA
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 524
RESIDENT ASSISTANCE DEMONSTRATION (RAD) PROGRAM
Las Deltas Relocation
July 21, 2016
4:00pm - 6:00pm
AGENDA
1. Welcome David Solis,
Asset Manager
2. RAD Update Tony Ucciferri
Special Assistant to the
Executive Director
3. Overview of Las Deltas Relocation Plan Chad Wakefield
Overland, Pacific & Cutler
4. Public Comments regarding Relocation Plan Tony Ucciferri
Chad Wakefield
David Solis
5. Open Discussion
6. Adjournment
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 525
Prepared for:
Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa
3133 Estudillo Street
Martinez, California 94553
Robert Moore
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
Las Deltas Public Housing – 49 Duplexes
1601 North Jade Street
North Richmond, California 94801
PREPARED BY: EMG CONTACT:
EMG Matthew Anderson
10461 Mill Run Circle, Suite 1100 Program Manager
Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 800.733.0660 x7613
800.733.0660 manderson@emgcorp.com
www.EMGcorp.com
EMG Project Number: Date of Report: On Site Date:
132461.18R000-003.052 December 13, 2018 October 23, 2018
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 526
Cost DescriptionReport SectionLocation Description IDLifespan (EUL)EAge RUL Quantity Unit Unit Cost w/ Markup * Subtotal 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038Deficiency Repair EstimateEngineer, Structural, General, Investigation 1.2 Dwelling units 395 and 398 1072423 0 0 0 1 EA $6,500.00 $10,239.91 $10,240 $10,240 $10,240 ADA, Kitchen, Sink & Counter, Full Reconfiguration, Renovate 3.2 Dwelling units1072414 0 0 0 5 EA $15,000.00 $23,630.55 $118,153 $118,153 $118,153 ADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Standard), Install 3.2 Parking area1072418 00 0 4 EA $1,300.00 $2,047.98 $8,192 $8,192 $8,192 ADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Van), Install 3.2 Parking area1072420 0 0 0 1 EA $1,400.00 $2,205.52 $2,206 $2,206 $2,206 ADA, Residential Unit, Visual Bell & Strobe, Hearing Impaired, Install 3.2 Dwelling units1072422 0 0 0 2 EA $1,000.00 $1,575.37 $3,151 $3,151 $3,151 ADA, Restroom, Full Reconfiguration, Renovate 3.2 Dwelling units1072416 00 0 5 EA $15,000.00 $23,630.55 $118,153 $118,153 $118,153 Mold/Biological Growth, Remediation, Repair 3.3 Dwelling units 567 and 554 1072429 0 0 0 600 SF$30.00 $47.26 $28,357 $28,357 $28,357 Foundations, Concrete, Repair 6.1 Dwelling units 395 and 398 1079889 40 40 0 4,000 SF$10.44 $22.70 $90,802 $90,802 $90,802 Roof, Built‐Up, Replace 6.3 Roofs, Phase‐21072441 20 19 1 54,504 SF$12.96 $20.42 $1,112,917 $1,112,917 $1,112,917 Roofs, Metal, Replace 6.3 Roofs, Phase‐11072440 40 35 5 38,264 SF$12.45 $19.61 $750,425 $750,425 $750,425 Structural Roof Decking, Wood, Replace6.3 Roofs, Phase‐21083947 20 19 1 5,450 SF$10.13 $15.96 $86,992 $86,992 $86,992 $173,984 Exterior Wall, Stucco, 1‐2 Stories, Repair 6.4 Exterior wall, Unit 553 1072442 0 0 0 100 SF$18.20 $39.57 $3,957 $3,957 $3,957 Exterior Wall, Painted Surface, 1‐2 Stories, Prep & Paint 6.4 Building exterior1072443 105 5 81,950 SF$2.87 $4.52 $370,612 $370,612 $370,612 $741,224 Window, Aluminum Double‐Glazed 12 SF, 1‐2 Stories, Replace 6.6 All units1072446 30 30 0 915 EA$584.21 $920.34 $842,113 $842,113 $842,113 Exterior Door, Wood Solid‐Core, Replace 6.6 All units1072444 25 25 0 196 EA $1,423.11 $2,241.93 $439,419 $439,419 $439,419 Screen Door, Plain/Anodized Aluminum, Replace 6.6 All units1072445 1010 0 98 EA$498.08 $784.66 $76,897 $76,897 $76,897 $76,897 $230,691 Plumbing System, Domestic Supply Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.2 Dwelling units1072449 40 40 0 77,307 SF$26.78 $42.19 $3,261,216 $3,261,216 $3,261,216 Electrical Distribution System, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.4 Dwelling units1072630 40 40 0 77,307 SF$28.96 $45.62 $3,526,651 $3,526,651 $3,526,651 Flood Light, Exterior, Replace 7.4 Dwelling units1072438 20 19 1 98 EA$995.47 $1,568.24 $153,687 $153,687 $153,687 Lighting System, Interior, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.4 Dwelling units 107268425 25 0 77,307 SF$4.73 $7.45 $575,578 $575,578 $575,578 Smoke Detector, Multi‐Family, Replace 7.6 Dwelling units 1072631 10 10 0 327 EA$208.43 $328.35 $107,371 $107,371 $107,371 $107,371 $322,113 Interior Door, Wood Hollow‐Core, Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072644 20 20 0 571 EA$596.52 $939.75 $536,595 $536,595 $536,595 $1,073,190 Interior Ceiling Finish, Generic Surface, Prep & Paint 8.1 Dwelling units 10798938 8 0 135,275 SF$1.45 $2.28 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $927,021 Interior Wall Finish, Gypsum Board/Plaster, Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072843 40 40 0 135,275 SF$3.38 $5.32 $719,666 $719,666 $719,666 Interior Wall Finish, Generic Surface, Prep & Paint 8.1 Dwelling units1072658 8 8 0 135,275 SF$1.45 $2.28 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $927,021 Interior Floor Finish, Vinyl Tile (VCT), Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072642 1515 0 77,307 SF$4.80 $7.56 $584,651 $584,651 $584,651 $1,169,302 Residential Appliances, Refrigerator, 14‐18 CF, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072660 15 15 0 98 EA$956.04 $1,506.11 $147,599 $147,599 $147,599 $295,198 Residential Appliances, Range Hood, Vented or Ventless, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072665 15 15 0 98 EA$271.61 $427.88 $41,933 $41,933 $41,933 $83,866 Residential Appliances, Range, Gas, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072664 1515 0 98 EA$768.11 $1,210.05 $118,585 $118,585 $118,585 $237,170 Kitchen Counter, Plastic Laminate, Postformed, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072672 10 10 0 1,075 LF$43.90 $69.15 $74,338 $74,338 $74,338 $74,338 $223,014 Kitchen Cabinet, Base and Wall Section, Wood, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072669 20 20 0 1,075 LF$467.63 $736.69 $791,946 $791,946 $791,946 $1,583,892 HVAC System, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 8.3 Dwelling units 1072676 20 20 0 77,307 SF$37.26 $58.70 $4,537,642 $4,537,642 $4,537,642 $9,075,284 Toilet, Flush Tank (Water Closet), Replace 8.4 Apartment bathroom 1072841 20 20 0 113 EA $1,055.15 $1,662.26 $187,835 $187,835 $187,835 $375,670 Sink/Lavatory, Stainless Steel, Replace 8.4 Apartment Kitchens1079923 20 20 0 98 EA $1,054.05 $1,660.52 $162,731 $162,731 $162,731 $325,462 Bathtub & Shower Enclosure, Fiberglass, Replace 8.4 Apartment Bathrooms 1079924 20 20 0 113 EA $1,785.27 $2,812.46 $317,808 $317,808 $317,808 $635,616 Water Heater, Gas, Residential, 30 to 50 GAL, Replace 8.4 Dwelling units1072678 1010 0 98 EA $2,349.48 $3,701.31 $362,728 $362,728 $362,728 $362,728 $1,088,184 Bathroom Vanity Cabinet, Wood, with Cultured Marble Sink Top, 24 to 30", Replace 8.4 Apartment bathroom 1072840 20 20 0 113 EA $1,082.84 $1,705.87 $192,764 $192,764 $192,764 $385,528 $18,607,291 $1,353,596 $0 $0 $0 $1,121,037 $0 $0 $618,014 $0 $621,334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,263,380 $618,014 $0 $0 $0 $7,435,647 $31,638,313$18,607,291 $1,394,204 $0 $0 $0 $1,299,589 $0 $0 $782,882 $0 $835,021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,968,305 $991,731 $0 $0 $0 $13,429,606 $39,308,628* Markup/LocationFactor (1.198) has been included in unit costs. Markup includes a 6.5% Design and Permits, 7% General Contractor Fees, Bond, Profit, Insurance, 6% General Requirements, 2% Housing Authority Management, and 10% Contingency factors applied to the location adjusted unit cost.Totals, UnescalatedTotals, Escalated (3.0% inflation, compounded annually)Replacement Reserves ReportLas Deltas 201811/9/2018 May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes527
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Certification .................................................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................................. 2
1.1. Summary of Findings .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2. Opinions of Probable Cost .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3. Viability Analysis ......................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Follow Up Recommendations ..................................................................................................................... 3
1.5. Methodology ............................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Physical Needs Assessement - Purpose and Scope ......................................................................................... 4
2.1. Purpose ...................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. Deviations from the ASTM E2018-15 Guide ............................................................................................... 4
2.3. Additional Scope Considerations ................................................................................................................ 5
2.4. Personnel Interviewed ................................................................................................................................ 5
2.5. Documentation Reviewed ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.6. Pre-Survey Questionnaire .......................................................................................................................... 5
2.7. Weather Conditions .................................................................................................................................... 5
3. Code Information, Accessibility, and Mold ......................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Code Information and Flood Zone .............................................................................................................. 6
3.2. ADA Accessibility ........................................................................................................................................ 6
3.3. Mold ............................................................................................................................................................ 7
4. Existing Building Evaluation ................................................................................................................................ 8
4.1. Apartment Unit Types and Unit Mix ............................................................................................................ 8
4.2. Apartment Units Observed ......................................................................................................................... 8
5. Site Improvements .............................................................................................................................................. 10
5.1. Utilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 10
5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks ............................................................................................................... 10
5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control .................................................................................................... 11
5.4. Topography and Landscaping .................................................................................................................. 12
5.5. General Site Improvements ...................................................................................................................... 13
6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems ................................................................................................ 15
6.1. Foundations .............................................................................................................................................. 15
6.2. Superstructure .......................................................................................................................................... 15
6.3. Roofing ..................................................................................................................................................... 16
6.4. Exterior Walls ........................................................................................................................................... 17
6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs ........................................................................................................................ 17
6.6. Windows and Doors .................................................................................................................................. 17
6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony ..................................................................................................................... 18
6.8. Common Areas and Interior Finishes ....................................................................................................... 18
7. Building Mechanical and Electrical Systems ................................................................................................... 19
7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) ..................................................................... 19
7.2. Building Plumbing ..................................................................................................................................... 19
7.3. Building Gas Distribution .......................................................................................................................... 19
7.4. Building Electrical ..................................................................................................................................... 20
7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems ............................................................................................. 20
7.6. Fire Protection Systems ............................................................................................................................ 21
8. Dwelling Units ..................................................................................................................................................... 22
8.1. Interior Finishes ........................................................................................................................................ 22
8.2. Dwelling Appliances .................................................................................................................................. 23
8.3. HVAC ........................................................................................................................................................ 23
8.4. Plumbing ................................................................................................................................................... 24
8.5. Electrical ................................................................................................................................................... 25
8.6. Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E) ............................................................................................... 25
9. Other Structures ................................................................................................................................................. 26
10. Appendices .......................................................................................................................................................... 27
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 528
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
1
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Certification
EMG has completed a Physical Needs Assessment (PNA) of the subject property, Las Deltas Public Housing – 49 Duplexes, located at
1601 North Jade Street in North Richmond, California 94801. The PNA Audit were performed on October 23, 2018.
The PNA were performed at the Housing Authority’s request using methods and procedures consistent with good commercial and
customary practice conforming to ASTM E2018-08, Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition
Assessment Process. Within this Physical Needs Assessment Report, EMG’s follows the ASTM guide’s definition of User, that is , the
party that retains EMG for the preparation of a baseline PNA of the subject property. A User may include, without limitation, a purchaser,
potential tenant, owner, existing or potential mortgagee, lender, or property manager of the subject property.
This report has been prepared for and is exclusively for the use and benefit of the Client identified on the cover page of this report. The
purpose for which this report shall be used shall be limited to the use as stated in the contract between the client and EMG.
This report, or any of the information contained therein, is not for the use or benefit of, nor may it be relied upon by any other person or
entity, for any purpose without the advance written consent of EMG. Any reuse or distribution without such consent shall be at the client’s
or recipient’s sole risk, without liability to EMG.
The opinions EMG expresses in this report were formed utilizing the degree of skill and care ordinarily exercised by any prud ent architect
or engineer in the same community under similar circumstances. EMG assumes no responsibility or liability for the accuracy of information
contained in this report which has been obtained from the Client or the Client’s representatives, from other interested parties, or from the
public domain. The conclusions presented represent EMG’s professional judgment based on information obtained during the course of
this assignment. EMG’s evaluations, analyses and opinions are not representations regarding the building design or actual value of the
property. Factual information regarding operations, conditions and test data provided by the Client or their representative has been
assumed to be correct and complete. The conclusions presented are based on the data provided, observations made, and conditi ons
that existed specifically on the date of the assessment.
EMG certifies that EMG has no undisclosed interest in the subject property, EMG’s relationship with the Client is at arm’s-length, and that
EMG’s employment and compensation are not contingent upon the findings or estima ted costs to remedy any deficiencies due to deferred
maintenance and any noted component or system replacements.
EMG’s PNA cannot wholly eliminate the uncertainty regarding the presence of physical deficiencies and the performance of a subject
property’s building systems. Preparation of a PNA in accordance with Public Housing Modernization Standards Handbooks 7485.2 is
intended to reduce, but not eliminate, the uncertainty regarding the potential for component or system failure and to reduce the potential
that such component or system may not be initially observed. This PNA was prepared recognizing the inherent subjective nature of EMG’s
opinions as to such issues as workmanship, quality of original installation, and estimating the remaining useful life of any given component
or system. It should be understood that EMG’s suggested remedy may be determined under time constraints, formed without the a id of
engineering calculations, testing, exploratory probing, the removal of materials, or design. Furthermor e, there may be other alternate or
more appropriate schemes or methods to remedy the physical deficiency. EMG’s opinions are generally formed without detailed
knowledge from individuals familiar with the component’s or system’s performance.
Any questions regarding this report should be directed to Matthew Anderson at manderson@emgcorp.com at 800.733.0660, 7613.
Prepared by:
Sebastiano Loreti,
Field Observer
Reviewed by:
James A. Cave
Reviewer for
Matthew Anderson
Program Manager
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 529
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
2
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
1. Executive Summary
1.1. Summary of Findings
The Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa contracted with EMG to conduct a Physical Needs Assessment (PNA) of the subject
property, Las Deltas Public Housing – 49 Duplexes, located at 1601 North Jade Street in North Richmond, California 94801. The PNA
was performed on October 23, 2018.
Structures
Assessed:
Building
Type
No. of
Bldg.
No. of
Stories
Apt.
Units
Units
Assessed
Date of
Const.
Phase-I
Date of
Const.
Phase-II
Size
(SF):
Las Deltas – Phase 1 Multi-Family 20 1 40 7 1952 N/A 31,887
Las Deltas – Phase 2 Multi-Family 29 1 58 8 1959 N/A 45,420
The site area is approximately 7.05 acres.
Summary of Physical Needs Assessment:
Generally, the property appears to have been constructed within industry standards in force at the time of construction, to have not been
well maintained during recent years, and is in poor overall condition.
According to property management personnel, the property has had a limited capital improvement expenditure program over the past
three years, primarily consisting of exterior façade repairs and painting. Supporting documentation was not provided but some of the
work is evident.
There are a number of Priority Deficiency Costs that have been identified during the evaluation period. These needs are identified in the
various sections of this report and are summarized in the attached Replacement Reserves Report.
1.2. Opinions of Probable Cost
This section provides estimates for the repair and capital reserves items noted within this Physical Needs Assessment (PNA).
These estimates are based on invoice or bid documents provided either by the Owner/facility and construction costs developed from
construction resources such as R.S. Means and Marshall & Swift, EMG’s experience with past costs for similar properties, city cost
indexes, and assumptions regarding future economic conditions.
1.3. Viability Analysis
EMG reviewed the property for the reasonableness of the identified repair and renovation costs and the Long Term Viability of the
development. The Long Term Viability review includes the following considerations:
Are the repair and renovation costs identified for the greater than 57.14% (non-elevator building) of the HUD Total Development Cost
(TDC) of a new development with the same number of apartments?
Is the vacancy rate excessive? Typically above 15% is considered excessive.
Is there a serious Structural Deficiency at the property? HUD’s definition of a Structural Deficiency can include infrastructure as well as
the building structure.
The property does not have Long Term Viability as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are significant
structural deficiencies and the repair and renovation costs exceed the cost thresholds noted above, which is $17,986,671. (57.4% x
$31,335,664)
The repair and renovation costs identified in the Replacement Reserves Report for the property are $20,001,495. Including design and
a 10% contingency added to the cost.
The threshold dollar amount for needed repairs to be considered Not Viable is a percentage of the HUD TDC cost for Sacramento,
California.
The long term viability recommendation is based upon the observed physical condition of the property at the time of EMG’s visit and is
subject to the possible effect of concealed conditions or the occurrence of extraordinary events such as natural disasters or other “acts
of God” that may occur subsequent to the date of EMG’s site visit.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 530
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
3
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
1.4. Follow Up Recommendations
The following studies are recommended.
▪ Slabs in units 395 and 398 were observed to be cracked in the living rooms. A professional engineer must be retained to anal yze the
existing conditions to determine if these cracks indicate structural failures, provide recommendations and, if necessary, estimate the
scope and cost of any required repairs. The cost of this study is included in the cost tables.
1.5. Methodology
Physical Needs Assessment:
Based upon site observations, research, and judgment, along with referencing Expected Useful Life (EUL) tables from various industry
sources, EMG opines as to when a system or component will most probably necessitate replacement. Accurate historical replace ment
records, if provided, are typically the best source of information. Exposure to the elements, initial quality and installation, extent of use,
the quality and amount of preventive maintenance exercised, etc., are all factors that impact the effective age of a syste m or component.
As a result, a system or component may have an effective age that is greater or less than its actual chronological age. The Remaining
Useful Life (RUL) of a component or system equals the EUL less its effective age. Projections of Remaining Useful Life (RUL) are based
on continued use of the Property similar to the reported past use. Significant changes in tenants and/or usage may affect th e service life
of some systems or components.
The evaluation period identified in this report is defined as 20 years.
The physical condition of building component to be repaired is typically defined as being in one of five categories: Priorit y One through
Five. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Priority One These items are to be addressed as Immediate. Items in this category require immediate action and include corrective
measures to:
1. Correct life safety and/or code hazards
2. Repair item permitting water leaks into the building or structure
3. Repair mold or mildew conditions
4. Down unit repairs
5. Further study investigations
Priority Two These items are to be addressed within the next 1 year. Items in this category require corrective measures to:
1. Return a system to normal operation
2. Stop deterioration to other systems
3. Stop accelerated deterioration
4. Replace items that have reached or exceeded their useful service life
5. ADA/UFAS deficiencies
Priority Three These items are to be addressed within the next 2-3 years. Items in this category, if not corrected expedi tiously, will
become critical in the next several years. Items in this category include corrective measures to:
1. Stop intermittent interruptions
2. Correct rapid deterioration
3. Replace items that will reach or exceed their useful service life
4. Correct functionality and/or aesthetic issues that are not critical
Priority Four These items are to be addressed within the next 3-5 years. Items in this category include conditions requiring appropriate
attention to preclude predictable deterioration or potential downtime and the associated damage or higher costs if
deferred further.
Priority Five These items are to be addressed within 6-20 years. Items in this category represent a sensible improvement to the
existing conditions. These are not required for the most basic function of the facility; however, Priority 5 projects will
improve overall usability and/or reduce long-term maintenance costs.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 531
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
4
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
2. Physical Needs Assessement - Purpose and Scope
2.1. Purpose
The purpose of this Physical Needs Assessment (PNA) is to assist the Client in evaluating the physical aspects of this property and how
its condition may affect the soundness of the Client’s financial decisions over time. For this PNA, representative samples of the major
independent building components were observed and their physical conditions were evaluated. This included site and building exteriors,
representative interior common areas, and a representative sample of the apartment units. Apartment unit observations include a
minimum of 50 percent of the vacant units and all of the down units.
The property management staff and code enforcement agencies were interviewed for specific information relating to the physica l property,
code compliance, available maintenance procedures, available drawings, and other documentation. The property’s systems and
components were observed and evaluated for their present condition. EMG completed the Systems and Conditions Table, which lists
the current physical condition and estimated remaining useful life of each system and component present on the property, as o bserved
on the day of the site visit. The estimated costs for repairs and/or capital reserves are included in the enclosed cos t tables. All findings
relating to these opinions of probable costs are included in the narrative sections of this report.
The physical condition of building systems and related components are typically defined as being in one of five conditions: Excellent,
Good, Fair, Poor, Missing/Failed, or a combination thereof. For the purposes of this report, the following definitions are used:
Excellent = New or very close to new; component or system typically has been installed within the past year, sound and
performing its function. Eventual repair or replacement will be required when the component or system either
reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service.
Good = Satisfactory as-is. Component or system is sound and performing its function, typical ly within the first third of its
lifecycle. However, it may show minor signs of normal wear and tear. Repair or replacement will be required
when the component or system either reaches the end of its useful life or fails in service .
Fair = Showing signs of wear and use but still satisfactory as-is, typically near the median of its estimated useful life.
Component or system is performing adequately at this time but may exhibit some signs of wear, deferred
maintenance, or evidence of previous repairs. Repair or replacement will be required due to the component or
system’s condition and/or its estimated remaining useful life.
Poor = Component or system is significantly aged, flawed, functioning intermittently or unreliably; displays obvious signs
of deferred maintenance; shows evidence of previous repair or workmanship not in compliance with commonly
accepted standards; has become obsolete; or exhibits an inherent deficiency. The present condition could
contribute to or cause the deterioration of contiguous elements or systems. Either full component replacement
is needed or repairs are required to restore to good condition, prevent premature failure, and/or prolong useful
life.
Missing/Failed
= Component or system has either failed or is missing where it should be present. Replacement, repair, or addition
of component(s) or system(s) is recommended or required.
Throughout sections 5 through 9 of this report, each report section will typically contain three subsections organized in the following
sequence:
▪ A descriptive table (and/or narrative), which identifies the components assessed, their condition, and other key data points.
▪ A simple bulleted list of Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements, which lists components and assets typically in Excellent, Good, or Fair
condition at the time of the assessment but that will require replacement or some other attention once aged past their estima ted useful
life. These listed components are typically included in the associated inventory database with costs identifie d and budgeted beyond
the first several years.
▪ A bulleted cluster of Actions/Comments, which include more detailed narratives describing deficiencies, recommended repairs, and
short term replacements. The assets and components associated with these bullets are/were typically problematic and in Poor or
Missing/Failed condition at the time of the assessment, with corresponding costs included within the first few years.
2.2. Deviations from the ASTM E2018-15 Guide
ASTM E2018-15, Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process requires that
any deviations from the Guide be so stated within the report. EMG’s probable cost threshold limitation is reduc ed from the Guide’s $3,000
to $2,000, thus allowing for a more comprehensive assessment on smaller scale properties. Therefore, EMG’s opinions of probable costs
that are individually less than a threshold amount of $2,000 are omitted from this PNA. However, comments and estimated costs
regarding identified deficiencies relating to life/safety or accessibility items are included regardless of this cost threshold.
In lieu of providing written record of communication forms, personnel interviewed from the facility and government agencies a re identified
in Section 2.5. Relevant information based on these interviews is included in Sections 2.5, 3.1, and other applicable report sections.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 532
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
5
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
2.3. Additional Scope Considerations
Items required by ASTM E2018-15 and Fannie Mae’s Exhibit III Specific Guidance to the Property Evaluator are included within the
Physical Needs Assessment (PNA). Additional “non-scope” considerations were addressed at the recommendation of EMG and
subsequent contract with the Client. These additional items are identified as follows:
Property disclosure information was obtained from the EMG’s Pre-Survey Questionnaire
An assessment of accessibility utilizing EMG’s Accessibility Checklist
A limited visual assessment and review of the property for mold growth, conditions conducive to mold growth, and evidence of moisture
in accessible areas of the property
Provide a statement on the property’s Remaining Useful Life
Provide cross reference indexing between cost tables and report text
Determination of FEMA Flood Plain Zone for single address properties
2.4. Personnel Interviewed
The following personnel from the facility and government agencies were interviewed in the process of conducting the PNA:
Name and Title Organization Phone Number
Robert Moore
Development Director Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa 925.957.8025
Kelli Zenn
Conservation and Development Contra Costa County Building Department 925.674.7726
Steve Hill
Public Information Officer Contra Costa County Fire Department 925.941.3300
The PNA was performed with the assistance of Robert Moore, Development Director, Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa,
the on-site Point of Contact (POC), who was cooperative and provided information that appeared to be accurate based upon subsequent
site observations. The on-site contact is completely knowledgeable about the subject property and answered most questions posed during
the interview process. The POC’s management involvement at the property has been for the past 20 years.
2.5. Documentation Reviewed
Prior to the PNA, relevant documentation was requested that could aid in the knowledge of the subject property’s physical improvements,
extent and type of use, and/or assist in identifying material discrepancies between reported information and observed conditions. The
review of submitted documents does not include comment on the accuracy of such documents or their preparation, methodology, or
protocol. The following documents were provided for review while performing the PNA:
Site plan
Unit List
No other documents were available for review. The Documentation Request Form is provided in Appendix E.
2.6. Pre-Survey Questionnaire
A Pre-Survey Questionnaire was sent to the POC prior to the site visit. The questionnaire is included in Appendix E. Information obtained
from the questionnaire has been used in preparation of this PNA.
2.7. Weather Conditions
Weather conditions at the time of the site visit were clear, with temperatures in the 60s (°F) and light winds.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 533
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
6
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
3. Code Information, Accessibility, and Mold
3.1. Code Information and Flood Zone
According to the Contra Costa County Building Department, there are no outstanding building code viola tions on file. The Building
Department does not have an annual inspection program. They only inspect new construction, work that requires a building per mit, and
citizen complaints. Copies of the original Certificates of Occupancy were requested but were not available.
A request for information (RFI) was sent to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District to obtain information regarding frequency of
inspections and if any outstanding fire code violation area on file. Any information received will be forwarded.
3.2. ADA Accessibility
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 is a Federal accessibility law that was enacted on June 2, 1988. Section 504 applies to
multifamily properties that have 15 or more units. The property must have a minimum of five percent mobility accessible units and two
percent of the units for visual / audio hearing impairments. Exceptions can be considered due to undue financial burdens or structural
restrictions. However, the exceptions do not relieve the recipients from compliance utilizing other units/buildings or other methods to
achieve reasonable accommodations.
Reasonable Accommodations as described in 24 CFR 8.4(b)(i), 8.24 and 8.33 are described as follows: When a family member requires
an accessible feature(s) or policy modification to accommodate a disability, property owners must provide such feature(s) or policy
modification unless doing so would resulting in a fundamental alteration in the nature of its program or result in a financial a nd
administrative burden.
The Uniform Federal Accessibility Standard (UFAS) 24 CFR part 40 was adopted by HUD and made effective Oc tober 4, 1984. The
UFAS applies only to new construction or to alterations to the existing buildings. Alterations are defined as work that cost s 50 percent or
more of the building’s value when the work performed occurs within a twelve month period. Apartments modified for mobility impaired
residents are to comply with UFAS.
Generally, Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination by entities to access and use of “areas of public
accommodations” on the basis of disability. Generally the rental office and access from the site to the rental office must be maintained
and operated to comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Buildings completed and occupied
after January 26, 1992 are required to comply fully with ADAAG. Existing facilities constructed prior to this date are held to the lesser
standard of complying to the extent allowed by structural feasibility and the financial resources available; otherwise a reas onable
accommodation must be made.
During the PNA, observations and sample measurements for accessibility were conducted. The scope of the observations is set forth in
the EMG Accessibility Checklist provided in Appendix D. It is understood by the Client that the observations described herein does not
comprise an Accessibility Compliance Survey of every unit and only those units where access was provided by the client were reviewed .
Only a representative sample of areas were observed and, other than as shown on th e accessibility checklist, actual measurements were
not taken to verify compliance.
The accessibility standards that apply to the Property are Section 504, UFAS and where applicable, the ADA for access to the rental
office. Based on EMG’s observations and interview of the Property Manager, the property is generally non -compliant with Section 504.
Presently, none of the units are defined as accessible for individuals with mobility impairments according to property managem ent. There
are no units at present which have visual / audio modifications.
Based on EMG’s assessment, the property is not in general compliance with the requirements of Section 504 and the ADA.
Based on EMG’s assessment, an additional five units should be made accessible to residents with mobility impairments and two units
should be modified for residents who have visual / audio impairments.
Parking
▪ Adequate number of designated parking stalls and signage for cars are not provided. Provide description of location where ne w stalls
are required (adjacent to each accessible unit)
Unit Accessibility
▪ Modify five units to provide full mobility access. This should include clear floor space and adequate door clearance throughout the unit,
kitchen and bathroom cabinets should have a cut out beneath the sink with knee protection, countertops should be constructed at the
appropriate height, range controls should be within reach, and light switches/environmental controls should be located at the required
heights.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 534
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
7
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Hearing Impaired Units
▪ Add visual alarm to existing audible fire alarm or smoke detector.
▪ Add light connection to doorbell or knocker at front door.
Corrections of these conditions should be addressed from a liability standpoint, but are not necessarily code violations. Th e UFAS and
Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines concern civil rights issues as they pertain to the disabled an d are not a construction
code, although many local jurisdictions have adopted the Guidelines as such. The cost to address the achievable items noted above are
detailed in the Replacement Reserves Report. Unless Life/Safety (Immediate Repair) is a concern, the accessible improvements are
defined as short term improvements (Year 1).
3.3. Mold
As part of the PNA, EMG completed a limited, visual assessment for the presence of visible mold growth, conditions conducive to mold
growth, or evidence of moisture in readily accessible areas of the property. EMG interviewed property personnel concerning any known
or suspected mold contamination, water infiltration, or mildew-like odor problems.
This assessment does not constitute a comprehensive mold sur vey of the property. The reported observations and conclusions are
based solely on interviews with property personnel and conditions observed in readily accessible areas of the property at the time of the
assessment. Sampling was not conducted as part of the assessment.
Areas of suspect mold growth, moisture, and water damage were observed along the drywall and flooring in the following areas:
▪ 1763 Harold Street Unit #: 567, one to three inches of water on floor affecting finishes throughout the unit.
▪ 50 Market Avenue Unit #: 554, one to three inches of water on floor affecting finishes throughout the unit.
The mold and moisture condition appears to be the result of damaged piping from scavengers stealing the copper distribution piping. A
cost allowance to repair the affected areas of mold is included.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 535
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
8
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
4. Existing Building Evaluation
4.1. Apartment Unit Types and Unit Mix
The appendices contain floor plan illustrations, which graphically represent the various unit types. The gross area measureme nts in the
chart below are an approximation, are based on information provided by on -site personnel, and are not based on actual measurements.
Due to the varying methods that could be utilized by others to derive square footage, the area calculations in the chart belo w do not
warrant, represent, or guarantee the accuracy of the measurements.
Apartment Unit Types And Mix
Quantity Type Floor Area
29 1 Bedroom/ 1 Bathroom 571 SF
22 2 Bedroom/ 1 Bathroom 774 SF
32 3 Bedroom/ 1 Bathroom 860 SF
15 4 Bedroom/ 1.5 bathroom 1,080 SF
There are currently 98 down units.
98 TOTAL
4.2. Apartment Units Observed
Over twenty-five percent of the apartment units were observed in order to establish a representative sample and to gain a clear
understanding of the property’s overall condition. Other areas accessed included the exterior of the property. The followin g apartments
were observed.
Apartment Units Observed
Unit # Floor Type Comments Co
Levels
(PPM)
Gas Leak
Detected
395 1st 4 Bedroom/ 1.5
bathroom Foundation crack. Wall damage. Copper piping and
wiring missing.
NA No
396 1st 4 Bedroom/ 1.5
bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
397 1st 4 Bedroom/ 1.5
bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
398 1st 4 Bedroom/ 1.5
bathroom Foundation crack. Wall damage. Copper piping and
wiring missing.
NA No
399 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
402 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Fire damaged unit. Poor condition. NA No
430 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
533 1st 3 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage from vehicle driving into it. Wall
damage. Copper piping and wiring missing.
NA No
535 1st 2 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
537 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom ADA unit. Flooding from broken piping. Wall
damage. Copper piping and wiring missing.
NA No
538 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 536
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
9
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Apartment Units Observed
Unit # Floor Type Comments Co
Levels
(PPM)
Gas Leak
Detected
540 1st 1 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
554 1st 4 Bedroom/1.5
Bathroom Flooding from broken piping. Wall damage. Copper
piping and wiring missing. Foundation crack.
NA No
558 1st 4 Bedroom/1.5
Bathroom Wall damage. Copper piping and wiring missing. NA No
567 1st 2 Bedroom/1
Bathroom Flooding from broken piping. Wall damage. Copper
piping and wiring missing.
NA No
573 1st 2 Bedroom/ 1
Bathroom Fire damaged unit. Poor condition. NA No
All areas of the property were available for observation during the site visit.
A “down unit” is a term used to describe a non-rentable apartment unit due to poor conditions such as fire damage, water damage, missing
appliances, damaged floor, wall or ceiling surfaces, or other significant deficiencies. According to the POC, all apartments on site are
down units.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 537
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
10
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
5. Site Improvements
5.1. Utilities
The following table identifies the utility suppliers and the condition and adequacy of the services.
Site Utilities
Utility Supplier Condition and Adequacy
Sanitary sewer West County Sanitation Good
Storm sewer West County Sanitation Good
Domestic water East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) Good
Electric service Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Good
Natural gas service Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) Good
Actions/Comments:
▪ According to the POC, the utilities provided are adequate for the property. There are no unique, on -site utility systems such as
emergency electrical generators, septic systems, water or waste water treatment plants, or propane gas tanks.
5.2. Parking, Paving, and Sidewalks
Item Description
Main Ingress and Egress
West Ruby Street
First Street
West Grove Avenue
Silver Avenue
Jade Street
Harold Street
Market Avenue
Warren Drive
Access from Multiple locates on the east,north and south
Paving and Flatwork
Item Material Last Work Done Condition
Entrance Driveway Apron Concrete Circa 1995 Good
Parking Lot Concrete/Asphalt Circa 1995 Good/Fair
Drive Aisles Asphalt Circa 1995 Good
Service Aisles Asphalt Circa 1995 Fair
Sidewalks Cast In Place Concrete Circa 1995 Fair
Curbs Cast in Place Concrete Circa 1995 Good
Pedestrian Ramps Cast in Place Concrete Circa 1995 Good
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 538
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
11
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Parking Count
Open Lot Carport Private Garage Subterranean
Garage
Freestanding Parking
Structure
98 - - - -
Number of ADA Compliant Spaces 0
Number of ADA Compliant Spaces for Vans 0
Total Parking Spaces 98
Parking Ratio (Spaces/Apartments) 1.0
Method of obtaining parking count Physical count
Exterior Stairs
Location Material Handrails Condition
Not Applicable None None --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Concrete pavement
▪ Asphalt pavement
▪ Concrete sidewalks
Actions/Comments:
▪ The single-story duplex buildings in the Phase 1 section each have a concrete driveway for parking one vehicle at each apartment unit.
The duplexes at phase 2 have an asphalt paved parking spot.
▪ The concrete and asphalt driveways have isolated areas of cracks throughout the property. The concrete and asphalt pavement will
require replacement.
▪ The concrete access sidewalks are in fair condition with cracking and vertically displaced sections observed throughout the site. The
access sidewalks will require replacement.
▪ According to the POC, the asphalt paved streets and concrete sidewalks surrounding each building is the responsibility of the city to
maintain and replace.
5.3. Drainage Systems and Erosion Control
Drainage System and Erosion Control
System Exists at Site Condition
Surface Flow ☐ --
Inlets ☒ Good
Swales ☐ --
Detention pond ☐ --
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 539
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
12
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Drainage System and Erosion Control
System Exists at Site Condition
Lagoons ☐ --
Ponds ☐ --
Underground Piping ☒ Good
Pits ☐ --
Municipal System ☒ Good
Dry Well ☐ --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No components of significance.
5.4. Topography and Landscaping
Item Description
Site Topography The property is relatively flat.
Landscaping
Trees Grass Flower
Beds Planters
Drought
Tolerant
Plants
Decorative
Stone None
☒ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Irrigation
Automatic
Underground Drip Hand Watering None
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Retaining Walls
Type Location Condition
None --
Surrounding properties include residential developments.
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No items of significance
Actions/Comments:
▪ The topography and adjacent uses do not appear to present conditions detrimental to the property. There are no significant areas of
erosion.
▪ The irrigation system is no longer used and the landscaped features are no longer maintained. A cost is included to cut the grass,
prune the trees, and remove any dead or dying landscaping.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 540
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
13
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
5.5. General Site Improvements
Property Signage
Property Signage Building Mounted
Street Address Displayed? Yes
Site and Building Lighting
Site Lighting
None Pole Mounted Bollard Lights Ground
Mounted
Parking Lot
Pole Type
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐ ☐
Building Lighting
None Wall Mounted Recessed Soffit
☐ ☒ ☐
Site Fencing
Type Location Condition
Chain link with metal posts West elevation Fair
Stucco covered masonry walls West elevation Good
Painted wrought iron metal Around most units Fair
Refuse Disposal
Refuse Disposal Individual Garbage Bins
Dumpster Locations Mounting Enclosure Contracted? Condition
Not Applicable None None No --
Other Site Amenities
Description Location Condition
Playground Equipment None -- --
Tennis Courts None -- --
Basketball Court None -- --
Swimming Pool None -- --
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 541
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
14
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Site pole lighting
Actions/Comments:
▪ The wrought iron site fencing has isolated areas of the fence that are bent or missing. Repair/replacement of some sections of fence,
is required.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 542
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
15
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
6. Building Architectural and Structural Systems
6.1. Foundations
Building Foundation
Item Description Condition
Floor Concrete Slab on grade Good/Poor
Footings Concrete perimeter footings Good
Basement and Crawl Space None --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No components of significance
Actions/Comments:
▪ The foundations and footings cannot be directly observed. However, there are isolated areas of cracked slabs (living room floors of
units 395 and 398). This condition typically indicates excessive settlement or other potential problems with the slab or foundation
system. A Professional Engineer with specific expertise in structural design and construction in this geographical area must be retained
to evaluate the structure and to provide remedial recommendations consistent with local regulatory and code requirements. Costs are
included as part of section 1.2. A cost allowance to correct these conditions is included in the tables as part of this section.
6.2. Superstructure
Building Superstructure
Item Description Condition
Framing Conventional Wood Framing- Load
bearing walls Good
Upper Floors None --
Roof Structure Wood Trusses Good
Roof Sheathing Plywood Good
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No components of significance
Actions/Comments:
▪ The superstructure is exposed in some locations, which allows for limited observation. Walls and floors appear to be plumb, level, and
stable. There are no significant signs of deflection or movement.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 543
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
16
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
6.3. Roofing
Phase 1 Roofs
Type Gable Roof Finish Standing seam metal panels
Maintenance Outside Contractor Roof Age 1980s
Flashing Sheet metal Warranties Not Reported
Parapet and Copings None Roof Drains Edge drainage to ground
Fascia Wood Insulation Fiberglass batts
Soffits Concealed Soffits Skylights No
Attics Wood joists with plywood
sheathing Ponding No
Ventilation Source-1 Soffit Vents Leaks Observed No
Ventilation Source-2 Gable end vents Roof Condition Fair
The phase 1 roofs are observed at all duplexes on the south side of Silver Avenue.
Phase 2 Roofs
Type Gable Roof Finish Built-up membrane
Maintenance Outside Contractor Roof Age Early to mid-1980s
Flashing Sheet metal Warranties Not Reported
Parapet and Copings None Roof Drains Edge drainage to ground
Fascia Wood Insulation Fiberglass batts
Soffits Concealed Soffits Skylights No
Attics Wood joists with plywood
sheathing Ponding No
Ventilation Source-1 Soffit Vents Leaks Observed No
Ventilation Source-2 Gable end vents Roof Condition Fair
The phase 2 roofs are located at all duplexes north of Silver Avenue.
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Standing seam metals roof
Actions/Comments:
▪ The roof finishes were reportedly installed in the mid-1980s and appear to be more than 30 years old. Information regarding roof
warranties or bonds was not available.
▪ According to the POC, there are no active roof leaks. There is no evidence of active roof leaks.
▪ There is no evidence of roof deck or insulation deterioration. The roof substrate and insulation should be inspected during a ny future
roof repair or replacement work.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 544
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
17
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
▪ The attics are not accessible and it could not be determined if there is moisture, water intrusion, or excessive daylight in the attics. The
insulation in the attics appears to be mostly adequate. In several units where the ceiling had been damaged to get to concealing wiring
and piping the insulation has fallen from the attic. The insulation in these units will require replacements as needed and can be
completed as part of the property’s routine maintenance program.
▪ The built-up roofing membranes covering the phase II roofs have reached the ends of their useful lives requiring replacement.
6.4. Exterior Walls
Building Exterior Walls
Type Location Condition
Primary Finish Stucco Good/Poor
Accented With Wood trim Good/Fair
Soffits Concealed Good
Building sealants (caulking) are located between dissimilar materials, at joints, and around window and door openings.
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Exterior paint
Actions/Comments:
▪ The east facing exterior wall of unit 533 has significant damage from a vehicle colliding with it. The damaged finishes must be repaired.
In addition to these repairs, the exterior walls will require painting.
6.5. Exterior and Interior Stairs
Not applicable. There are no exterior or interior stairs.
6.6. Windows and Doors
Building Windows
Window Framing Glazing Location Window
Screen Condition
Metal framed sliding units Single glaze Apartment windows ☒ Good/Poor
Building Doors
Apartment Doors
Door Type Condition
Solid Core Wood Poor
Cylindrical
Lockset Handle Security
Chain Deadbolts Spy-Eyes Door
Knockers
Yes Lever No Keyed Yes No
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 545
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
18
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Building Doors
Apartment Screen Doors
Door Type Condition
Screen Door --
Apartment Patio Door None --
Service Door None --
Main building Entrance Door None --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Screen doors
Actions/Comments:
▪ The windows are antiquated, energy-inefficient units with single-pane glazing. Most of the units have been damaged from squatters
entering the apartments. Complete window replacement is recommended.
▪ The front and rear apartment doors and screen doors have been removed for the instillation of the VPS (vacant property security)
system. The missing doors must be replaced.
6.7. Patio, Terrace, and Balcony
Building Patio, Terrace and Balcony
Type Description Enclosure Condition
Ground Floor Patio Concrete None Good
Upper Level Balcony None None --
Balcony Decks None None --
Exterior Stairs None None --
Actions/Comments:
▪ No significant repair actions or short term replacement costs are required. Routine and periodic maintenance is recommended.
6.8. Common Areas and Interior Finishes
Not applicable. There are no interior common areas.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 546
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
19
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
7. Building Mechanical and Electrical Systems
7.1. Building Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Not applicable, there are no central heating, venting or air conditioning system.
7.2. Building Plumbing
Building Plumbing System
Type Description Condition
Water Supply Piping Copper Poor
Waste/Sewer Piping Cast Iron Pipe/ABS Good
Vent Piping ABS Pipe Good
Water Meter Location Vaults
Domestic Water Heaters or Boilers
Component(s) Not Applicable. Individual water heaters are located in each unit.
Common Area Plumbing Fixtures
Water Closets Not Applicable. There are no common area plumbing fixtures
Actions/Comments:
▪ Scavengers have destroyed and removed the copper piping in each unit. Partial and in most cases full replacement of the copper
distribution piping of each unit is required.
7.3. Building Gas Distribution
Gas service is supplied from the gas mains on the adjacent public streets. The gas meters and regulators are located along the exterior
walls of the buildings. The gas distribution piping within each building is malleable steel (black iron).
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No components of significance
Actions/Comments:
▪ The pressure and quantity of gas appear to be adequate .
▪ The gas meters and regulators appear to be functioning adequately and will require routine maintenance.
▪ Only limited observation of the gas distribution piping can be made due to hidden conditions.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 547
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
20
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
7.4. Building Electrical
Building Electrical Systems
Electrical lines run Overhead Transformer Pole-mounted
Service size (Amps) 100 Amps to each unit Volts 120/240 Volt, single-phase
Meter and panel location Exterior Branch wiring Copper
Conduit Metallic Circuit Breaker Panel Located in each unit
Number of Buildings Multiple Building Intercom
System No
Distribution Condition Poor
Panel and Transformer
Condition Good
Lighting Condition Poor
Building Emergency System
Size (kVA or kW) None Fuel None
Generator Serves - Tank location -
Testing frequency - Tank type None
Generator Condition --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Smoke detectors
Actions/Comments:
▪ The on-site electrical systems up to the meters are owned and maintained by the respective utility company.
▪ The exterior lights above each unit entry door are missing entirely at some units and do not provide adequate lighting where still present.
Replacement is required.
▪ The vast majority of electrical components within the buildings, including the circuit breaker panels and wiring, have been vandalized
and removed. A complete electrical rewiring of each unit, replacement of breaker panels, electrical meters, and outlets is required to
restore adequate service.
7.5. Building Elevators and Conveying Systems
Not applicable. There are no elevators or conveying systems.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 548
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
21
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
7.6. Fire Protection Systems
Item Description
Type None
Fire Alarm
System
None ☐ Battery Operated Smoke
Detectors ☒ Strobe Light Alarms ☐
Central Alarm Panel ☐ Hard-wired Smoke
Detectors ☒ Illuminated EXIT Signs ☐
Battery backup Light Fixtures ☐
Hard-wired Smoke
Detectors/ with battery
Backup
☐ Annunciator Panels ☐
Sprinkler
System
None ☒ Standpipes ☐ Flow Switches ☐
Pull Station ☐ Fire Pumps ☐ Siamese Connections ☐
Alarm horns ☐ Backflow Preventer ☐ Hose Cabinets ☐
Central Alarm
Panel System
Location of Alarm Panel Age of Alarm panel
N/A -
Fire
Extinguishers
Last Service Date Estimated Quantity
- -
Hydrant
Location Along the adjacent public roadways
Siamese
Location N/A
Special
Systems Kitchen Suppression System ☐ Computer Rm. Suppression System ☐
Actions/Comments:
▪ Smoke detectors have been removed from each unit. The detectors will need to be replaced in the bedroom and hallway of every unit.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 549
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
22
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
8. Dwelling Units
8.1. Interior Finishes
The following table generally describes the interior finishes in the apartment units:
Typical Apartment Finishes
Room Floor Walls Ceiling
Living room Vinyl Tile Painted Drywall Painted drywall
Kitchen Vinyl Tile Painted Drywall Painted drywall
Bedroom Vinyl Tile Painted Drywall Painted drywall
Bathroom Sheet vinyl / Vinyl tile Painted drywall / Ceramic tile
tub surround Painted drywall
Hallways Vinyl Tile Painted Drywall Painted drywall
Overall General
Condition Fair/Poor Poor Poor
Apartment Interior Doors
Item Type Condition
Interior Doors Hollow Core Wooden Fair/Poor
Door Framing Wooden Fair
Closet Doors-Type1 Hollow Core Wooded Fair/Poor
Closet Doors-Type2 None --
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Interior paint
▪ Counter tops
Actions/Comments:
▪ Due to of fire damage at units 402 and 573, significant water damage at units 554 and 567, missing appliances and damaged casework
and walls at the remaining units, all units are considered down units at the property. A cost allowance to restore the interior finishes
including floor finishes, wall and ceilings,interior paint, and interior doors is included.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 550
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
23
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
8.2. Dwelling Appliances
Each apartment unit kitchen typically includes the following appliances:
Apartment Kitchen Appliances
Item Type Condition
Refrigerator Frost-free Non-Energy Star 15 Cuft Poor
Cooking Range Natural gas Poor
Range Hood Ducted Poor
Dishwasher Not provided --
Food Disposer Not provided --
Kitchen Cabinet Painted Wood Poor
Kitchen Countertop Plastic laminated wood Poor
Apartment Laundry Tenant Provided, only Hookups Provided
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Refrigerators
▪ Ranges
▪ Range hoods
▪ Kitchen countertops
Actions/Comments:
▪ Similar to the apartment unit finishes, the kitchen appliances, cabinets and countertops have all been removed or vandalized.
Apartment unit renovations that include appliances, cabinetry and countertop replacement are required as part of the overall facility
rehabilitation.
8.3. HVAC
Apartment Heating System
Primary Heating System
Type Forced Air Furnace or Wall Mounted Heater (1 Bedroom Units)
Heating Fuel Natural Gas
Heating System Types 0-Bed 1-Bed 2-Bed 3-Bed 4-bed 5-Bed
Input Capacity - 40MBh 40MBH 60MBh 75MBH -
Manufactured Rated
Efficiency - 80% 80% 80% 80% -
Age - 5-30 yrs 5-30 yrs 5-30 yrs 5-30 yrs -
Heating Plant Condition -- Poor Poor Poor Poor --
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 551
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
24
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Apartment Cooling System
Primary Cooling System
Type None, dwelling units not provided with air conditioning
Natural ventilation is provided by operable windows. Mechanical ventilation is provided in the bathrooms by ceiling exhaust fans.
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ HVAC furnaces and heaters
Actions/Comments:
▪ The HVAC systems are maintained by the in -house maintenance staff. Records of the installation, maintenance, upgrades, and
replacement of the HVAC equipment at the property have not been maintained since the property was first occupied.
▪ Almost all observed forced air furnaces and wall heaters had either some level of vandalization or were completely missing . Total
replacement of each unit’s heating system will be required.
8.4. Plumbing
Apartment Plumbing Fixtures
Item Type Condition
Bath Tub Enameled Steel Fair/Poor
Tub/Shower Surround Ceramic Tile Fair/Poor
Water Closet (GPF) 1.28 GPF Fair/Poor
Bathroom Faucet (GPM) 1.0 GPM Fair/Poor
Shower head (GPM) 1.5 GPM Fair/Poor
Kitchen Faucet (GPM) 1.0 GPM Fair/Poor
Bathroom Vanity Cabinet Wooden Fair/Poor
Domestic Water Heater
Domestic Water Heater Gas Fired Storage Tank
Water Heater Volume 30-40 gal
Input Capacity 35,000 Btuh
Water Heater Location Interior closet
Set point Temperature 122F
DWH Condition Poor
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ Water heaters
▪ Vanity cabinet and sink
▪ Bath tub and surround
▪ Kitchen sinks
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 552
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
25
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
▪ Toilets
Actions/Comments:
▪ Several of the water heaters were observed to be damaged o r were missing vital components. All of the water heaters will require
replacement.
▪ Similar to the apartment unit finishes, the unit bathroom fixtures, cabinets, and vanities are damaged and or missing entirely. Apartment
unit renovations that include bathroom fixture and accessory replacement are recommended .
8.5. Electrical
The electrical service to each apartment unit is 100 amps. A circuit breaker panel inside each unit supplies the HVAC system, appliances,
receptacles and light fixtures.
Apartment Electrical Service
Electric Service Rating to Each Apt. 100 Amps
Circuit Breaker Panel in Each Apt. ☒
GFCI Plug in Kitchen ☒
GFCI Plug in Bathrooms ☒
The apartment units have incandescent and fluorescent light fixtures. Each apartment unit has at least one cable television outlet and
telephone jack. The table below provides the typical light fixtures observed in the apartments.
Apartment Lighting Fixtures
Location Typical Lamp Type ECM
Living Room incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Kitchen incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Bedrooms incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Hallways incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Bathrooms incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Entry and Patio incandescent CFL or
missing ☐
Anticipated Lifecycle Replacements:
▪ No items of significance
Actions/Comments:
▪ The vast majority of electrical components within the units, including the circuit breaker panels, outlets, and wiring, have been damaged
or completely removed. A full modernization/upgrade is recommended to the interior electrical infrastructure as described and included
in Section 7.4.
8.6. Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E)
Not applicable. There are no furnished apartments.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 553
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
26
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
9. Other Structures
Not applicable. There are no major accessory structures.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 554
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
27
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
10. Appendices
Appendix A: Photographic Record
Appendix B: Site and Floor Plans
Appendix C: Supporting Documentation
Appendix D: Site Cost Tables
Appendix E: EMG Accessibility Checklist
Appendix F: Pre-Survey Questionnaire
Appendix G: Acronyms
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 555
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix A:
Photographic Record
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 556
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#1 EXTERIOR ELEVATION
#2 EXTERIOR ELEVATION
#3 EXTERIOR ELEVATION
#4 EXTERIOR ELEVATION
#5 PEDESTRIAN PAVEMENT,
SIDEWALK, CONCRETE
#6 PARKING LOTS, ASPHALT
PAVEMENT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 557
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#7 PARKING LOTS, ASPHALT
PAVEMENT
#8 PARKING LOTS, CONCRETE
PAVEMENT
#9 FENCING
#10 DAMAGED FENCE
#11 LIGHT FIXTURE, EXTERIOR
#12 CRACKED INTERIOR SLAB
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 558
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#13 CRACKED INTERIOR SLAB
#14 ROOF, BUILT-UP
#15 ROOF, METAL
#16 ROOF, METAL
#17 SOFFIT
#18 EXTERIOR WALLS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 559
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#19 DAMGED EXTERIOR STUCCO
#20 DAMAGED EXTERIOR STUCCO
#21 EXTERIOR DOOR
#22 EXTERIOR DOOR
#23 WINDOWS, EXTERIOR
#24 WINDOWS, EXTERIOR
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 560
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#25 FURNACE
#26 HEATER
#27 HEATER
#28 WATER HEATER
#29 WATER HEATER
#30 PLUMBING SYSTEM
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 561
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#31 PLUMBING SYSTEM
#32 PLUMBING SYSTEM
#33 PLUMBING SYSTEM
#34 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
#35 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTION
SYSTEM
#36 SMOKE DETECTOR
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 562
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#37 SMOKE DETECTOR
#38 INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH
#39 INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH
#40 INTERIOR FLOOR FINISH
#41 INTERIORS
#42 INTERIORS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 563
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#43 INTERIOR CEILING
#44 INTERIOR FINISHES
#45 INTERIOR FINISHES
#46 MOLD/BIOLOGICAL GROWTH
#47 MOLD/BIOLOGICAL GROWTH
#48 INTERIORS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 564
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
#49 INTERIOR DOORS
#50 RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES
#51 RESIDENTIAL APPLIANCES
#52 KITCHEN CABINETS
#53 KITCHEN COUNTERS
#54 KITCHEN COUNTERS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 565
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix B:
Site and Floor Plans
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 566
Site Plan
Project Name:
Las Deltas Public Housing – 49 Duplexes
Project Number:
132461.18R000-003.052
Source:
Google Maps
On-Site Date:
October 23, 2018
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 567
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 568
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix C:
Supporting Documentation
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 569
Total Development Cost (TDC)U.S. Department of Housing OMB Approval No. 2577-0075
and Rehab Cost Estimate Addendum and Urban Development (exp. 01/31/2021)
HUD-52860-B Office of Public and Indian Housing
Project (AMP) Name & Number in IMS/PIC
2. Total Development Cost (TDC) Calculation
Based on HUD Notice PIH-________ Year: 20_______ For Locality _____________________
Size - Type Number of units Times TDC Per Unit = TDC
0 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached 0 X 0 0
0 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
0 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
0 - Bdr elevator X 0
1 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
1 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
1 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
1 - Bdr elevator X 0
2 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
2 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
2 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
2 - Bdr elevator X 0
3 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
3 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
3 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
3 - Bdr Elevator X 0
4 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
4 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
4 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
4 - Bdr Elevator X 0
5 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
5 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
5 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
5 - Bdr Elevator X 0
6 - Bdr Detached and Semi detached X 0
6 - Bdr Row Dwelling X 0
6 - Bdr Walk-Up X 0
6 - Bdr Elevator X 0
Total Units 0 0
#VALUE!
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply Page 1 of 2 form HUD-52860-B (04/2018)
Previous versions obsolete
1. SAC Application Number in IMS/PIC DDA ___________________________
____________________________________
The information collection requirements contained in this document have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520) and assigned
OMB control number 2577-0075. There is no personal information contained in this application. Information on activities and expenditures of grant funds is public information and is generally available for disclosure.
Recipients are responsible for ensuring confidentiality when disclosure is not required. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This information is required as a supplement to the HUD-52860 for all SAC applications that propose a demolition under 24 CFR 970.15 or a disposition under 24 CFR 970.17 based on physical obsolsence. HUD will use
this information to determine whether, and under what circumstances, to approve SAC applications as well as to track removals for other record keeping requirements. Responses to this collection of information are statutory
and regulatory to obtain a benefit. All terms not defined in this form have the meanings as 24 CFR part 970 and PIH notice 2018-04 (or any replacement notice). The information requested does not lend itself to
confidentiality.
Complete the calculations below for the unit proposed for demolition and/or disposition based on physical obsolescence:
3. Estimated Cost of Rehabilitation
Attach a document showing rehabalition needs by line item and dollar amount
4. Rehabilitation Cost % (estimated cost of Rehabilitation/Total TDC) x 100 =
29
22
32
15
98
$248,681
$297,336
$354,249
$7,211,749
$6,541,392
$11,335,968
$416,437 $6,248,555
$31,335,555
63.83%
516391410-133 18 Sacramento, California
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 570
Provide attachments as needed. All attachments
must reference the Section and line number to which they apply Page 2 of 2 form HUD-52860-B (04/2018)
Previous versions obsolete
Item 2: TDC Calculation: Complete the TDC calculation for the proposed developments.
Item 3: Rehabilitation Calculation: Attach a document showing rehabilitation needs by line item and dollar amount for the proposed developments in accordance with 24 CFR 970.15 and PIH notice 2018-04 (or any
replacement notice). Soft costs associated with the rehabilitation (e.g. construction contingency, architectural/engineer’s design and construction monitoring fees; profit & overhead fees for specialty sub-contractor; general
condition fees; and PHA administrative costs) should all be listed as separate line items. Certain costs may require additional third-party documentation. See PIH notice 2018-04 (or any replacement notice).
Instructions Form HUD-52860-B
Item 1: Insert the number of the PIH Notice from which the PHA extracted the Total Development Cost (TDC) data. The year of the PIH Notice should coincide with the year the rehabilitation estimate was generated,
which should not be more than two years prior to the SAC application submission date. Insert the name of the nearest locality to the proposed developments.
PHAs proposing to demolish or dispose of public housing developments based on physical obsolosecence under 24 CFR part 970 must complete this HUD-52860-B in order to demonstrate to HUD that no reasonable
program of modification is cost-effective to return the development to their useful life.
Refer to SAC website at www.hud.gov/sac for more information
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 571
Cost DescriptionReport SectionLocation Description IDLifespan (EUL)EAge RUL Quantity Unit Unit Cost w/ Markup * Subtotal 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038Deficiency Repair EstimateEngineer, Structural, General, Investigation 1.2 Dwelling units 395 and 398 1072423 0 0 0 1 EA $6,500.00 $10,239.91 $10,240 $10,240 $10,240 ADA, Kitchen, Sink & Counter, Full Reconfiguration, Renovate 3.2 Dwelling units1072414 0 0 0 5 EA $15,000.00 $23,630.55 $118,153 $118,153 $118,153 ADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Standard), Install 3.2 Parking area1072418 00 0 4 EA $1,300.00 $2,047.98 $8,192 $8,192 $8,192 ADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Van), Install 3.2 Parking area1072420 0 0 0 1 EA $1,400.00 $2,205.52 $2,206 $2,206 $2,206 ADA, Residential Unit, Visual Bell & Strobe, Hearing Impaired, Install 3.2 Dwelling units1072422 0 0 0 2 EA $1,000.00 $1,575.37 $3,151 $3,151 $3,151 ADA, Restroom, Full Reconfiguration, Renovate 3.2 Dwelling units1072416 00 0 5 EA $15,000.00 $23,630.55 $118,153 $118,153 $118,153 Mold/Biological Growth, Remediation, Repair 3.3 Dwelling units 567 and 554 1072429 0 0 0 600 SF$30.00 $47.26 $28,357 $28,357 $28,357 Foundations, Concrete, Repair 6.1 Dwelling units 395 and 398 1079889 40 40 0 4,000 SF$10.44 $22.70 $90,802 $90,802 $90,802 Roof, Built‐Up, Replace 6.3 Roofs, Phase‐21072441 20 19 1 54,504 SF$12.96 $20.42 $1,112,917 $1,112,917 $1,112,917 Roofs, Metal, Replace 6.3 Roofs, Phase‐11072440 40 35 5 38,264 SF$12.45 $19.61 $750,425 $750,425 $750,425 Structural Roof Decking, Wood, Replace6.3 Roofs, Phase‐21083947 20 19 1 5,450 SF$10.13 $15.96 $86,992 $86,992 $86,992 $173,984 Exterior Wall, Stucco, 1‐2 Stories, Repair 6.4 Exterior wall, Unit 553 1072442 0 0 0 100 SF$18.20 $39.57 $3,957 $3,957 $3,957 Exterior Wall, Painted Surface, 1‐2 Stories, Prep & Paint 6.4 Building exterior1072443 105 5 81,950 SF$2.87 $4.52 $370,612 $370,612 $370,612 $741,224 Window, Aluminum Double‐Glazed 12 SF, 1‐2 Stories, Replace 6.6 All units1072446 30 30 0 915 EA$584.21 $920.34 $842,113 $842,113 $842,113 Exterior Door, Wood Solid‐Core, Replace 6.6 All units1072444 25 25 0 196 EA $1,423.11 $2,241.93 $439,419 $439,419 $439,419 Screen Door, Plain/Anodized Aluminum, Replace 6.6 All units1072445 1010 0 98 EA$498.08 $784.66 $76,897 $76,897 $76,897 $76,897 $230,691 Plumbing System, Domestic Supply Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.2 Dwelling units1072449 40 40 0 77,307 SF$26.78 $42.19 $3,261,216 $3,261,216 $3,261,216 Electrical Distribution System, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.4 Dwelling units1072630 40 40 0 77,307 SF$28.96 $45.62 $3,526,651 $3,526,651 $3,526,651 Flood Light, Exterior, Replace 7.4 Dwelling units1072438 20 19 1 98 EA$995.47 $1,568.24 $153,687 $153,687 $153,687 Lighting System, Interior, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 7.4 Dwelling units 107268425 25 0 77,307 SF$4.73 $7.45 $575,578 $575,578 $575,578 Smoke Detector, Multi‐Family, Replace 7.6 Dwelling units 1072631 10 10 0 327 EA$208.43 $328.35 $107,371 $107,371 $107,371 $107,371 $322,113 Interior Door, Wood Hollow‐Core, Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072644 20 20 0 571 EA$596.52 $939.75 $536,595 $536,595 $536,595 $1,073,190 Interior Ceiling Finish, Generic Surface, Prep & Paint 8.1 Dwelling units 10798938 8 0 135,275 SF$1.45 $2.28 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $927,021 Interior Wall Finish, Gypsum Board/Plaster, Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072843 40 40 0 135,275 SF$3.38 $5.32 $719,666 $719,666 $719,666 Interior Wall Finish, Generic Surface, Prep & Paint 8.1 Dwelling units1072658 8 8 0 135,275 SF$1.45 $2.28 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $309,007 $927,021 Interior Floor Finish, Vinyl Tile (VCT), Replace 8.1 Dwelling units1072642 1515 0 77,307 SF$4.80 $7.56 $584,651 $584,651 $584,651 $1,169,302 Residential Appliances, Refrigerator, 14‐18 CF, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072660 15 15 0 98 EA$956.04 $1,506.11 $147,599 $147,599 $147,599 $295,198 Residential Appliances, Range Hood, Vented or Ventless, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072665 15 15 0 98 EA$271.61 $427.88 $41,933 $41,933 $41,933 $83,866 Residential Appliances, Range, Gas, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072664 1515 0 98 EA$768.11 $1,210.05 $118,585 $118,585 $118,585 $237,170 Kitchen Counter, Plastic Laminate, Postformed, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072672 10 10 0 1,075 LF$43.90 $69.15 $74,338 $74,338 $74,338 $74,338 $223,014 Kitchen Cabinet, Base and Wall Section, Wood, Replace 8.2 Apartment kitchen1072669 20 20 0 1,075 LF$467.63 $736.69 $791,946 $791,946 $791,946 $1,583,892 HVAC System, Multi‐Family, Upgrade 8.3 Dwelling units 1072676 20 20 0 77,307 SF$37.26 $58.70 $4,537,642 $4,537,642 $4,537,642 $9,075,284 Toilet, Flush Tank (Water Closet), Replace 8.4 Apartment bathroom 1072841 20 20 0 113 EA $1,055.15 $1,662.26 $187,835 $187,835 $187,835 $375,670 Sink/Lavatory, Stainless Steel, Replace 8.4 Apartment Kitchens1079923 20 20 0 98 EA $1,054.05 $1,660.52 $162,731 $162,731 $162,731 $325,462 Bathtub & Shower Enclosure, Fiberglass, Replace 8.4 Apartment Bathrooms 1079924 20 20 0 113 EA $1,785.27 $2,812.46 $317,808 $317,808 $317,808 $635,616 Water Heater, Gas, Residential, 30 to 50 GAL, Replace 8.4 Dwelling units1072678 1010 0 98 EA $2,349.48 $3,701.31 $362,728 $362,728 $362,728 $362,728 $1,088,184 Bathroom Vanity Cabinet, Wood, with Cultured Marble Sink Top, 24 to 30", Replace 8.4 Apartment bathroom 1072840 20 20 0 113 EA $1,082.84 $1,705.87 $192,764 $192,764 $192,764 $385,528 $18,607,291 $1,353,596 $0 $0 $0 $1,121,037 $0 $0 $618,014 $0 $621,334 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,263,380 $618,014 $0 $0 $0 $7,435,647 $31,638,313$18,607,291 $1,394,204 $0 $0 $0 $1,299,589 $0 $0 $782,882 $0 $835,021 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,968,305 $991,731 $0 $0 $0 $13,429,606 $39,308,628* Markup/LocationFactor (1.198) has been included in unit costs. Markup includes a 6.5% Design and Permits, 7% General Contractor Fees, Bond, Profit, Insurance, 6% General Requirements, 2% Housing Authority Management, and 10% Contingency factors applied to the location adjusted unit cost.Totals, UnescalatedTotals, Escalated (3.0% inflation, compounded annually)Replacement Reserves ReportLas Deltas 201811/9/2018 May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes572
Flood Map Project Number: 132461.18R000-003.052 Project Name: Las Deltas Public Housing – 49 Duplexes Project Date: October 23, 2018 Source: FEMA May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes573
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes574
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 575
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 576
HEADQUARTERS: EMG CORPORATE CENTER 10461 Mill Run Circle Suite 1100 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 800 733 0660 FAX 410 785 6220
www.emgcorp.com
Fire Department Email RFI
October 24, 2018:
Contra Costa County Fire Department
EMG Project No.: 132461.18R000‐003.052
Dear Sir Or Madam:
EMG is an environmental and engineering consulting firm conducting an investigation on behalf of the property owner of
current and historical conditions which could potentially impact the environmental condition of the following property:
Las Deltas Public Housing
1601 North Jade Street
North Richmond, California 94801
Through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), we request any available information on file which is related to
potential environmental issues concerning the above‐referenced property. Specifically, we request your assistance by
providing us with information concerning existing or historical conditions for the above‐referenced property, including:
1) How far back are records maintained by this Department?
2) Are there any required Department environmental permits, registrations, or notifications, and if any, the compliance
status and any reported violations (including violation status)?
3) Are there any petroleum product/hazardous material storage tanks, both aboveground and underground?
4) Are there any releases of petroleum products and/or hazardous materials?
5) Does the Fire Department conduct routine life‐safety inspections at the property? If yes, what is the frequency?
6) What is the date of last Fire Department Inspection?
7) Are there any OUTSTANDING Fire Code violations? If yes, please provide documentation describing the violation(s).
Any follow‐up documentation may be returned via email, faxed to 410.785.6220, or emailed to:
rfi@emgcorp.com
If you need additional information to complete this request, please contact me at 800.733.0660 x6530. Thank you for
your prompt attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
Sebastiano Loreti
Project Manager
EMG
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 577
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes578
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes579
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix D:
Site Cost Tables
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 580
Cost DescriptionReport SectionLocation Description IDLifespan (EUL)EAge RUL Quantity Unit Unit Cost w/ Markup * Subtotal 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038Deficiency Repair EstimateADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Standard), Install 3.2 Parking area 1072418 0 0 0 4 EA $1,300.00 $2,047.98 $8,192 $8,192 $8,192 ADA, Parking, Designated Stall with Pavement Markings & Signage (Van), Install 3.2 Parking area 1072420 0 0 0 1 EA $1,400.00 $2,205.52 $2,206 $2,206 $2,206 Roadways, Asphalt Pavement, Seal & Stripe 5.2Parking area 10724355 2 3 20,300 SF $0.38 $0.60 $12,136 $12,136 $12,136 $12,136 $12,136 $48,546 Parking Lots, Asphalt Pavement, Mill and overlay 5.2 Parking area 1072433 25 23 2 20,300 SF $1.79 $2.82 $57,158 $57,158 $57,158 Parking Lots, Concrete Pavement, Replace 5.2 Parking area 1072432 30 15 15 14,000 SF $8.00 $12.60 $176,441 $176,441 $176,441 Pedestrian Pavement, Sidewalk, Concrete Large Areas, Replace 5.2Sidewalk 10724373029 1 5,880 SF $9.00 $14.18 $83,369 $83,369 $83,369 Landscaping, Sod at Eroded Areas, Install 5.4 Landscaped Areas 1079789 20 18 2 20,000 SF $1.01 $1.59 $31,885 $31,885 $31,885 Fences & Gates, Chain Link, 6' High, Replace 5.5 Exterior 1072439 30 29 1 3,400 LF $37.54 $59.14 $201,063 $201,063 $201,063 Pole Light, Exterior, HID (Fixture, Ballast, & Lamp), Replace 5.5Site 1079888107 3 15 EA $2,246.90 $3,539.69 $53,095 $53,095 $53,095 $106,191 $10,398 $284,432 $89,043 $65,231 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,136 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,231 $0 $176,441 $0 $0 $12,136 $0 $0 $715,048 $10,398 $292,965 $94,466 $71,280 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,374 $0 $0 $0 $0 $95,794 $0 $274,889 $0 $0 $20,661 $0 $0 $875,826 * Markup/LocationFactor (1.198) has been included in unit costs. Markup includes a 6.5% Design and Permits, 7% General Contractor Fees, Bond, Profit, Insurance, 6% General Requirements, 2% Housing Authority Management, and 10% Contingency factors applied to the location adjusted unit costTotals, UnescalatedTotals, Escalated (3.0% inflation, compounded annually)Replacement Reserves ReportLas Deltas 201811/5/2018 May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes581
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix E:
EMG Accessibility Checklist
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 582
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 583
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 584
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 585
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 586
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 587
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 588
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 589
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 590
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 591
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix F:
Pre-Survey Questionnaire
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 592
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 593
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 594
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 595
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 596
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
Appendix G:
Acronyms
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 597
PHYSICAL NEEDS ASSESSMENT
LAS DELTAS PUBLIC HOUSING – 49 DUPLEXES EMG PROJECT NO.: 132461.18R000-003.052
www.EMGcorp.com p 800.733.0660
ASTM E2018-08 Acronyms
ADA - The Americans with Disabilities Act
ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
BOMA - Building Owners and Managers Association
BUR - Built-up Roofing
DWV – Drainage, Waste, Ventilation
EIFS - Exterior Insulation and Finish System
EMF – Electro Magnetic Fields
EMS - Energy Management System
EUL - Expected Useful Life
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
FFHA - Federal Fair Housing Act
FIRMS - Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FRT- Fire Retardant Treated
FOIA - U.S. Freedom of Information Act (5 USC 552 et seq.) and similar state statutes.
FOIL - Freedom of Information Letter
FM - Factory Mutual
HVAC - Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
IAQ - Indoor Air Quality
MEP – Mechanical, Electrical and Plumbing
NFPA - National Fire Protection Association
PNA – Capital Needs Assessment
PCR - Property Condition Report
PML - Probable Maximum Loss
RTU - Rooftop Unit
RUL - Remaining Useful Life
STC – Sound Transmission Class
UBC – Uniform Building Co
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 598
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes599
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes600
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes601
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes602
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes603
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes604
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes605
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes606
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes607
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes608
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes609
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes610
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes611
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes612
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes613
May 21, 2019Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes614
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCEPT the 3rd Quarter (Unaudited) Budget Report for the period ending 12/31/18.
BACKGROUND
This report is intended to provide the Board of Commissioners with an overview of the financial position of
the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) for the 3rd quarter period ending 12/31/18.
The report begins with a summary of HACCC’s overall fiscal standing at the end of the quarter. The overall
numbers are then broken down by individual funds. Each fund overview includes a brief program summary
and an explanation of the variance between budgeted and actual performance.
AGENCY OVERVIEW: Budget Report
HACCC's overall budget position for the quarter ending 12/31/18 is shown in the chart below. Activity in
Section 8 Voucher and Housing Certificate programs had the most significant impact on HACCC's budget.
The variance increases in revenue of $6,766,132 is a result of Portability activities in the Housing Voucher
Program of roughly $4.3 million, increase in Federal Funding in the Housing Voucher Program of $1.4
million dollars, increase in Federal Funding in Housing Certificate Program of $800,000, an increase of
$300,000 in Public Housing Capital Fund.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
C.1
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:FY 2018-2019 3rd QUARTER BUDGET REPORT
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 615
BACKGROUND (CONT'D)
The variance increase in expenditures of $6,466,001 was a direct result of Housing Assistance Payments
(HAP) made in the Housing Voucher and Housing Certificate Programs.
HACC Agency
Summary
Annual
Budget
3rd Quarter
Actual
12/31/18
Remaining
FY Estimate Annual Total Variance
Revenue $
136,171,936
$
108,895,085 $ 34,042,983 $
142,938,068 $ 6,766,132
Expenditures $
137,140,248
$
109,321,187 $ 34,285,062 $
143,606,249 $ 6,466,001
$ (968,312)$ (426,102)$ (242,079)$ (668,181)
The net change to reserves was a decrease of $426,102. This change to reserves are highlighted by program
as follows: Housing Choice Voucher an increase to reserves in the amount of $137,475; Public Housing
decrease in the amount of $297,388; State and Local a decrease in the amount of $258,988; and Housing
Certificate Program a decrease in the amount of $7,201. The chart below reflects the current reserve
balances by program.
Analysis of Agency
Reserves
Beginning
Balance 4/1/18
(Audited)
3rd Quarter ending
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Reserve
Balance period
ending 12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Total Reserves $ 9,360,421 $ (426,102)$ 8,934,319
Restricted Reserves
Housing Choice Vouchers $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
Public Housing & Cap. Funds $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
State & Local Programs $ -0-$ (206,383)$ (206,383)
Housing Certificates Programs $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
Total Restricted Reserves $ -0-$ (206,383)$ (206,383)
Unrestricted Reserves
Housing Choice Vouchers $ 4,601,633 $ 137,475 $ 4,739,108
Public Housing & Cap. Funds $ 2,273,093 $ (297,388)$ 1,975,705
State & Local Programs $ 2,485,695 $ (52,605)$ 2,433,090*
Housing Certificates Programs $ -0- .$ (7,201) .$ (7,201) .
Total Unrestricted Reserves $ 9,360,421 $ (219,719)$ 9,140,702
* Does not include unfunded pension & OPEB liability of roughly $15.9 million.
As a reminder, almost all reserves are restricted for use within each program. The designation of restricted
or unrestricted reserves merely indicates that the funds are obligated for special use within the program
(restricted) or that they can be used for any purpose tied to the program (unrestricted). The only reserves
that can be used freely are unrestricted reserves within the State and Local Programs that are not tied to the
tax credit properties. These reserves can be used to support any of HACCC’s programs.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 616
FUNDS OVERVIEW:
Housing Choice Vouchers
Program Summary - The HCV program provides assistance to families in the private rental market.
HACCC qualifies families for the program based on income. These families find a home in the private
rental market and HACCC provides them with a subsidy via a HAP contract with the property owner. HAP
is paid by HACCC directly to the owner. Through its HCV program, HACCC is authorized to provide
affordable housing assistance to a maximum of 6,936 families. However, due to funding constraints,
utilization has drop to approximately 6,027 families.
Summary of Difference Between Budgeted and Annual Estimate:
Revenue – The revenue increase of $6,033,755 is a result of $4.29 million dollars being funded by other
Housing Authority for families porting into Contra Costa County. $1.37 million was an increase in HAP
revenue to cover the rising subsidy cost, and the remaining amount of $373,000 was increased
administrative fees associated with the portability increase.
Expenditures- The projected increase in expenditures of $5.66 million is the increase in payments for
portability families and subsidy increases outlined above.
Housing Choice
Vouchers Annual Budget
3rd Quarter Actual
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Remaining FY
Estimate Annual Total Variance
Revenue $ 114,086,817 $ 91,598,868 $ 28,521,704 $ 120,120,572 $ 6,033,755
Expenditures $ 114,394,568 $ 91,461,393 $ 28,598,642 $ 120,060,035 $ 5,665,467
$ (307,751)$ 137,475 $ (76,938)$ 60,537
Analysis of Program Reserves:
Public Housing Operating and Capital Funds
Program Summary - HACCC owns and manages 1,179 public housing units at 16 different sites
throughout the County. Operating funds for these properties come from tenant rents as well as an operating
subsidy received from HUD that is designed to cover the gap between rents collected from the low-income
tenants and annual operating expenses. HUD allocates the Capital Fund annually via formula to
approximately 3,200 housing authorities. Capital Fund grants may be used for development, financing,
modernization, and management improvements within public housing.
Summary of Difference Between Budgeted and Annual Estimate:
Housing Choice Vouchers
Beginning
Balance 4/1/18
Audited
3rd Quarter
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Reserve Balance
period ending
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Restricted Reserves $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
Unrestricted Reserves $ 4,601,633 $ 137,475 $ 4,739,108
Total Reserves $ 4,601,633 $ 137,475 $ 4,739,108
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 617
Revenue – The increase in revenue of $235,693 is a result of increased HUD funding over the annual
budgeted amount for the Capital Grant Fund.
Expenditures - The increase in expenditures of $85,475 is a result of numerous increases and decreases in
expense. The primary adjustment in the expenditures was a utilities charge related to sewer fees that was
deferred in the amount of $155,739 from the prior fiscal year.
Public Housing
Operating and
Capital Fund
Annual Budget
3rd Quarter Actual
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Remaining FY
Estimate Annual Total Variance
Revenue $ 10,857,881 $ 8,379,104 $ 2,714,470 $ 11,093,574 $ 235,693
Expenditures $ 11,454,689 $ 8,676,492 $ 2,863,672 $ 11,540,164 $ (85,475)
$ (596,808)$ (297,388)$ (149,202)$ (446,590)
Analysis of Program Reserves:
Public Housing & Capital
Fund
Beginning
Balance 4/1/18
(Unaudited)
3rd Quarter
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Reserve Balance
period ending
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Restricted Reserves $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
Unrestricted Reserves $ 2,273,093 $ (297,388)$ 1,975,705
Total Reserves $ 2,273,093 $ (297,388)$ 1,975,705
State and Local Programs
Program Summary - HACCC administers a variety of programs and activities that are either not funded
by HUD or that involve non-restricted HUD funds. Currently, HACCC is the managing general partner for
two tax credit projects (DeAnza Gardens & Casa Del Rio). HACCC receives management fees for
administering the Public Housing and HCV programs under HUD’s asset-management model. In addition,
the State and Local Program manages the employee pension and OPEB benefit program.
Summary of Difference between Budgeted and Annual Year-End Estimate:
Revenue –The projected decrease in revenue of $302,223 is related to rental loss in the tax credit programs
in the amount of $251,594. An additional $50,629 was lost in reduced management fees from the federal
programs due reduced units in Public Housing and Housing Vouchers.
Expenditures - The projected $88,094 reduction in expenditures is a result of savings in operating costs.
State & Local
Programs Annual Budget
3rd Quarter Actual
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Remaining FY
Estimate Annual Total Variance
Revenue $ 6,062,925 $ 4,244,971 $ 1,515,731 $ 5,760,702 $ (302,223)
Expenditures $ 6,122,738 $ 4,503,959 $ 1,530,685 $ 6,034,644 $ 88,094
$ (59,813)$ (258,988)$ (14,954)$ (273,942)
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 618
Analysis of Reserves:
State & Local Programs
Beginning
Balance 4/1/18
Audited
3rd Quarter
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Reserve Balance
Period ending
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Restricted Reserves $ -0-$ (206,383)$ (206,383)
Unrestricted Reserves $ 2,485,695 $ (52,605)$ 2,433,090*
Total Reserves $ 2,485,695 $ (258,988)$ 2,226,707
* does not include the unfunded pension & opeb liability of roughly 15.9 million.
Housing Certificate Programs
Program Summary - HACCC administers a Housing Certificate Program in administering the
Continuum of Care Program previously referred to as Shelter Plus Care. The Continuum of Care Program
provides rental assistance for hard-to-serve homeless persons with disabilities in connection with supportive
services funded from sources outside the program. HACCC assists approximately 327 clients under this
program.
Summary of Difference Between Budgeted and Annual Year-End Estimate:
Revenue & Expenditure -The projected increase of $798,907 in revenue is tied to the increase of $803,153
in HAP expenses. HUD increases revenue (to a budget cap) to reimburse HACCC for added rental costs.
Housing
Certificate
Programs
Annual Budget
3rd Quarter Actual
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Remaining FY
Estimate Annual Total Variance
Revenue $ 5,164,313 $ 4,672,142 $ 1,291,078 $ 5,963,220 $ 798,907
Expenditures $ 5,168,253 $ 4,679,343 $ 1,292,063 $ 5,971,406 $ (803,153)
$ (3,940)$ (7,201)$ (985)$ (8,186)
Analysis of Reserves:
Housing Certificate Programs
Beginning
Balance 4/1/18
Audited
3rd Quarter
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Reserve Balance
period ending
12/31/18
(Unaudited)
Restricted Reserves $ -0-$ -0-$ -0-
Unrestricted Reserves $ -0-$ (7,201)$ (7,201)
Total Reserves $ -0-$ (7,201)$ (7,201)
FISCAL IMPACT
None. Information item only.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
None. Information item only.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 619
RECOMMENDATIONS
DENY claim flied by Carla Hammer.
BACKGROUND
See Attached claim.
FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: Scott Selby
925.335.1400
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board
of Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
C.2
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:David Twa, County Administrator
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:Claims
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 620
ATTACHMENTS
HA claim Hammer 5-21-19
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 621
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 622
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 623
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 624
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 625
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 626
RECOMMENDATIONS
ADOPT Resolution No. 5223 certifying the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa (HACCC) as
a High Performer under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP), subject to HUD
confirmatory review, for the period of April 1, 2018 to March 31, 2019.
BACKGROUND
HUD utilizes SEMAP to evaluate a public housing authority’s (PHA) management of the HCV program.
SEMAP scores are based on a combination of electronic data reported to HUD at regular intervals by public
housing authorities (PHAs) and self-reported scores based on internal audits conducted by PHA staff. PHAs
use HUD’s SEMAP Certification form to submit their scores. HACCC’s completed form for fiscal year
2018 is attached. The SEMAP rating consists of fourteen separate performance indicators plus a Bonus
Indicator. Scores for Indicators 1-8 on the attached SEMAP Certification form are based upon HACCC’s
internal review and an external review conducted by a consultant. Scores for Indicators 9-14 on the attached
SEMAP Certification form are based on HUD’s automatic scoring of these Indicators. Based on staff's
certification, HACCC’s HCV program is entitled to receive 125 out of 135 possible points, which will
result in a SEMAP score of 93%. The rating becomes official after HUD reviews and approves the
submission. If HUD maintains this score, HACCC will once again qualify as a “High Performer” under
HUD’s SEMAP program.
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier , Deputy
cc:
C.3
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:HIGH PERFORMER CERTIFICATION FOR THE U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN
DEVELOPMENT (HUD) SECTION EIGHT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM (SEMAP) FOR F
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 627
BACKGROUND (CONT'D)
HACCC achieved a favorable score in 12 of 13 of the SEMAP Indicators for which it is eligible.
Specifically, HACCC scored points in the following Indicators:
Selection From the Waiting List
Determination of Rent Reasonableness
Determination of Adjusted Income
Maintaining Current Utility Allowance Schedules
Conducting Quality Control Inspections
Expanding Housing Opportunities
Maintaining Current Payment Standards
Conducting Annual Income Reexaminations
Correctly Calculating Tenant Rent
Conducting Pre-Contract Housing Quality Standards (HQS) Inspections
Annual HQS Inspections
Lease-Up/Utilization Rate
The Authority did not receive points for Housing Quality Standard Enforcement. Specifically,
Housing Quality Standards Enforcement
HQS Enforcement shows whether, following each HQS inspection of a unit under contract where the
unit fails to meet HQS, any citied life-threatening deficiencies are corrected within 24 hours from the
inspection and all other deficiencies are corrected within no more than 30 calendar days from the
inspection or any HACCC approved extension. Points are based on whether HACCC corrects all HQS
deficiencies within the required time frames permitted by HUD. The margin of error on this indicator is
next to zero. Unfortunately, there were 6 instances where one inspector failed to properly notice the
owners and follow up on the deficiencies in the allotted time frames. HACCC has taken steps to remove
this inspector from its rotation of inspectors and expects to have this matter resolved next year. HACCC
will continue following the Administrative Plan and local code for following proper HQS guidelines.
HACCC will also continue to utilize quality control measures to help identify remaining weaknesses in
overall processes on this Indicator.
Because HACCC has exceeded HUD's requirements, the Agency is no longer rated in the following
Indicator:
Family Self Sufficiency (FSS)
HACCC is no longer rated under SEMAP for this Indicator because we have graduated more FSS
participants than the minimum required by HUD. If the HACCC was still rated, it would receive points
for this Indicator.
FISCAL IMPACT
HUD provides over $109 million annually to serve low-income families in Contra Costa County via the
Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) rental assistance program. Approval of this SEMAP certification is a
condition for continued funding.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
Should the Board of Commissioners elect not to approve Resolution No. 5223, HACCC would be in
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 628
Should the Board of Commissioners elect not to approve Resolution No. 5223, HACCC would be in
jeopardy of losing over $109 million in funding that provides rental assistance for low income families in
Contra Costa County.
AGENDA ATTACHMENTS
SEMAP Resolution 5223
SEMAP Certification Form - FORM HUD - 52648 Indicator 8 Attachment
SEMAP Certification Form - FORM HUD - 52648
MINUTES ATTACHMENTS
Signed Resolution 5223
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 629
THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
RESOLUTION NO. 5223
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECTION EIGHT MANAGEMENT ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
CERTIFICATION FOR THE HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING
SUBMISSION OF RELATED DOCUMENTATION
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa’s Board of Commissioners want to
continue to provide housing assistance payments to qualified low-income tenants; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa wants to ensure that its Housing
Choice Voucher program functions within the standards of the U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD) Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP); and
WHEREAS, 24 CFR Section 985.101 requires a public housing authority (PHA) that administers a
Section 8 tenant-based assistance program to submit an annual SEMAP certification within 60
calendar days after the end of its fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the information requested on the SEMAP Certification concerns the performance of the PHA
and provides assurance that there is no evidence of seriously deficient performance.; and
WHEREAS, HUD uses the information and other data to asses PHA management capabilities and
deficiencies, and assign an overall performance rating to the PHA; and
WHEREAS, the certification must be approved by PHA board resolution and signed by the PHA executive
director; and
WHEREAS, a PHA's SEMAP certification is subject to HUD verification by an on-site confirmatory review
at any time.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, as follows:
1. The SEMAP certification for the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa for the
period ending March 31, 2019, is hereby approved subject to any subsequent HUD
confirmatory reviews; and,
2. The Executive Director of the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa is
authorized to submit this certification and any related documentation to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. This Resolution shall be effective
immediately.
PASSED AND ADOPTED ON _________________________ by
the following vote of the Commissioners.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
ATTESTED ___________________________________
JOSEPH VILLARREAL, CLERK OF THE
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS AND
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
By __________________________________________ May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 630
CA011 - SEMAP Certification - Indicator #8 - Page 2
Payment Standards. The PHA has adopted current payment standards for the voucher program by unit size for each FMR
area in the PHA jurisdiction and, if applicable, for each PHA-designated part of an FMR area, which do not exceed 110
percent of the current applicable FMR and which are not less than 90 percent of the current FMR (unless a lower percent
is approved by HUD). (24 CFR 982.503)
PHA Response Yes X No
Enter current FMRs and payment standards (PS)
0-BR FMR _$1540____ 1-BR FMR __$1855__ 2-BR FMR __$2329__ 3-BR FMR _$3219_ 4-BR FMR __$3946__
O-BR PS _$1435____ 1-BR PS __$1723___ 2-BR PS __$2173__ 3-BR PS __$3017__ 4-BR PS ___$3552__
If the PHA has jurisdiction in more than one FMR area, and/or if the PHA has established separate payment
standards for a PHA-designated part of an FMR area, attach similar FMR and payment standard comparisons for
each FMR area and designated area.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 631
OMB Approval No. 2577-0215U.S. Department of HousingSection 8 Management Assessment and Urban Development (exp. 02/29/2020)Program (SEMAP)Office of Public and Indian Housing
Certification
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 12 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions,
searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. This agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and you are not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This collection of information is required by 24 CFR sec 985.101 which requires a Public Housing Agency (PHA) administering a Section 8 tenant-based
assistance program to submit an annual SEMAP Certification within 60 days after the end of its fiscal year. The information from the PHA concerns the
performance of the PHA and provides assurance that there is no evidence of seriously deficient performance. HUD uses the information and other data
to assess PHA management capabilities and deficiencies, and to assign an overall performance rating to the PHA. Responses are mandatory and the
information collected does not lend itself to confidentiality.
Instructions Respond to this certification form using the PHA’s actual data for the fiscal year just ended.
PHA Name For PHA FY Ending (mm/dd/yyyy)Submission Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
Check here if the PHA expends less than $300,000 a year in Federal awards
Indicators 1 - 7 will not be rated if the PHA expends less than $300,000 a year in Federal awards and its Section 8 programs are not audited
for compliance with regulations by an independent auditor. A PHA that expends less than $300,000 in Federal awards in a year must still
complete the certification for these indicators.
Performance Indicators
1.Selection from the Waiting List. (24 CFR 982.54(d)(1) and 982.204(a))
(a) The PHA has written policies in its administrative plan for selecting applicants from the waiting list.
PHA Response Yes No
(b) The PHA’s quality control samples of applicants reaching the top of the waiting list and of admissions show that at least 98% of the families in the
samples were selected from the waiting list for admission in accordance with the PHA’s policies and met the selection criteria that determined their places
on the waiting list and their order of selection.
PHA Response Yes No
2.Reasonable Rent. (24 CFR 982.4, 982.54(d)(15), 982.158(f)(7) and 982.507)
(a) The PHA has and implements a reasonable written method to determine and document for each unit leased that the rent to owner is reasonable based
on current rents for comparable unassisted units (i) at the time of initial leasing, (ii) before any increase in the rent to owner, and (iii) at the HAP contract
anniversary if there is a 5 percent decrease in the published FMR in effect 60 days before the HAP contract anniversary. The PHA’s method takes into
consideration the location, size, type, quality, and age of the program unit and of similar unassisted units, and any amenities, housing services,
maintenance or utilities provided by the owners.
PHA Response Yes No
(b) The PHA’s quality control sample of tenant files for which a determination of reasonable rent was required shows that the PHA followed its written
method to determine reasonable rent and documented its determination that the rent to owner is reasonable as required for (check one):
PHA Response At least 98% of units sampled 80 to 97% of units sampled Less than 80% of units sampled
3.Determination of Adjusted Income. (24 CFR part 5, subpart F and 24 CFR 982.516)
The PHA’s quality control sample of tenant files shows that at the time of admission and reexamination, the PHA properly obtained third party verification
of adjusted income or documented why third party verification was not available; used the verified information in determining adjusted income; properly
attributed allowances for expenses; and, where the family is responsible for utilities under the lease, the PHA used the appropriate utility allowances for
the unit leased in determining the gross rent for (check one):
PHA Response At least 90% of files sampled 80 to 89% of files sampled Less than 80% of files sampled
4.Utility Allowance Schedule. (24 CFR 982.517)
The PHA maintains an up-to-date utility allowance schedule. The PHA reviewed utility rate data that it obtained within the last 12 months, and adjusted
its utility allowance schedule if there has been a change of 10% or more in a utility rate since the last time the utility allowance schedule was revised.
PHA Response Yes No
5.HQS Quality Control Inspections. (24 CFR 982.405(b))
A PHA supervisor (or other qualified person) reinspected a sample of units during the PHA fiscal year, which met the minimum sample size required by
HUD (see 24 CFR 985.2), for quality control of HQS inspections. The PHA supervisor’s reinspected sample was drawn from recently completed HQS
inspections and represents a cross section of neighborhoods and the work of a cross section of inspectors.
PHA Response Yes No
6.HQS Enforcement. (24 CFR 982.404)
The PHA’s quality control sample of case files with failed HQS inspections shows that, for all cases sampled, any cited life-threatening HQS deficiencies
were corrected within 24 hours from the inspection and, all other cited HQS deficiencies were corrected within no more than 30 calendar days from the
inspection or any PHA-approved extension, or, if HQS deficiencies were not corrected within the required time frame, the PHA stopped housing assistance
payments beginning no later than the first of the month following the correction period, or took prompt and vigorous action to enforce the family obligations
for (check one):
PHA Response At least 98% of cases sampled Less than 98% of cases sampled
form HUD-52648 (11/2013)Previous edition is obsolete Page 1 of 4 ref. 24 CFR Part 985May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 632
7.Expanding Housing Opportunities. (24 CFR 982.54(d)(5), 982.153(b)(3) and (b)(4), 982.301(a) and 983.301(b)(4) and (b)(12)).
Applies only to PHAs with jurisdiction in metropolitan FMR areas.
Check here if not applicable
(a) The PHA has a written policy to encourage participation by owners of units outside areas of poverty or minority concentration which clearly delineates
areas in its jurisdiction that the PHA considers areas of poverty or minority concentration, and which includes actions the PHA will take to encourage
owner participation.
PHA Response Yes No
(b) The PHA has documentation that shows that it took actions indicated in its written policy to encourage participation by owners outside areas of poverty
and minority concentration.
PHA Response Yes No
(c) The PHA has prepared maps that show various areas, both within and neighboring its jurisdiction, with housing opportunities outside areas of poverty
and minority concentration; the PHA has assembled information about job opportunities, schools and services in these areas; and the PHA uses the maps
and related information when briefing voucher holders.
PHA Response Yes No
(d) The PHA’s information packet for voucher holders contains either a list of owners who are willing to lease, or properties available for lease, under
the voucher program, or a list of other organizations that will help families find units and the list includes properties or organizations that operate outside
areas of poverty or minority concentration.
PHA Response Yes No
(e) The PHA’s information packet includes an explanation of how portability works and includes a list of neighboring PHAs with the name, address and
telephone number of a portability contact person at each.
PHA Response Yes No
(f) The PHA has analyzed whether voucher holders have experienced difficulties in finding housing outside areas of poverty or minority concentration
and, where such difficulties were found, the PHA has considered whether it is appropriate to seek approval of exception payment standard amounts in
any part of its jurisdiction and has sought HUD approval when necessary.
PHA Response Yes No
8.Payment Standards. The PHA has adopted current payment standards for the voucher program by unit size for each FMR area in the PHA jurisdiction
and, if applicable, for each PHA-designated part of an FMR area, which do not exceed 110 percent of the current applicable FMR and which are not
less than 90 percent of the current FMR (unless a lower percent is approved by HUD). (24 CFR 982.503)
PHA Response Yes No
Enter current FMRs and payment standards (PS)
0-BR FMR _________1-BR FMR _________2-BR FMR _________3-BR FMR ________4-BR FMR _________
PS ______________PS ______________PS ______________PS ______________PS ______________
If the PHA has jurisdiction in more than one FMR area, and/or if the PHA has established separate payment standards for a PHA-designated
part of an FMR area, attach similar FMR and payment standard comparisons for each FMR area and designated area.
9.Annual Reexaminations. The PHA completes a reexamination for each participating family at least every 12 months. (24 CFR 982.516)
PHA Response Yes No
10.Correct Tenant Rent Calculations. The PHA correctly calculates tenant rent in the rental certificate program and the family rent to owner in the rental
voucher program. (24 CFR 982, Subpart K)
PHA Response Yes No
11.Precontract HQS Inspections. Each newly leased unit passed HQS inspection before the beginning date of the assisted lease and HAP contract. (24 CFR
982.305)
PHA Response Yes No
12.Annual HQS Inspections. The PHA inspects each unit under contract at least annually. (24 CFR 982.405(a))
PHA Response Yes No
13.Lease-Up. The PHA executes assistance contracts on behalf of eligible families for the number of units that has been under budget for at least one year.
PHA Response Yes No
14a.Family Self-Sufficiency Enrollment. The PHA has enrolled families in FSS as required. (24 CFR 984.105)
Applies only to PHAs required to administer an FSS program .
Check here if not applicable
PHA Response
a. Number of mandatory FSS slots (Count units funded under the FY 1992 FSS incentive awards and in FY 1993 and later
through 10/20/1998. Exclude units funded in connection with Section 8 and Section 23 project-based contract
terminations; public housing demolition, disposition and replacement; HUD multifamily property sales; prepaid or
terminated mortgages under section 236 or section 221(d)(3); and Section 8 renewal funding. Subtract the number of
families that successfully completed their contracts on or after 10/21/1998.)
or, Number of mandatory FSS slots under HUD-approved exception
form HUD-52648 (8/2000)Previous edition is obsolete Page 2 of 4 ref. 24 CFR Part 985May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 633
b. Number of FSS families currently enrolled
c. Portability: If you are the initial PHA, enter the number of families currently enrolled in your FSS program, but who
have moved under portability and whose Section 8 assistance is administered by another PHA
Percent of FSS slots filled (b + c divided by a)
14b. Percent of FSS Participants with Escrow Account Balances. The PHA has made progress in supporting family self-sufficiency as measured by the
percent of currently enrolled FSS families with escrow account balances. (24 CFR 984.305)
Applies only to PHAs required to administer an FSS program .
Check here if not applicable
PHA Response Yes No
Portability: If you are the initial PHA, enter the number of families with FSS escrow accounts currently enrolled in your
FSS program, but who have moved under portability and whose Section 8 assistance is administered by another PHA
Deconcentration Bonus Indicator (Optional and only for PHAs with jurisdiction in metropolitan FMR areas).
The PHA is submitting with this certification data which show that:
(1)Half or more of all Section 8 families with children assisted by the PHA in its principal operating area resided in low poverty census tracts at the end of the last
PHA FY;
(2)The percent of Section 8 mover families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts in the PHA’s principal operating area during the last PHA FY
is at least two percentage points higher than the percent of all Section 8 families with children who resided in low poverty census tracts at the end of the last
PHA FY;
or
(3)The percent of Section 8 mover families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts in the PHA’s principal operating area over the last two
PHA FYs is at least two percentage points higher than the percent of all Section 8 families with children who resided in low poverty census tracts at the
end of the second to last PHA FY.
PHA Response Yes No If yes, attach completed deconcentration bonus indicator addendum.
I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the above responses under the Section 8 Management Assessment Program (SEMAP) are true and accurate
for the PHA fiscal year indicated above. I also certify that, to my present knowledge, there is not evidence to indicate seriously deficient performance that casts
doubt on the PHA’s capacity to administer Section 8 rental assistance in accordance with Federal law and regulations.
Warning: HUD will prosecute false claims and statements. Conviction may result in criminal and/or civil penalties. (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1010, 1012; 31 U.S.C. 3729, 3802)
Executive Director, signature Chairperson, Board of Commissioners, signature
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Date (mm/dd/yyyy) ____________________________________________Date (mm/dd/yyyy) _________________________________________
The PHA may include with its SEMAP certification any information bearing on the accuracy or completeness of the information used by the PHA in providing its
certification.
form HUD-52648 (11/2013)Previous edition is obsolete Page 3 of 4 ref. 24 CFR Part 985May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 634
Page 4 of 4
.
SEMAP Certification - Addendum for Reporting Data for Deconcentration Bonus Indicator
Date (mm/dd/yyyy) ____________________________
PHA Name ______________________________________________________________________________________
Principal Operating Area of PHA _____________________________________________________________________
(The geographic entity for which the Census tabulates data)
Special Instructions for State or regional PHAs Complete a copy of this addendum for each metropolitan area or portion of a metropolitan area (i.e., principal
operating areas) where the PHA has assisted 20 or more Section 8 families with children in the last completed PHA FY. HUD will rate the areas separately
and the separate ratings will then be weighted by the number of assisted families with children in each area and averaged to determine bonus points.
1990 Census Poverty Rate of Principal Operating Area __________________________________________________
Criteria to Obtain Deconcentration Indicator Bonus Points
To qualify for bonus points, a PHA must complete the requested information and answer yes for only one of the 3 criteria below. However,
State and regional PHAs must always complete line 1) b for each metropolitan principal operating area.
1)__________a. Number of Section 8 families with children assisted by the PHA in its principal operating area at the end of the last PHA
FY who live in low poverty census tracts. A low poverty census tract is a tract with a poverty rate at or below the overall
poverty rate for the principal operating area of the PHA, or at or below 10% whichever is greater.
__________b. Total Section 8 families with children assisted by the PHA in its principal operating area at the end of the last PHA FY.
__________c. Percent of all Section 8 families with children residing in low poverty census tracts in the PHA’s principal operating area
at the end of the last PHA FY (line a divided by line b).
Is line c 50% or more? Yes No
2)__________a. Percent of all Section 8 families with children residing in low poverty census tracts in the PHA's principal operating area
at the end of the last completed PHA FY.
__________b. Number of Section 8 families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts during the last completed PHA FY.
__________c. Number of Section 8 families with children who moved during the last completed PHA FY.
__________d. Percent of all Section 8 mover families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts during the last PHA fiscal
year (line b divided by line c).
Is line d at least two percentage points higher than line a? Yes No
3)__________a. Percent of all Section 8 families with children residing in low poverty census tracts in the PHA's principal operating area
at the end of the second to last completed PHA FY.
__________b. Number of Section 8 families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts during the last two completed PHA FYs.
__________c. Number of Section 8 families with children who moved during the last two completed PHA FYs.
__________d. Percent of all Section 8 mover families with children who moved to low poverty census tracts over the last two completed
PHA FYs (line b divided by line c).
Is line d at least two percentage points higher than line a? Yes No
If one of the 3 criteria above is met, the PHA may be eligible for 5 bonus points.
See instructions above concerning bonus points for State and regional PHAs.
form HUD-52648 (11/2013)Previous edition is obsolete ref. 24 CFR Part 985May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 635
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 636
RECOMMENDATIONS
ACCPET report on the relocation status of the families at the Las Deltas public housing development in
North Richmond.
BACKGROUND
As part of the RAD conversion of the Las Deltas public housing units, HACCC is required to assist the
families living at Las Deltas to find new, affordable places to live. All of the residents living at Las Deltas
at the time of conversion, must be assisted under the laws and regulations set forth in the Uniform
Relocation Act, California Relocation Assistance Law and the California Relocation Assistance and Real
Property Acquisition Guidelines.
There were 81 families living at Las Deltas when it was approved for RAD. All are/were eligible for
relocation benefits. In September 2017 HACCC began officially moving families out of Las Deltas.
Although a few of the 81 families had moved before this date, these early movers retained eligibility for,
and were offered, relocation benefits. The mover status of the Las Deltas families as of March 5, 2019 is as
follows:
Action of Board On: 05/21/2019 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
Clerks Notes:
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
AYE:John Gioia, Commissioner
Candace Andersen,
Commissioner
Diane Burgis, Commissioner
Karen Mitchoff,
Commissioner
Federal D. Glover,
Commissioner
Contact: 925-957-8028
I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of an action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of
Supervisors on the date shown.
ATTESTED: May 21, 2019
Joseph Villarreal, Executive Director
By: Jami Napier, Deputy
cc:
C.4
To:Contra Costa County Housing Authority Board of Commissioners
From:Joseph Villarreal, Housing Authority
Date:May 21, 2019
Contra
Costa
County
Subject:RELOCATION STATUS OF LAS DELTAS RESIDENTS
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 637
BACKGROUND (CONT'D)
Total Las Deltas Families Eligible for Relocation 81
Total Families That Have Moved 78
Moved to other public housing 43
Moved using voucher within HACCC jurisdiction 27
Moved using voucher outside of HACCC
jurisdiction 7
Moved and left HACCC programs 1
Total Families Pending Move 3
Waiting to move to other public housing unit 2
Already issued voucher, searching for a unit 1
Waiting for voucher to be issued 0
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding of approximately $1.4 million is provided in the Housing Authority's (HACCC) current PHA
Annual Plan Capital Fund Program (CFP) budget for the cost of the relocation consultants and all direct
relocation costs that will be provided to families (e.g., security deposits, utility transfer fees and the costs to
hire movers). $1 million is targeted for direct relocation costs for the families of Las Deltas.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION
None. Information item only.
May 21, 2019 Contra Costa County Housing Authority Minutes 638