E-Mail Forum – 2023  
  < RETURN  
  Richmond and Brickyard Cove Alliance Responsible Development (BCARD) Not Happy with Terminal 1 Proposal
February 5, 2023

The following was sent to me by Brian Lewis of BCARD:

The City of Richmond and Brickyard Cove Alliance Responsible Development (BCARD) is asking for information about the upcoming Hearing on Terminal One is sent to the Community and the Richmond Yacht Club. 

Tuesday, Feb 7th, is an important City Council Meeting that starts at 6:30 PM.  The Council is holding a hearing on Terminal One.  This hearing is not required, but is being done to reach out to the community for their input.  Your comments are important and do make a difference!  The community has demonstrated this in the past.  Info at the end of this email provides information about the City of Richmond Information Concerning Public Hearing and Zoom info. The public is being asked to comment on the project and the key attachment, C-2 to the Amended Land Disposition Agreement.  The City Council is being advised to approve the current project, reject the project, or modify the project.   BCARD thinks there is little to like about the new project:  Little open space between homes, lack of view corridor, and massing along the perimeter of the site, lack of parking, etc.   The attachment C-2 was to address some concerns, but not all concerns (pgs 819-825 of City Council Agenda package. See below for link)  

While a number of key points have been addressed in C-2, the staff report gives the incorrect impression that the community now supports the project in its present design. The Staff Report also gives this incorrect impression that all of the Community needs have been met.  It is important to point out that the C-2 document does not address many of the community issues.  There are concerns that the review process may not address the aesthetics, density, and massing of the project.   The City Attorney, Dave Aleshire, has been told the community has issues about the design of this project.  From the beginning there have been issues related to massing of the project, aesthetics, view Corridors, Shoreline Overlay District issues, inadequate parking, etc.

For the Point Molate project, the community was given access to the developer’s proforma early on, with time to evaluate it and comment upon it during the critical period of the project and project entitlements approval process. This was not the case with the Terminal One project for which the City, by a split vote of the Council, agreed to keep the developer’s proforma confidential even though it was the key piece of information leading to the City’s agreement to allow the developer to walk away from the original project and present the current one. The proforma was just recently (January 27, 2023) made public. The BCARD had to file a Brown Act Violation for this to happen. Upon review of this data, a few observations are made.   

  • The data used in the proforma is old.   The newest sale data is from December 2020.  
  • The average price per foot seems low at $542.
  • If they were to get $630/foot, then their sales would be up to $207,711,000, indicating an extra $25 mil in profit. (based on 329,700 gross residential saleable square feet)
  • They get $670/foot, they would be up by $38 mil
  • It is hard to forecast what things will sell for in the future, but these units will be coming on the market in several years. 
  • BCARD’s analysis of the performa is that it appears that they were presenting it in a way that shows very low return and high risk. 

The new project with 184-units is not superior to the original design.   There are many aspects of the old project that are beneficial to the community:

  • View Corridors
  • More open space
  • Cars are parked in a large covered garage.  Cars are largely not visible to the community
  • Parking is better
  • No ADUs without parking
  • Shoreline Overlay District maintained
  • More connection between the project and Bay Trail.  (New project abuts the Bay Trail and constricts the trail along the Eastern boundary).  
  • Entitlements have been issued.  

BCARD thinks there is another option rather than rejecting the new project, accepting the new project, or accepting it with modification.  The fourth option would be to bring back aspects of the original project that benefits the community, with or without the park.   It is too early to tell if the community would want the original project in its entirety, that was granted entitlements, or if the original project was modified.    We think the performa supports the old project and that  conclusions were made on old data.   In addition, the issues in C-2, largely carry over to both the new and old project.   Also, the management of the HOAs have language related to the road that they want to go forward.   Steve Chamberlin is the point person on the roads and he is coordinating with the HOAs.  

If the old project is carried forward, this comment may not be relevant.   During the negotiations concerning what wound up being exhibit C-2, we were advised that the limit on the perimeter structures to two stories was a major problem for the developer. Nevertheless, the final version of C-2, without any opportunity for us to oppose it, included language in Subsection (iii)  of the House Siting paragraph 1 in section C. Housing Development, that was strictly the developer’s position, not the community’s position. Also, it is in a document  which is written in such a way (e.g., including the phrase “Neighborhood Mitigation Requirements'' in the title of the exhibit itself) that this was something the community wanted. Further, the incorporation of this subdivision (iii) as one of the “foregoing restrictions'' in the concluding sentence of the House Siting paragraph, thereby making this provision apply in advance to any alternative plan, makes the situation worse. It locks the rejection of the two-story limit to any alternative plan, including one in which the wharf is no longer to be built.  As previously noted, this language gives a completely false impression that this paragraph (iii) was something the community wants. That is unequivocally false, and a complete misrepresentation of our work with the City Attorney on this point. The proper solution to this is simple, eliminates the false impression, leaves the developer where he wants to be, and has been proposed to you before. Since the document has now been executed, that subsection (iii) should be crossed out and the cross-out initialed by all signing parties. This solution has also been proposed to the City Attorney in writing and orally. However, nothing has been done. As we have previously said to the City Attorney, this is the only way to return us to the position on which the developer insists, namely the status of the affected structures as originally designed in this revised project, but without the completely false implication that this was something desired by the community.

The other, far preferred alternative is to get the developer to commit to limiting all perimeter structures other than those referenced in paragraph (ii) to two stories, and use as the correct Exhibit B to this section our version of the site plan with its annotations concerning these particular perimeter structures. 

It has been brought to our attention by Bruce Beyaert of TRAC that certain provisions in C-2 related to the Bay Trail are inconsistent with the obligations of the existing HOAs with regard to its maintenance, and because of the generality of language, would be inconsistent with the obligations that should be assumed by the new HOA for the Terminal One project upon its creation. With this in mind, the language of I.E.5 should be modified to read:

Parkway Maintenance. Subject to the approval by the following entities, the presently existing HOAs (BYCHOA 1 & 2, Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, and Waterline)  and Boardwalk Marina, shall be responsible for maintenance of irrigation and landscaping in parkway areas adjacent to their property and the street, but not the park or any Terminal One Bay Trail section along all sides of Terminal One property including the north section on BCR west of Yacht Club to Dornan Drive. 

For the same reasons, the language of II.G.2 should be modified as follows:

Special Tax. Except as expressly provided herein, Cove residents individually and presently existing HOAs (BYCHOA 1& 2, Brickyard Landing, Seacliff, and Waterline) and Boardwalk Marina, shall not be charged with any special tax, assessment or other cost allocation to pay for construction or maintenance of any park, wharf, Terminal 1 landscaping, or lighting, or any Terminal One Bay Trail section along all sides of Terminal One property including the north section on BCR west of Yacht Club to Dornan Drive.

The community is concerned that the review process will not be able to address concerns about the lack of open space, improving the architectural design, and meeting environmental  standards and the cumulative effects of multiple projects on the Cove.    There are design features of the old project that would be an improvement.   Regardless, going forward, the impacts to the Cove are significant!  Please let your voices be heard.  It does make a difference. 


On February 7, 2023 the Richmond City Council will hold a hearing on a matter of concern to your members. The City is requesting your assistance getting information to your members concerning this matter.

Review the terms of Amendment to Land Disposition Agreement (“ALDA”) for
Terminal One Project and all outstanding objections by various Citizen Groups with
respect to the Project and decide whether (i) to exercise the right to rescind the
transaction and require the Property to be deeded back to the City and the Deposit
returned to Developer; (ii) allow the sale and Project to continue forward; or (iii) direct
staff to negotiate further revisions to the ALDA.

The City closed escrow on the sale on December 30, 2022 but has the right to rescind the sale and is holding the hearing as stated on February 7.

It is not a legally required hearing, but the City is conducting it as a hearing, nevertheless. The Staff Report and documents which will be considered at the hearing are available to those
wishing to review at 

The hearing will commence at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard and will be held via Zoom video conference and by toll-free teleconference call. All persons interested in or wishing to comment on said project may attend the public hearing online or by toll-free teleconference call, or, prior to the time of the hearing, submit written comments. Public comment may be submitted by mail, email and/or Zoom video conference in the manner that follows, provided that no member of the public may submit more than one verbal comment per agenda item.

1. Via mail received by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting, sent to 450 Civic Center Plaza,
     3 rd Floor, Office of the Clerk, Richmond, CA 94804.

2. Via email to cityclerkdept@ci.richmond.ca.us by 1:00 p.m. the day of the meeting.

Emails MUST contain in the subject line 1) Terminal One Disposition pursuant to Amended Land Disposition Agreement. All such email received by 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line and emailed to the City Council before the meeting is called to order. No individual email will be read into the record. Due to the high volume of email received, email that does not contain the correct identifying information in the subject line may be overlooked and may not become part of the record. Email received after 1:00 p.m. will be posted on-line following the meeting as part of the supplemental materials attached to the meeting minutes.

3. Via Zoom by video conference or by phone using the following link/call-in numbers –
for City Council:

Link to the webinar:
Passcode: ccmeeting
Webinar ID: 993 1220 5643
Or iPhone one-tap:
US: +16699006833,,99312205643# or +13462487799,,99312205643#
Or Telephone:
Dial (for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 6833 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799
or +1 929 205 6099 or +1 301 715 8592