PROJECT:
HARBOUR HALL – CRC
1.1 Applicant Information and Eligibility
1. Lead Applicant Organization Name Pogo Park
2. Lead Applicant Mailing Address 2604 Roosevelt Avenue
2a. Lead Applicant City Richmond
2b. Lead Applicant State (start typing to find the name of your state) California
2c. Lead Applicant Zip Code 94804
3. Lead Applicant/Organization Type
Nonprofit, 501c3, including faith-based organizations or entities
Community-based organization (CBO), community-serving facility, and/or direct service provider
4. Are you the best point of contact for this application?
Yes – Toody Maher, Executive Director
4a. Main Point of Contact Phone +1 (510) 590-1716
5. What is the size of your organization (number of employees)? 11-20
6. Proposal Name
Harbour Hall – CRC
7. Please select the County that your project is located in Contra Costa
8. Does your project span across other counties?
No
9. Have you identified any partners that will be involved as Co-Applicants in the proposed project? Co-Applicants are entities other than the Lead Applicant that enter into a formal agreement with the Lead Applicant and other organizations to apply for a CRC Grant and if awarded, implement CRC grant activities as partners
Yes
1. Organization Name (Co-Applicant 1)
City of Richmond
2. Entity Type (Co-Applicant 1)
Local or regional government, including cities, counties, community choice aggregators, joint powers authorities, councils of government, special districts, schools, and libraries
3. Main Point of Contact
Greg Hardesty
4. Email (Co-Applicant 1) greg_hardesty@ci.richmond.ca.us
5. Mailing Address (Co-Applicant 1)
Greg Hardesty
Parks and Landscape Superintendent
3201 Leona Avenue Richmond, CA 94804
6. Do you have additional Co-Applicants?
No
7. Did you submit the Community Resilience Centers Program: Round 1 Implementation Grant Pre-Proposal?
Yes
8. If your project is not recommended for award, do you want us to share details about your proposal with relevant State climate grant programs and other funders?
Yes
2.1 Application Workbook
Proposed activities must meet Implementation Grant Program Objectives, build both climate resilience and community resilience, and meaningfully prepare the local community to implement a future CRC. The workplan and budget must provide a clear understanding of local community strengths, technical needs, and proposed activities. Workplans must include discrete tasks, detailed deliverables, and a clear Project schedule. Budgets must have adequate detail and demonstrate financial feasibility.
See Exhibit A
1. Please upload any supporting documentation for the Budget outlined in your workbook.
See Exhibit B
2. Construction Cost Estimates
See Exhibit C
3. What is the total amount of SGC CRC Funds you are requesting for this Implementation Grant project?
$10,000,000
Please describe overall project design and connect to Project Vision Statement, Program Objectives, specific site, and specific community this grant intends to serve.
● The Harbour Hall – CRC Project's overall design is to transform Harbour Hall, a 3,500 square-foot community center in the heart of one of Richmond most underserved communities, into Contra Costa County’s first ever CRC. The 2
Project design closely connects with our vision statement: to create a CRC planned, designed, (and later managed!) by community residents.
● The Project aligns with the CRC program objectives by creating a trusted public space that offers multiple benefits and services to an underserved community. Our Project will actualize community-driven design, integration of essential services, year-round programs, workforce development, and increased community leadership, social cohesion and civic engagement.
● The proposed CRC site, Harbour Hall, is located in a public park located at 909 Ohio Avenue, Richmond, CA, on a two-block section of the Richmond Greenway. The Project’s campus will include multiple amenities including: shade trees, bioretention areas as well as community and climate resilience programs
● This CRC grant will serve Richmond’s Iron Triangle, a critically disadvantaged, industrial neighborhood facing environmental challenges from major pollution sources. 90% of Iron Triangle residents are Black and Brown and must endure a toxic mix of social and environmental conditions: generational poverty, food insecurity, underfunded schools, and gun violence.
The CRC Implementation Grant Lead Applicant must be an eligible entity and must develop a Partnership Agreement that is co-developed by the Lead Applicant and all Co-Applicants that describes the governance, organization, and financial relationships of the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure (CSS). The Partnership Agreement can be submitted as an unsigned draft. If awarded, SGC may request changes to the terms of the Partnership Agreement during the post-award consultation process and the Partnership Agreement will need to be executed before the Grant Agreement is signed.
1. Is the Lead Applicant a public agency?
No
2. Is a Co-Applicant(s) a public agency?
Yes
2a. Please upload a letter of support from the public agency or agencies, describing their commitment to supporting the completion of the Project Development Grant.
See Exhibit D
3. Is the Lead Applicant or one of the Co-Applicant(s) a part of the County government?
No
CRCs must have ongoing coordination throughout the Implementation Grant term with their local County Office of Emergency Services (or equivalent county departments) to determine procedures for emergency activation.
See Exhibit E
4. Is the Lead Applicant a private entity, including private sector or consultant, private philanthropic organization, or another for-profit entity?
No
Does your Project Area cross municipal boundaries, federally recognized Tribal territory boundaries, or similarly relevant jurisdictional boundaries?
No
Applicants must develop a draft Partnership Agreement that is co-developed by the Lead Applicant and all Co-Applicants that describes the governance, organization, and financial relationships of the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure (CSS).
See Exhibit F
5b. If awarded, the draft Partnership Agreement submitted with this application must be executed before the Grant Agreement is signed. As the Lead Applicant, if awarded do you commit to submitting a signed Partnership Agreement by time of grant agreement for your Collaborative Stakeholder Structure?
Yes
Is the Lead Applicant a California Native American Tribe that would like to request reasonable modification to any of the requirements of the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure?
No
CRC Implementation Grant Applications must include one or more facility(ies) proposed for use as a CRC. Applications may include existing facilities and/or 4
new construction. Please provide the following information to demonstrate how your project will meet facility requirements.
1. Does your proposed project site(s) include a plan for new construction or retrofit of a physical building?
Yes
1a. Please describe your CRC facility(ies) including any physical buildings that will be constructed or retrofitted as a part of your project.
Currently under construction, Harbour Hall meets the majority of CRC facility requirements. However, Harbour Hall does not currently meet the requirement for backup power generation or storage. A critical element of the Project will entail retrofitting Harbour Hall with a full microgrid energy system. This system will consist of photovoltaic panels and battery back-up to power the building during emergencies. The retrofit will include modifying Harbour Hall’s current electrical system to enable a transition to the microgrid system.
The Harbour Hall CRC Project will also construct a commercial kitchen directly adjacent to Harbour Hall. This 1,500-square foot building will house a community kitchen for daily food preparation for events at Harbour Hall, as well as for community cooking classes and healthy food programs. Harbour Hall’s commercial kitchen will also provide shared space for food preparation for microenterprise activities. The commercial kitchen will include dedicated areas for food preparation, cooking, cold storage, dry storage, and dishwashing.
During emergencies, the commercial kitchen will be used for food preparation and distribution. Additionally, the kitchen will have adjoining rooms dedicated to storage of emergency food, water and supplies.
By the end of the Grant term it is required that all CRC Facilities are able to comply with the following, All CRCs must be:
● Open and accessible to the public and offer Community Resilience Services and Programs year-round to community members;
● Able to be activated seven (7) days per week for heat waves and other climate emergencies that do not require overnight sheltering; and
● Able to be activated for overnight-shelter 24/7 during larger-scale climate emergencies OR able to coordinate transport of community members to an identified nearby evacuation shelter.
Please confirm you have read and understood these required facility functions.
Yes, I have read and understood the above functions, and will be able to meet this requirement by end of grant term if awarded.
Will your CRC provide overnight shelter during disasters? No
3a. CRCs that will not be operating as an overnight-shelter 24/7 during larger-scale climate emergencies will be required to be able to coordinate transport of community members to an identified nearby evacuation shelter. What overnight/ evacuation shelter or shelters do you plan to coordinate with to make sure community members served at your CRC will be able to access overnight shelter services during an emergency?
Rico Rincon, Battalion Chief of Richmond’s Fire Department and lead for the City’s Office of Emergency Services, confirmed that they will transport community members from Harbour Hall – CRC to Nevin Community Center, the “primary” evacuation center serving the Iron Triangle neighborhood, approximately ½ mile from Harbour Hall. Nevin Community Center is equipped to provide overnight shelter services to community residents during emergencies.
By end of the Grant term, the facility serving as the resilience center must have capabilities and features that enable the site to be activated for a range of climate and other emergencies. These include:
● ADA-compliant facilities
● Gender-neutral restrooms
● Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC) System
● Air filtration system (MERV 13 at minimum)
● Broadband access*
● Backup power generation and/or battery storage*
● Device charging capabilities for cell phones, personal communications devices, medical devices, power wheelchairs, and other assistive devices and technology*
● Drinking water stored on-site with a plan for re-supply
Please confirm you have read and understood these required facility features.
Yes, I have read and understood the above features, and will be able to meet this requirement by end of grant term if awarded
1. CRC Implementation Grant Applicants must be able to provide a Project Area that is clearly defined, with at least one identified, eligible site.
See Exhibit G
2. Please provide the coordinates of your proposed CRC Facility site(s) within your Project Area.
Site Name: Harbour Hall – CRC
Coordinates: 37.93097, -122.36094
Address: 909 Ohio Ave, Richmond CA 94804
Does your Project Area cross municipal boundaries, federally recognized Tribal territory boundaries, or similarly relevant jurisdictional boundaries?
No
Each CRC Implementation Grant Lead and Co-Applicant must demonstrate site readiness to ensure that proposed capital project components can be constructed within the grant term. Readiness requirements include California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation, site control, permits, financial feasibility, project schedules, facility condition assessments, construction cost estimates, facility floorplans, and operations and maintenance plans. Projects will be carefully vetted during the application review to ensure that readiness status is accurately reflected in application materials and additional documents may be requested of Applicants in advance of the awards to assess site readiness and feasibility. All Capital Projects must align with applicable local/regional plans and regulations. Tribal projects located on restricted fee land must comply with the requirements on which the land is located.
Please describe the progress you have made towards demonstrating that CEQA environmental review will be completed within the first year of the grant term.
Please include details on your consultation with the appropriate public agency or agencies to determine what is required to comply with CEQA.
Harbour Hall – CRC is located in the center of Harbour-8 Park, a two-block city park on the three-mile long Richmond Greenway. Harbour-8 Park is categorically exempt from CEQA. A Notice of Exemption documentation is included as part of this application.
If you have already completed CEQA environmental review for your project or your project is categorically or statutorily exempt, please upload your documentation below.
See Exhibit H
Does the Lead Applicant and/or Co-Applicant own or lease the facility your proposed project is located on?
Own
2a. Please provide documentation of ownership that demonstrates site control needed to implement the project, such as a fee title, or a land sales contract.
See Exhibit I
2b. Please provide any relevant additional details about your site control documentation below.
Pogo Park is actively working on acquiring parcel number 548-420-004, directly west of the CRC Project site, from a private owner. Once purchased, the site would be used to expand the CRC facility. However, it was not possible to secure a willing seller letter by the grant application deadline. If the sale of parcel number 548-420-004 is feasible during the grant period, Pogo Park would be interested in using CRC grant funds to acquire the property
Pogo Park has developed an Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with the City of Richmond for Harbour-8 Park (the location of Harbour Hall and the proposed CRC) and Elm Playlot (where CRC community resiliency programs will take place). The MOU is currently under review with the City of Richmond legal department. A draft copy of the MOU is included in this application.
Applicants must conduct a project site analysis demonstrating the road capacity around the proposed CRC Project Site, a land-use analysis for compatibility (or an existing planning document that identifies the potential sites for these uses
such as a community-specific plan), and consultation with emergency service providers about site location (especially for emergency ingress and egress).
See Exhibit J
Please list all the permits required to implement all proposed components of the application and demonstrate how you plan to obtain them within the grant term.
The Harbour Hall – CRC Project will require City of Richmond building permits for the retrofit to Harbour Hall and for the construction of the commercial kitchen, Information Station, and landscape elements. The commercial kitchen will also require permits for the building’s fire prevention equipment from the City of Richmond and a permit from the Contra Costa County Health Department.
All required permits for the Project will be acquired during the Project development process. Pogo Park will work with our experienced, professional design and construction team to develop a Project schedule for construction documents that meets the requirements of the City of Richmond – and which allows for construction completion within the grant term. Pogo Park is on excellent terms with the City of Richmond; with the City as a Project partner, we anticipate being able to quickly resolve any permitting issues that may arise.
Applicants must be able to demonstrate that the Project is financially feasible as evidenced by documentation including, but not limited to, a market study, project pro-forma, sources and uses statement, proposed operating budget, multi-year pro-forma, or other feasibility documentation, as relevant. Please upload this documentation below.
See Exhibit K
5a. Please provide any relevant additional details about your financial feasibility documentation below
N/A
If your project includes an existing facility and you have already conducted a Facility Condition Assessment (FCA), please upload your completed FCA below.
N/A
6a. Please provide any relevant additional details about your FCA Documentation below.
Harbour Hall is currently under construction. Once completed, it will meet the CRC requirements for ADA accessibility, health and fire safety elements, gender-neutral restrooms, HVAC, air filtration, broadband access, and device charging. Additionally, Harbour Hall will also include both indoor and outdoor areas for community programming and gathering. The proposed building retrofit will install backup power generation and battery storage as well as drinking water storage facilities.
Please upload your CRC Facility Floor plans that detail space for features identified in the proposal (e.g. seating, storage of emergency supplies, potential battery storage).
See Exhibit L
7a. Please provide any relevant additional details about your Facility Floor Plans documentation below.
The project floor plans file consists of three documents:
1. The floor plan for Harbour Hall, which is currently under construction and will require retrofits to the electrical system for the proposed microgrid power generation system.
2. The floor plan for the commercial kitchen building, which details food preparation areas and separate spaces for food, water and emergency supply storage. The commercial kitchen building will also house battery backup for both buildings.
3. The site plan for Harbour-8 Park showing the location of Harbour Hall, the proposed commercial kitchen and the landscape elements to be funded by the CRC grant.
The Operations and Maintenance Plan will provide reviewers with a high-level understanding of anticipated operations and maintenance costs, schedules, and roles and responsibilities over the 15 years that facilities are required to be used as a Community Resilience Center. The following section provides space to outline anticipated expenses, anticipated funding sources to pay for operations &
maintenance costs, roles and responsibilities, and the anticipated schedule of replacement and repairs of CRC facility equipment and systems.
See Exhibit M
Please detail the indebtedness for each property included in the CRC application.
Property 1: Total owed $0.00 USD
Property 1: Interest rate 0%
Property 1: Anticipated payback date N/A
Property 1: Is there any other information you would like to provide? N/A
Is there another property included in your CRC application?
N/A
Provide detail on all funding sources that will be used to pay for operations and maintenance costs over the 15 years of use as a CRC, as well as any sources that will be used to pay for Community Resilience Services and Programs.
To follow is the detail of the funding sources that Pogo Park will use to pay for operations and maintenance of Harbour Hall – CRC:
Source 1: Grants
Pogo Park anticipates securing grant funding to support the Harbour Hall – CRC project from government, business, and philanthropic funders.
Over the past 16 years, Pogo Park has secured funding from the San Francisco Bay Area’s leading foundations, and expects them to enthusiastically support the Harbour Hall – CRC Project going forward.
● East Bay Community Foundation
● San Francisco Foundation
● Marin Community Foundation
● Silicon Valley Community Foundation
● Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
● The California Endowment
● Kresge Foundation
● Kaiser Permanente
● California Wellness
Additionally, Pogo Park is building a core infrastructure to continue to secure government grants (like this one!).
Source 2: Donations
Pogo Park will secure support for the Project through donations from individuals and businesses.
Source 3: Contracts
Pogo Park has a 10-year record of securing contracts with the City of Richmond to provide design and building services. We expect this to continue. Income derived from these contracts are used to pay for park maintenance, operations, and programs.
Notably, income from a new Park Improvement District (PID) bond measure (being discussed now) will provide a consistent source of funds for the ongoing costs of operations and maintenance. Income from the PID compliments additional sources of earned revenue: rental income from the Harbour Hall CRC Facilities; and services and food provided during events.
Source 4: Rental Income
Pogo Park and the City of Richmond are developing a system to rent the CRC Facilities – in whole or in part – to the public. Rental revenue will be re-invested back to the Project to pay for the cost of operations, maintenance and programs.
Explain how the CRC facility or facilities will be managed. Please detail what entity will provide general management of the CRC facility, who will be responsible for repairs and replacement, anticipated hours of operation for the facility during non-emergency times, and anticipated staffing for operations and maintenance needs.
Pogo Park will manage the Harbour Hall – CRC facilities and oversee day-to-day operations.
Repairs and Replacement
Over the past 15 years, Pogo Park and the City of Richmond have fostered a close working relationship focused on efficiently addressing repair and replacement or broken items at Elm Playlot. This collaborative approach dictates that for minor damages, such as a scratch on a wall, Pogo Park fixes it. When the damage is major – such as a broken toilet – the City of Richmond's public works department makes the repairs. In short, the City of Richmond assumes the responsibility for larger-ticket repairs as well as costs to maintain the facility.
Hours of Operations
Harbour Hall will be staffed and open for the public on a daily basis (except Sunday) from 8am to 6pm. On days where there are special events, the facilities may close at a later time. This flexible schedule ensures that Harbour Hall and the facilities are available to meet the diverse needs of the community, promoting engagement and participation in programs and services.
Anticipated Staffing – Operations and Maintenance
The CRC facility and adjacent sites will have the following staff support:
● Program Director – All sites
● Program Manager – Harbour-8 Park | Harbour Hall CRC
● Program Manager – Yellow Brick Road®
● Program Manager – Elm Playlot
● Program Support Team – All sites
● Landscaping and Maintenance – All sites
Each CRC Implementation Grant Lead and Co-Applicant must demonstrate applicant capacity by demonstrating management, organizational, and financial capacity.
1. Please upload a Letter of Commitment from the Lead Applicant and each Co-Applicant, describing their role and commitment to supporting the completion of the CRC Implementation Grant.
See Exhibit N
2. Please provide evidence of the Lead Entity or Co-Applicant having successfully implemented a similar project in scope and size in California within the last 10 years.
Lead Entity for the CRC Project, Pogo Park, has over a decade of experience working shoulder to shoulder with the City and a core team of community residents to implement and administer similar projects in scope and size in California within the last 10 years.
Specifically, Pogo Park has or continues to successfully implemented the following projects:
2013–14: Elm Playlot
$2.0 million renovation of Elm Playlot, a .5 acre park in the heart of the Iron Triangle neighborhood and the model for our work.
(Funding source: California State Parks and Recreation Prop 84)
2013–14: Harbour-8 Pop Up Park
$400K to design and build a Pop-Up park at Harbour-8 Park
(Funding source: Trust for Public Land; SD Bechtel Foundation, California Dept. of Natural Resources – Urban Greening grant)
2019: Harbour-8 Improvement Project
$600K to plan, design, and build new improvements to the Harbour Way entry to Harbour-8 Park
(Funding source: California Department of Community Development)
2019: Harbour-8 Park Mini Play Field
$315K to lead and administer the process to plan, design, and build a professional sports field for children with stadium lights.
(Funding source: CDBG Funds – Contra Costa County)
2023: Yellow Brick Road®
$1.2 million contract to lead efforts to install 93 trees and 1,000 plants
$2.0 million contract to clean and beautify Yellow Brick Road route
(Funding source: Natural Resource Agency - Urban Greening grant; Caltrans – Clean CA grant)
2021–2024: Harbour-8 Park Expansion Project
$10.0 million contract to lead the efforts to plan, design, and build Harbour-8 Park
(Funding source: State of CA Parks and Recreation Prop 68; Caltrans – Clean CA grant)
Please provide a letter of support from one (1) reference who can speak to the quality and timeliness of work completed by the Lead Entity.
See Exhibit O
Lead Applicants and Co-Applicants must possess the financial capacity to receive funds, execute the grant, and sub-contract as needed.
Please upload the following documents to demonstrate financial capacity:
● Financial Audits for each Lead and Co-Applicant: Provide copies of current annual organizational budgets and a copy of recent financial statements.
See Exhibit P
● Non-Profit Documentation: If the Lead Applicant and/or Co-Applicants are a non-profit organization, please provide copies of the most recent Federal Form 990 and a copy of the organization’s IRS 501 (c)(3) Tax Determination Letter (if relevant)
See Exhibit Q
CRC Implementation Grant Applicants must demonstrate commitment that the facility will remain dedicated to use as a Community Resilience Center for a minimum of 15 years after project implementation is complete.
1. As the Lead Applicant, if awarded do you commit to submitting a recorded deed restriction or a Memorandum of Unrecorded Grant Agreement (MOUGA) by the end of the second year of the grant term?
Yes
Draft plans should demonstrate an ability to serve local neighborhoods around the CRC facility during emergencies and year-round, with specific attention to priority populations.
See Exhibit R
Please clearly describe the proposed Project Area and proposed site(s). Describe the process used to select the Project Area, including partners and local residents involved or consulted.
Project Area and proposed site(s) description:
● The proposed CRC site is Harbour-8 Park, a city-owned public park on the Richmond Greenway between Harbour Way and 8th Street at 909 Ohio Avenue Richmond, CA.
Additionally, there are two complementary sites that connect to the CRC:
● Elm Playlot – a .5 acre pocket park located at 720 Elm Avenue. and .9 miles from Harbour-Hall CRC.
● Yellow Brick Road® – a safe walking-biking street through the Iron Triangle neighborhood that connects Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park. Connecting two parks adds an urgently needed accessibility and mobility component to the Project. (Location: 8th Street from Ohio Ave. to Pennsylvania Ave.)
The process used to select the Project area is the result of over 16 years of grassroots organizing and community engagement within the Project Area by a team of local residents.
Pogo Park's Community Development Team (CDT), diverse in age, race, and gender, played a central role. All have deep-ties to the Iron Triangle – and, together, represent the lived-experience of the 15,000 residents who live here.
Pogo Park’s community engagement process is unique. Rather than hiring professionals from outside to plan, design, and build public spaces “for” the people, Pogo Park hires, trains, and empowers a core team of community residents (those who know their neighborhood best) to do the work themselves.
Site selection was identified during 72 community meetings with local residents and city officials that engaged more than 2,500 local residents and included focus groups, mapping activities, design charrettes, and a hands-on visioning process in collaboration
with the CDT community outreach team. In short, the community was an active player in assessing their own neighborhood assets and constraints and envisioned making Harbour Hall a trusted, go-to public space that could provide support-services to the community during emergencies.
Please provide a Vision Statement for this CRC Implementation Grant. The Vision Statement must reflect the CRC Implementation Grant Program Objectives and approach.
Pogo Park’s vision is to transform Harbour Hall, a 3,500 square-foot neighborhood community center that lies in one of Richmond, California’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods (Iron Triangle), into a Community Resilience Center (CRC) that provides multiple benefits to an underserved community, and will be the first of its kind in Contra Costa County
Planned, designed (and later managed!) by community residents over years of grassroots engagement meetings, Harbour Hall and the surrounding Facilities will become trusted, community-serving public spaces that provide energy access, assistance and resources to the community during disaster emergencies and during post recovery
Additionally, through long established community partnerships, our campus will provide integrated delivery of services and programs in order to build community cohesion and resilience and encourage year-round usage. Moreover, the Project will provide workforce development opportunities in a diverse neighborhood with the highest unemployment rate in the Bay Area, and strengthen community-leadership and engagement.
CRC Implementation Grants must each employ at least 4 of the Implementation Strategies listed below. Please select which of the following CRC Implementation Strategies this project intends to utilize under this grant, if awarded.
Please select which of the following CRC Implementation Strategies this project intends to utilize under this grant, if awarded.
● Strategy 1: Energy Resilience
Yes
● Strategy 2: Water Resilience
Yes
● Strategy 3: Air Quality and Public Health
Yes
● Strategy 4: Nature-Based Solutions and Food Security
Yes
● Strategy 5: Emergency Preparedness and Critical Communications
Yes
● Strategy 6: Mobility and Access
Yes
● Strategy 7: Workforce Development, Education, and Training
Yes
Based on each Implementation Strategy selected above, please summarize and describe the proposed activities associated with each Implementation Strategy this project intends to utilize.
Our CRC will employ all seven strategies:
Strategy 1: Energy Resilience
● Capital Project: Partner GRID Alternatives will Install solar panels and a solar battery backup to provide electricity to local residents during emergencies. (Also employs Strategy 5)
● Capital Project: Contractor will install 120V Outlets at Harbour-Hall and campus, including device-charging capabilities for cell phones, medical devices, power wheelchairs, and personal communication devices. (Also employs Strategies 5, 6.)
Strategy 2: Water Resilience
● Capital Project and Service: Pogo Park will install a water storage facility on site at CRC with water reserves for emergencies. (Also employs Strategy 5)
● Capital Project: Pogo Park will Install bioretention planters and bioretention areas to filter and clean stormwater. (Also employs Strategy 4)
Strategy 3: Air Quality and Public Health
● Service/Program: Pogo Park will provide daily Community Resilience programming at the CRC and adjacent sites for youth, seniors and families, including (but not limited to) exercise, art class, job training, and free lunches for children. (Also employs Strategies 4, 7)
● Service/Program: Pogo Park will hold Monthly Special Events that include (but are not limited to) performing arts, movie night and food.
Strategy 4: Nature-Based Solutions and Food Security
● Capital Project: Pogo Park will install Bioretention Planters, adjacent to Harbour Hall to capture stormwater, and 2,600 square feet Bioretention areas, 9,400 square feet drought tolerant landscaping, and 19 shade trees in Harbour-8 Park to capture and filter stormwater from the park. (Also employs Strategy 2)
● Capital Project: Pogo Park will install a commercial kitchen to help feed residents during climate and other emergencies (Also employs Strategy 5)
Strategy 5: Emergency Preparedness and Critical Communications
● Capital Project: Pogo Park to Construct Information Station to disseminate information to residents
● Capital Project: Pogo Park to install A/V systems to establish Harbour-Hall as a Climate Emergency Command Center
● Service/Program: Our partner Richmond CERT will train and certify residents to become Block Captains. Pogo Park will provide emergency supplies.
● Service/Program: CERT will provide monthly trainings for residents in emergency preparedness and distribute disaster kits.
● Service/Program: Pogo Park will hold Block Parties to prepare and train residents for emergencies.
Strategy 6: Mobility and Access
● Capital Project: Pogo Park will Install accessible benches for pedestrians to sit and rest in the shade along the Yellow Brick Road route.
Strategy 7: Workforce Development, Education, and Training
● Service/Program: GRID Alternatives will provide Workforce Development training and hire and train low income residents to install solar panels.
● Service/Program: Pogo Park will provide Workforce Development training to local residents. During the pre-construction process, Pogo Park will create opportunities for residents to participate in and learn about the process to secure permits from the City and execute contracts with sub-consultants.
Describe the community or communities you serve and/or intend to serve through your proposed CRC project. Please also describe what local community resilience looks like in this neighborhood.
Community Description:
The proposed CRC Project serves Richmond's "Iron Triangle" neighborhood, home to approximately 15,000 residents. Named for the three railroad tracks that define its borders, Richmond’s historic, one-square-mile, Iron Triangle is one of California’s most critically disadvantaged communities.
Challenges:
● The Iron Triangle is a blighted, industrial neighborhood with limited green space, bordered by sources of air pollution, including the Chevron Refinery, BNSF Railroad, Port of Richmond, and Richmond Parkway ranking among the top 1% of the most environmentally degraded census tracts in California.
● 1/3 of families live in poverty; food insecurity is prevalent.
● Approximately 90% of residents are Black or Brown, with many Spanish speakers with limited English proficiency.
● Local schools are underfunded, consistently ranking among the lowest-performing in the state.
● Decades of gun violence have left a lasting legacy of social isolation and fear among residents.
● Residents suffer from a barrage of "toxic stressors" such as gun violence, lack of safe outdoor spaces, housing instability, limited social services, environmental pollution, racial profiling, and inadequate healthcare. Research shows that toxic stress causes more harm to a person’s health than smoking, eating unhealthy food, and a lack of exercise combined.
● Residents face elevated risk and heightened vulnerability to climate change due to limited resources for coping, adapting to, or recovering from its impacts.
Community Resilience:
As indicated by the 2021 Richmond Community Survey, community resilience in Richmond's Iron Triangle is currently low. Only 23% of respondents believe the community does an excellent or good job of caring for vulnerable residents. Educational opportunities and community-building activities are perceived as inadequate, with only
34% rating adult educational opportunities as good or excellent and a mere 18% considering special events and festivals as excellent or good.
Strengths and Opportunities:
Despite the challenges, there are reasons for optimism:
● Elm Playlot, part of the CRC Campus, and run by Pogo Park, has served as a community hub for over a decade providing a safe, green, vibrant space for recreational and social activities.
● Pogo Park has gained recognition as a trusted leader in community organizing and building, and is well positioned to address the community's needs effectively.
● Elm Playlot offers well-received programming five days a week, including social activities for vulnerable populations.
● Neighbors in the Iron Triangle have started to connect across language and cultural barriers, fostering a sense of community
● The community wants and needs emergency preparedness infrastructure, such as phone trees and access to communication and broadband, to enhance crisis resilience.
● Elm Playlot is the model for our work at Harbour Hall – CRC. We have momentum and this is the time to bolster climate and community resilience in the Iron Triangle.
Priority Populations:
Pogo Park is committed to serving priority populations within the Iron Triangle. These populations include culturally isolated individuals with limited proficiency in English, low income individuals, and transportation disadvantaged residents. While Pogo Park’s focus is on the Iron Triangle, our neighborhood is adjacent to other priority populations who can access our facility and services.
Please describe and summarize local community engagement to date that is relevant to your CRC Implementation Grant proposal.
Pogo Park has a long history (16 years) of community engagement in the Iron Triangle. Pogo Park’s deep and comprehensive process has been recognized as a best practice by the State of California Parks & Recreation Department. Pogo Park is featured in the 2015 Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) as an exemplary model of community engagement.
● Pogo Park's 12-member Community Development Team (CDT), all local residents, initiated an 18-month outreach campaign in 2021-2022.
● The campaign's goal was to connect, engage with, and gather input from community residents regarding the vision for Harbour-8 Park.
● Over 18 months, Pogo Park's CDT conducted 72 dedicated community meetings, which included focus groups, mapping activities, design-charrettes, hands-on visioning sessions, with seniors, youth, businesses, CBOs, and neighborhood councils.
● These activities engaged more than 2,500 residents.
● Using large white sheets of paper and scale models, residents had the opportunity to visually express their ideas for Harbour-8 Park.
● In Summer 2023, Pogo Park established a CRC grant planning team consisting of 20 local residents, including 12 members from Pogo Park's CDT and 8 from the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council.
● The planning team shaped and refined the community's desire to transform Harbour Hall, a new 3,500 square-foot community center currently under construction, into a CRC.
● The approach encouraged interaction among residents of diverse backgrounds.
● Subsequent meetings included City staff and landscape architects, engineers, a custom fabrication studio, and a general contractor to review the feasibility and cost of specific features.
Overall Community Priorities That Surfaced:
● Residents prioritized creating a safe space to serve thousands of underserved residents during emergencies or crises.
● Residents wanted to locate the CRC next to the new entrance to Harbour-8 Park at 9th Street and Ohio Avenue to provide a “visual anchor” and a “gateway” into the entire park site. Additionally, residents reasoned that staff at the Community Center at the entrance could watch over “who is coming in and who is going out” of the CRC.
● Residents favored a single large recreation / meeting room with flexibility for a wide variety of community uses including classes, meetings, access to city staff, job opportunities, and events, envisioning Harbour-Hall CRC as "the heartbeat of the community."
● Residents wanted lighting and cameras to both “light up the entire park” and “record everything happening” as a tool to discourage criminal activity
The template outlines the overall plan structure and information required for the Community Engagement Plan to ensure robust, meaningful, and culturally appropriate community engagement throughout all phases (design, application, implementation, and evaluation), a core component of the CRC Program.
See exhibit S
Please describe the Lead Applicant’s financial capacity, which includes the ability to receive funds, execute the grant if awarded, and subcontract to Collaborative Stakeholder Structure (CSS) partners as needed.
Over nearly two decades, Pogo Park continues to develop the financial capacity to receive funds, administer complex projects and grants, and subcontract to CSS partners as needed. Please note the following:
● Pogo Park has experience in project management and has successfully managed six city contracts.
● Currently, Pogo Park is the prime contractor of an $8.5 million state park project that received funding from Clean California, totaling $10 million. This demonstrates Pogo Park's ability to handle substantial grant volumes.
● To build financial management capacity, Pogo Park has established real-time cost recording and reporting systems.
● Pogo Park has a dedicated finance advisor, Stacy Owens and Company, who serves as Pogo Park’s Finance Manager.
● Pogo Park’s board of directors includes Henry C. Levy, the treasurer of Alameda County and a certified public accountant (CPA). Mr. Levy monitors financial management.
● Pogo Park secured a $1 million line of credit from the Packard Foundation, further demonstrating financial stability.
● Pogo Park manages multiple subcontractors and effectively tracks budget expenditures.
● The organization has a proficient finance team capable of real-time reporting, billing, invoicing, and financial tracking.
● Pogo Park's experienced team is well-equipped to effectively lead, manage, and administer the Project.
Please describe Lead Applicant’s management and organizational capacity, which includes the readiness and capacity to implement the proposed work on time and within budget.
Pogo Park has the management and organizational capacity to implement the Project on time and within budget. Please note that Pogo Park has:
● A robust project management team capable of handling large and complex grant-driven public works projects.
● A comprehensive team composed of staff and sub-consultants, covering general administration, HR, grant administration, legal, operations, finance, and research-evaluation.
● An in-house landscape architect for design expertise.
● Long-standing partnerships with subcontractors with over a decade of experience on constructing public works projects including: professional engineers, landscape architects, architects, arborists, horticulturists, local artists.
● Trainers who specialize in workforce development and human resources to support our Community Development Team (CDT). These trainers provide: culturally relevant workforce development training, encompassing both hard and soft skills, multi-cultural communication training to enhance workplace success for priority populations.
● A 16-year relationship with the City of Richmond who view Pogo Park as a tried and true partner in multiple multi-million dollar successful public works projects in the Iron Triangle.
“Pogo Park is the new Richmond – the Richmond that doesn’t wait for someone else to come and do something for us. This is the Richmond that rolls up our sleeves and we do it for ourselves.”
– Tom Butt, former Richmond MayorPlease describe proposed partners for the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure governing this proposed Implementation Grant project.
1. Pogo Park - Lead Applicant
● 501(c)3
● Toody Maher, Executive Director
● Trusted community development leader with 16-years working in Iron Triangle.
2. City of Richmond - Co-Applicant
● Municipality
● Greg Hardesty, Parks and Landscape Superintendent
● For 16 years, Pogo Park and the City of Richmond have built a successful public/private partnership benefitting residents.
3. Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council (ITNC)
● Neighborhood Organizing-Advocacy Organization
● Oscar Garcia, President
● With a 15-year history of partnering with Pogo Park and Richmond, the ITNC will organize events and disseminate vital information to residents.
4. YES - Nature to Neighborhoods
● 501(c)3
● Eric Aaholm, Executive Director
● Long time partner, will offer youth leadership programs.
5. Richmond CERT (Community Emergency Response Team)
● CBO
● Diane Richwine, Project Leader
● New Pogo Park partner: Pogo Park will collaborate with a facilitator who is skilled at group cohesion and relationships. CERT, with a decade-long partnership with the City of Richmond, will support the CRC's development as a resilient Climate Emergency Command Center, offering ongoing training for residents to become CERT-certifed Bock Captains.
6. Iron Triangle Senior Circle
● Local CBO
● Doris Mason, Local Resident
● A local CBO focused on seniors, Senior Circle will offer year-round programs at the CRC enhancing community resilience.
7. GRID Alternatives
● 501(c)3
● Arthur Bart-Williams, Executive Director
● GRID Alternatives will provide workforce development programs to local residents to install solar panels.
8. East Bay Center for the Performing Arts (EBCPA)
● Local 501(c)3 CBO with 50 years in Iron Triangle
● Ruthie Dineen, Executive Director
● EBCPA will provide enrichment-programs at CRC promoting social cohesion.
9. Two at-large community residents
● Two residents will engage in our projects and inform decisions.
These local residents and stakeholders are ideally suited for this Project due to prior collaborations and shared commitment to making the Iron Triangle a safe place to live.
Does your proposed Collaborative Stakeholder Structure have as a Lead Applicant any of the following: a California Native American Tribe, an eligible entity having co-ownership with a California Native American Tribe, or an eligible entity established by a California Native American Tribe to undertake climate resilience projects?
No
Does your proposed Collaborative Stakeholder Structure include a California Native American Tribe or Tribal communities? Please note that every entity in the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure must demonstrate a role in governance and decision-making.
No
Does your proposed Collaborative Stakeholder Structure include at least one partner with experience relevant to priority populations?
Yes:
Pogo Park’s Community Development Team
Iron Triangle Council
Does your proposed Collaborative Stakeholder Structure include at least one partner with expertise serving priority populations?
Yes:
The Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council
Pogo Park
Does your proposed Collaborative Stakeholder Structure include at least one partner with expertise on any of the following elements from the CRC Program
Objectives: workforce development, education, and training; local leadership and grassroots engagement; civic and community development; and/or climate resilience awareness and activities?
Yes:
Workforce Development: GRID Alternatives provides workforce development for low-income residents to install solar panels preparing people for high quality jobs in a net zero economy.
Grassroots Engagement: The Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council uses local residents to conduct community outreach to plan and lead CRC's community-driven initiatives and strengthen local leadership.
CRC Implementation Grants must demonstrate ability to build both climate resilience and community resilience. The following questions assess the specific neighborhood conditions around the proposed CRC site to understand how proposed activities meet demonstrated needs and opportunities.
Applicants are required to describe and summarize local climate risks, exposures, and adaptation and resilience measures, both current and historic, relevant for this Project Area.
1a. Please upload your generated report produced by Cal-Adapt below. Please submit best available data in this field as well.
See Exhibit T
Please provide a brief narrative in response to the previous question and the data submitted above. Feel free to provide additional local community context relevant to climate impacts useful for application reviewers, if not already provided.
Richmond’s Iron Triangle is one of America’s most critically underserved neighborhoods. One-third of Iron Triangle families live in poverty and suffer from food insecurity. Local schools are under-funded and beleaguered – and perennially rank as some of the poorest performing schools in the state. Residents suffer from trauma caused by high-levels of gun violence over decades. In addition, the Iron Triangle is adjacent to the Chevron refinery, BNSF Railroad, Port of Richmond, and RIchmond Parkway – and ranks in the top 1% of the most environmentally degraded census tracts in California.
Socio-Economic and Health Status Characteristics:
90% of Iron Triangle residents are Black or Brown. 25% of adults have limited or no proficiency in English - triple the 8% national average. (Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0).
Compared to all the other census tracts in California, the two census tracks that make up the Iron Triangle rank in the:
● Top 20% for housing burdened low-income households
● Top 10% for those over 25 who haven’t completed high school (almost 50% of residents)
● Top 25% for households with limited proficiency in English
● Top 20% for households living below twice the federal poverty level – more than 50% of residents
● Top 10% for households where someone has asthma
● Top 20% for low birth weight infants
Climate and Pollution Burdens:
The double whammy of increasing climate risks and existing pollution burden make the Iron Triangle community particularly vulnerable.
The total pollution burden (a composite of exposures including diesel emissions, drinking water contamination, impaired water bodies, groundwater threats, and other similar indicators) on the Iron Triangle is about 80% compared to other census tracts in California.
Extreme heat, wildfires, dam failures, floods and sea-level rise are significant climate risks for the Iron Triangle and are expected to happen more frequently The Cal-Adapt map shows that the number of “extreme heat days” is increasing. Like residents of other cities in coastal climate zones, people in the Iron Triangle are less acclimated to heat, less likely to recognize the symptoms of overheating, and have fewer options for cool air-conditioned spaces.
Results:
Stunningly, according to the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 report, the Iron Triangle is in the top 10% of census tracts in California having a combination of the highest pollution burden and the highest population sensitivity (defined by health indicators and socio-economic factors). In addition, under-funded and under-staffed police and fire services, poor community response infrastructure, limited community communication systems, and a larger than average special needs population demonstrate the compelling need for a Community Resilience Center in the Iron Triangle.
Please explain how the proposed Capital Project design elements and associated activities effectively respond to identified climate hazards or other local impacts described in questions 1a and 1b above.
As described earlier, Iron Triangle residents disproportionately suffer from a variety of socio-economic, health, pollution and climate related burdens. Climate change will act as a stress multiplier for many of the existing health and pollution-related problems that already disproportionately impact low-income and communities of color including asthma, heart disease, diabetes, low birth weight, and cancer
Neighborhoods in Richmond, including the Iron Triangle, do not currently have communication systems or infrastructure in place to connect neighborhoods to the City’s Command Station. We envision that our CRC at Harbour Hall will kickstart this process.
To Combat Excessive Heat, We Will:
● Install a climate control system to keep people cool in the summer and fall months and warm in the winter
● Install back-up power supplies to ensure that power is available during an emergency
● Install filtered water stations across the campus
● Plant trees and other landscaping to provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect
● Install benches for people to rest
To Combat Poor Air Quality We Will:
● We will have back-up power supplies to ensure A/C and air filtration can be used even during power outages
● Install solar panels and solar backup systems for clean, emissions-free power
● Plant trees and other landscaping to help sequester carbon
● Install an air quality monitor connected to the purple air system
● Install a bioswale to filter and clean stormwater before it goes into the storm drain system
● Install green infrastructure and drainage to reduce flooding by conveying stormwater away from streets and buildings. This also reduces the health hazards created by mosquitos, rodents and ticks that tend to live near pooled water.
● Build a commercial kitchen to help feed populations with no access to food during climate and other emergencies
● Install a public announcement system
● Build an Information Station on the CRC campus to serve as an information hub during an emergency
● Install 120V outlets to charge electronic equipment
● Install solar panels and back up solar battery to provide electricity to local residents during emergencies
● Create and train residents to implement a Block Captain program
● Provide Community Emergency Response Team training
● Provide multi-generational active programming including dance, martial arts, and Zumba to improve the physical fitness and health outcomes of residents
● Provide job training for youths and adults
● Organize special events like movie nights, roller skating, and food events to build social connectivity among neighbors
Please describe how the proposed strategies and activities will deliver meaningful benefits and outcomes to local priority populations.
Especially because Harbour Hall is in a designated priority community, many residents lack access to essential amenities like air conditioning, air filtration, and water filtration systems in their homes. Beyond serving as an emergency center in times of need, Harbour Hall will offer refuge from extreme heat and poor air quality.
Our brand new Harbour Hall will be an ADA-compliant space to conduct year-round workshops, classes, and activities including emergency preparedness training, free meal distribution (almost all school-age-kids are eligible for free meals), job training,
children’s camps, community workshops, and other activities to engage community stakeholders. Although Pogo Park will offer a wide variety of classes and workshops, we will focus our programming on issues that are most critical to priority populations within the Iron Triangle. Activities focused on physical fitness, health education, and workforce development will be a priority.
The CRC will be a resource that meaningfully serves this community because it is designed, built, and managed by the community for the community. The calendar of services and programs hosted at the CRC will be designed by community based organizations like the Iron Triangle Council, and our emergency preparedness partners Grid Alternatives and CERT.
All CRC Implementation Grant awardees must provide a legally binding document by the end of the second year of the grant term that demonstrates that the CRC Facility will remain dedicated as a CRC for a minimum of 15 years after project implementation completes.
Harbour Hall, our CRC, is being built in a city-owned park with the sole purpose of serving as a trusted, go-to public space that provides support-services to the community during emergencies, and serves as a multi-purpose space for classes, meetings, voting, performing arts, weddings, memorials, and quinceaneras – for decades to come.
Per statute, at the statewide-scale, SGC must prioritize CRC Projects located in and benefitting priority communities.
Located in and benefiting a SB 535 Disadvantaged Community. Located in and benefitting an AB 1550-Designated Low-Income Community.
Located in and benefitting a census tract with a median household income less than 80% of the statewide average.
Our Project, Harbour Hall – CRC is located in the heart of a priority community The Iron Triangle (IT) is an SB 535 DC, an AB 1550-designated low-income community, as well as in a census tract with a low median income.
Out of all possible priority populations, Pogo Park’s CRC Project is focused on serving the following three populations:
In the Iron Triangle, 25% of adults have a limited proficiency in English compared with an 8% national average. An average of 60% of Iron Triangle children speak English as a second language. This highlights an urgent need to bridge communication gaps, particularly during emergencies.
2. Low Income Individuals and Families:
1/3rd of households live below the poverty line. Residents are often marginalized and do not typically engage in civic life. This lack of engagement poses a risk to residents during crisis situations, as they may not readily access vital resources. Service providers have reported the lowest response rates from IT residents.
3. Transportation Disadvantaged Residents:
27% of residents do not have access to a car Many elderly individuals are unable to walk, and a substantial percentage of the population relies on public transportation. These statistics underscore the critical need for mobility and accessibility resources in this neighborhood.
Please select all of the following that apply to your project N/A
Does your proposed project include a partnership with a workforce development organization or workforce development board? This can include during the construction or retrofit of the CRC facility itself and/or for community resilience services and programs.
Yes: GRID Alternatives
Does your proposed project demonstrate an ability to pursue additional labor and workforce measures? Such measures can include a Community Workforce Agreement, Community Benefits Agreement, Project Labor Agreement, and/or local hire or targeted hire practices for construction and retrofits of the CRC facility.
Yes:
The City of Richmond mandates that 10% of all public works projects must be used to hire Richmond residents. Pogo Park’s public works projects go far above this
requirement. Pogo Park will follow the City’s 10% local hire mandate with an aim to exceed those requirements.
Does your proposed project demonstrate additional or strengthened labor and workforce measures beyond the State prevailing wage requirement during the grant term? These can include, but are not limited to, the following: worker pathways into union pre-apprenticeship and apprenticeship programs; worker benefits and protections; worker safety; and considerations for worker voice.
Yes:
This Project goes beyond the State prevailing wage requirement during the grant term. Through our workforce development project, and our partnership with GRID Alternatives and RichmondBuild, we have established connections with unions, creating clear pathways for workers to access union jobs. These pathways include opportunities for workers to enter union pre-Apprenticeship and Apprenticeship programs, enhancing their skills and career prospects. In fact, the Unions and City of Richmond have agreed to allow Pogo Park to hire and train Richmond residents Richmond on public works projects without the requirement that all labor must be union labor (see attached agreement).
In addition to worker pathways, our Project prioritizes worker benefits and protections, ensuring that laborers receive fair compensation and necessary safeguards in their work environments. Pogo Park is committed to upholding worker safety standards and promoting a culture of safety throughout the Project's duration. Moreover, we value worker voice, actively seeking input and feedback from our workforce to ensure their concerns and perspectives are heard and addressed.
10. If you would like to provide additional documentation for Questions 8 & 9 above, please upload below.
See exhibit U
Please describe what elements of this project, if funded, are replicable and useful for other communities seeking CRC Implementation Grant funds or activities.
If funded, the Harbour Hall CRC Project presents replicable and valuable elements that can serve as models for other communities seeking CRC Implementation:
● Community-Led Model: The Pogo Park model, based on the principle of involving the local community in the design and management of public spaces, is both proven and scalable. This approach empowers residents to actively shape their neighborhoods. Communities can replicate this grassroots, bottom-up process to engage priority populations effectively. The State of California Parks Department and U.C. Berkeley researchers have recognized Pogo Park's approach as a promising and disruptive model for community engagement.
● Data-Driven Evaluation: Pogo Park's partnership with UC Berkeley's School of Public Health evaluating its impact on community health and well-being sets a precedent for data-driven assessments of CRC projects. Pogo Park's emphasis on fostering social cohesion and neighborhood improvement aligns with CRC goals. Sharing the results can provide valuable insights for other communities.
To share this valuable information, we propose creating a comprehensive Project Report that highlights successful strategies, key outcomes, and lessons learned. This report can be made available to interested communities through appropriate channels, such as online platforms and case study documents, while ensuring sensitive information remains confidential.
1. Please upload any additional documentation needed to evaluate your application.
See exhibit V
CRCImplementationGrantWorkplan
Instructions
1.Fillouttherowsandcolumnswiththerequestedinformation.Donoteditanyshadedcells,headers,orcellsthatcontainformulas.
2.Allrequiredactivitiesmustbeaddressedinthisworkplan.Theworkplanisasetoftasksthatalignwithprogramobjectives,collectivelyworktoachievetheprojectvision,andisinclusiveoftheentiregrantterm.
3.Theworkplanshouldprovideasufficientdescriptionoftaskstoprovidereviewerswithanunderstandingofhowspecifictasksadvanceprojectobjectivesandgoals.
4.Applicantsarenotlimitedto6tasksasexemplifiedinthisworkplan includemoretasksandsubtaskasneeded.
5.For"CRCStrategiesAddressed",pleasereferencetab#5"CRCReference"andSection5.3ImplementationStrategiesoftheCRCR1FinalGuidelines.Pleasenote,eacheachCRCproposalmustincludeatleastfour(4)strategies.
6.Pleasenote,"AdditionalStrategiesAddressed"isoptionalandshouldbeusedtolistanyadditionalstrategiesyourproposedsubtaskaddresses(ifany).
7.Timelinesshouldbeclearandshouldnotexceedfive(5)years.Pleasenote,theImplementationGrantTimelineincludesaProjectCompletionPeriodof4years(48months)fromgrantagreementexecutionand PerformancePeriodof1year(12months)fromprojectcompletion.
8.ScoringCriteria:PleaseseerelevantscoringcriteriainSection9.4ScoringCriteriaoftheCRCR1FinalGuidelinestoreviewhowyourWorkplanwillbescored.
9.Toviewanexampleonhowtocompletethisworksheetgototab#3"ExampleCRCWorkplan".
ApplicantInformation
LeadApplicant: PogoPark
ProposalName: HarbourHall–CRC
Jurisdiction: CityofRichmond,ContraCostaCounty
processtosecurepermitsfromtheCity andexecutecontractswithsub-
Instructions
1.Applicantsshouldfillinthewhitecellsonly.Donoteditanyshadedcells,headers,orcellswithformulasincluded,specificallytheentire"Cap/ThresholdSummaryTable","TotalProjectCost","OtherCommittedFunds"and"Check"columns.
2.Numbersinthe"Task"columnshouldcorrespondtothetasksidentifiedintheWorkplan.
3.CostDescriptionsforpersonnelshouldclearlyidentifyorganizationsandpositions.Forexample:“OrganizationX–OutreachSpecialist”,“OrganizationY–SeniorProjectManager”.
4.TotalProjectCostwillcalculatebasedonthe"CostperUnit"and"NumberofUnits".Usethe"TotalCRCFundsRequested"columntoindicatethefundingyouarerequestingfromCRCgrantfundsforthelineitem.TheCRCprogramdoesnotrequireallprojectstobefullyfunded,youshouldbedemonstratingfinancialfeasibilitywiththresholddocumentation.
5.Toaddanadditionalfundingsource,rightclickonthecolumntitled"FundingSource1",and"InsertTableColumnstotheLeft."Thiswillensurethattheformulasproperlyextendacrossallcolumns.
6.Usethe"GrantFunds"and"Leverage"columnstodistributeeachbudgetlineitemacrossfundingsources."TotalProjectCost"willcalculatebasedonthe"CostperUnit"and"NumberofUnits"."OtherCommittedFunds"willautomaticallyaddallAdditionalFundingSourcecolumns.
7.Toaddmorerows,highlightarowdesiredtobeduplicatedandselect"InsertRows".
8.PleasenotethatFederallyrecognizedTribesmayusetheindirectcostratenegotiatedwiththefederalgovernment,whichmayexceedthe12%indirectcostratecap.
9.Toviewanexampleonhowtocompletethisworksheetgototab#4"ExampleCRCBudget".
ApplicantInformation
Forthefollowingthreerows,informationwillautomaticallypopulateintheassociatedcelltotheright,incolumnB.
LeadApplicant: PogoPark
ProposalName: HarbourHall–CRC
Jurisdiction: CityofRichmond,ContraCostaCounty Thiscellisblank,proceedtothetablebelow.
Thiscellisblank,proceedtothetablebelow.
EMERGENCY HAM RADIO for each of two Community Centers
Power Supply for each Community Center
ANTENNA for Each Community Centers
100-FOOT ROLLS OF CABLE for each Community Center – Alpha Antenna
EMERGENCY KIT FRS RADIOS - Amazon
BATTERIES FOR RADIOS – Ba9ery Junc@on (pack of 8 – do not order rechargeable!)
Safety Vest
First Aid Kit
GRID Alternatives is proposing to install a 26.1 kW-DC rooftop-mounted photovoltaic system paired with a 153.6 kWh energy storage system (ESS) for the new Harbour 8 Hall community center in the city of Richmond, CA The estimated full turnkey EPC cost for this system is $550,000.00
Cost Breakdown:
Photovoltaics
Size: 26.1 kW-DC
Major Equipment:
(66) Trina Solar TSM-395-DE15H(II) 395W modules (or equivalent)
(3) Sol-Ark SOL-ARK 15K-2P 15kW hybrid inverters (or equivalent)
Cost: $137,500.00
Estimated annual production: 26.08 MWh
Scope: Full EPC service to design, permit, procure, and install PV system on standing seam metal roof
Energy Storage System (ESS)
Size: 153.6 kWh
Major Equipment:
(1) Homegrid Cube module consisting of:
(32) 4.8kWh LFP batteries
Battery Management System
Internal Heating/Cooling System
Cost: $412,500.00
Scope: Full EPC service including design, permitting, procurement, and installation of ESS equipment and balance of system items
Specifically
*Main
*Panel
*Add
*Power
*Branch
*150KW
*Outdoor
*Sound
*24
Sub Base CA Fuel Tank
*Equipment Pad Layout / Grounding
*Hoisting / Rigging
Excluded Items;
POGO PARK
Toody Maher
2604 Roosevelt Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 590 1716
toody@pogopark.org
September 15, 2023
California Strategic Growth Council
Lynn von Koch-Liebert, Executive Director 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. von Koch-Liebert,
The City of Richmond is excited to be a co-applicant with Pogo Park to transform Harbour Hall, a 3,500 square foot community center locatedat Harbour-8 Park, into a Community Resilience Center (CRC). Harbour Hall - CRC would service thousands of vulnerable Richmond residents during specific climate or emergency events,as well as provide regular programming and community services year-round.
Specifically, the requested CRC grant willprovide funding for the following key elements to transform Harbour Hall to a Community Resilience Center:
Designing and building Harbour-8 Park’s Information Station
Designing and building an ~1,850 SF commercial kitchen building with water and battery storage
Installing a bioretention area, trees, and drought tolerant and fire smart landscaping at Harbour-8 Park
Installing water stations at Harbour-8 Park and Elm Playlot
Installing 49 120V outlets at Harbour-8 Park
Installing two benches along the Yellow Brick Road
Supporting Services and Programs relating to climate and community resilience
Supporting the evaluation of our CRC Project
Supporting on-going management and maintenance of Harbour Hall and its campus
To support this work, the City of Richmond will provide staff time from various City departments, including, but not limited to the following, in support of this Project:
Fire Department - 6 hours/month
Community Development Department - 6 hours/month
City Manager’s Office -6 hours/month
Police Department - 3-4 hours/month
Public Works Department - 3-4 hours/month
Parks and Landscaping - 3-4 hours/month
September 10, 2023
Rick Kovar
Emergency Services Manager
Contra Costa County Office Of Emergency Services
1850 Muir Rd
MarDnez, CA 94553
Dear Mr. Kovar,
This leNer serves as Pogo Park’s NoDce of Intent to Apply for a Round 1 Community Resource Center (CRC) ImplementaDon grant from the California Strategic Growth Council.
In coordinaDon with the City of Richmond, this CRC grant would allow Pogo Park to lead the efforts to transform Harbour Hall, a new 3,500 square foot community center in the city-owned Harbour-8 Park (909 Ohio Avenue in Richmond) into a Community Resilience Center. AddiDonally, a CRC grant would support our efforts to:
• Design and build a new commercial kitchen adjacent to Harbour Hall.
• Design and build an InformaDon StaDon at Harbour-8 Park
• Install bioretenDon areas, trees and landscaping at Harbour-8 Park
• Install a bus shelter at Harbour Way
• Install water staDons at Harbour-8 Park and Elm Playlot
• Install 120V outlets at Harbour-8 Park
• Install two benches on the Yellow Brick Road (8th Street from Ohio to Pennsylvania)
• Provide support services and programs relaDng to climate and community resilience
• Provide support to evaluate this CRC Project
• Provide support for on-going management and maintenance of all the Project sites.
If Pogo Park is awarded the CRC grant, we look forward to partnering with Contra Costa County to develop a robust emergency response plan based out of Harbour Hall at Harbour-8 Park.
Sincerely,
Toody Maher ExecuDve Director Pogo Park
This CRC grant program feels as though it was designed for Pogo Park.
For the past 16 years, Pogo Park has been passionately committed to empowering a core team of residents from Richmond’s Iron Triangle, one of California’s most disadvantaged communities, to work together to reclaim, reimagine, and transform failed neighborhood public spaces (namely city parks and streets).
From our inception 16 years ago until today, Pogo Park’s DNA has been deep and authentic community engagement and empowerment. Other community revitalization programs have been initiated in this neighborhood, and money has been directed at programs trying to empower disenfranchised Iron Triangle residents, be it in health care, job training, public health or emergency preparedness. Most of these programs have faltered, failed, or closed.
In the face of predictable challenges and failures, Pogo Park has persisted. Pogo Park’s persistence and commitment to community empowerment is grounded in our deep commitment to bringing out the skills of people who live in this community. The commitment to developing the inherent capacities of local people has allowed us to face challenges, struggle, learn from our failures, get up, and continue – always! – to move forward.
Over the years, we have seen our core team of community residents’ sense of agency, pride of workmanship, and ability to succeed grow slowly but surely Pogo Park is now ready to build on 16-years of work in the Iron Triangle community to work with a growing team of residents to embrace and actualize the vision of the CRC program.
Pogo Park believes that the first year of the CSS will be crucial to the Project’s success. Building trusting relationships between Partners, and training them to be effective CSS members, will require time and skilled facilitators. We consider the training and orientation for our CSS to be important community development work as well as being crucial to the success of the Project’s CSS.
We imagine scheduling more CSS meetings in Year 1 than in future years in order to train, set community norms and expectations, and build solid working relationships with our collaborative Partners. We are confident Harbour Hall – CRC will be successful because Pogo Park understands both what is needed and what the challenges lie ahead. Pogo Park has a long history of creating space and respect for people from the community to be engaged in the work we do.
This draft Partnership Agreement for the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure for Harbour Hall – CRC (“Agreement”) is made and entered into this 15th day of September, 2023, by and between Pogo Park, City of Richmond, GRID Alternatives, CERT Richmond, Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council, YES Nature to Neighborhoods, East Bay Center for Performing Arts, Senior Circle, and two community residents (each a “Partner” and collectively the “Partners”) to represent a commitment to complete a signed version by the Grant Agreement. Although titled “Partnership Agreement,” this Agreement, once finalized, will function as a Memorandum of Understanding and is not intended to be legally binding.
A. This draft Agreement is entered into pursuant to requirements of the Community Resilience Centers (CRC) Program Guidelines and Harbour Hall – CRC proposal (“Proposal”) and memorializes basic terms to govern the planning and implementation of the scope of work included in the Proposal.
B. Through this draft Agreement, the Partners commit to work together to implement the projects identified in the Proposal if funded by the CRC grant. The Lead Applicant and Co-Applicants have developed the projects included in the Proposal with the understanding of the CRC program requirements and are prepared to lead and participate for the term of the CRC grant.
C. Through CRC, the California Strategic Growth Council (SGC) funds the planning, development, and implementation of neighborhood-level Community Resilience Centers that empower communities, respond to climate emergencies, and provide year-round services and programs to enhance both climate resilience and community resilience.
D. If awarded, Harbour Hall – CRC will be the Grantee responsible for the grant from SGC ("CRC Grant") to fund a range of activities within Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood as depicted in the attachment: Project Area Map.
E. CRC Partners are organizations eligible to participate in the program and fully support the objectives, goals, strategies, and projects identified within the submitted CRC Grant Application if approved by SGC, and the Partners agree to be Co-Applicants for the CRC Grant Application.
F. SGC requires this draft Agreement to set forth the agreed upon governance structure and terms of operation required to implement the Harbour Hall – CRC including but not limited to, the expectations and responsibilities of the Parties, legal and financial terms, and community engagement and decision-making processes.
G. Parties desire to enter into this draft Agreement to establish a Collaborative Stakeholder Structure for matters pertaining to the CRC Grant and the implementation of the scope of work within the forenamed Project Area.
H. Parties acknowledge and agree that other Partners may be added to this Agreement, decided through a democratic process amongst the Collaborative and in consultation with SGC.
Lead Applicant
As the Lead Applicant, Pogo Park commits to all duties and responsibilities corresponding to the Lead Applicant role under the Harbour Hall – CRC for the term of the CRC Grant. Pogo Park is fully committed to the activities and deliverables of the CRC Proposal, the requirements of the CRC Grant, and the stipulations of this Agreement, and agrees to take all actions necessary to effectuate the requirements of the CRC Grant in accordance with the State of California requirements.
As Lead Applicant, Pogo Park responsibilities include but are not limited to:
A. Commitment to Co-Applicants
a. Commitment to plan and implement the project schedule;
b. commitment to work collaboratively;
c. leverage available funds; and
d. commitment to build equitable policies collaboratively with Partners in the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure
B. Roles and Responsibilities
a. Coordinating all components of the CRC Proposal and processing the approval of the CRC Proposal through the SGC as may be necessary or appropriate;
b. overseeing and coordinating the CRC Proposal project;
c. preparing and disbursing the CRC Grant funds to Co-Applicants either as reimbursement or advanced funds for eligible administration and services upon submission of full and complete disbursement requests or supporting documentation for advanced funds, subject to State review and approval;
d. submitting all invoices and associated summary reports, and annual reports to the CRC Program staff;
e. participating in regular check-in meetings with CRC Program staff;
f. providing Pogo Park’s staff support during the entirety of the grant term; and
g. achieving and monitoring goals and associated indicators as defined by the CRC Proposal and the CRC Grant Guidelines.
To follow is a description of the roles and responsibilities of the Community Engagement Board, Community Engagement Board’s Executive Committee, and Board Chair as follows:
1. Purpose
2. Membership
3. Roles and Responsibilities
4. Decision-Making Authority
Our CSS will operate as a board and will be called the “Civic Engagement Board” (CEB). The Harbour Hall – CRC Project’s CEP includes stakeholders and organizations who have experience and who effectively serve residents from Richmond’s Iron Triangle. The CEP will inform Project decision-making in a way that represents the desires of local residents.
To serve on the Project’s Community Engagement Board, Pogo Park selected specific community-based residents and organizations who represent diverse sectors, subject matter expertise, lived experience, and intergenerational perspectives of the Iron Triangle community
The purpose of the Civic Engagement Board is to inform and advise Pogo Park (Project Lead) and to identify and successfully engage community stakeholders who will:
● Represent the lived experience and desires of the local community
● Give input into priorities, programs and strategies of community engagement;
● Ensure broad outreach and community engagement that:
○ Identifies key individuals and organizations that have reach in the community
○ Encourages community participation
○ Disseminates information
○ Educates and builds consensus in the community
The Civic Engagement Board will be composed of one representative from each of the following organizations:
● Pogo Park – Lead Applicant
● City of Richmond – Co-Applicant
● GRID Alternatives – National non-profit helping communities access clean, affordable renewable energy and jobs
● Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council – Local CBO that supports the Iron Triangle neighborhood by organizing events and disseminating important information
● YES – Richmond CBO that develops youth leaders and facilitates families' connection to the natural world
● Richmond CERT (Community Emergency Response Team) – Local CBO focused on preparing Richmond residents for emergencies and natural disasters
● Senior Circle – Local CBO focused on meeting the needs of the senior population in the Iron Triangle
● East Bay Center for the Performing Arts – Richmond CBO engages youth and young adults in imagining and creating new worlds for themselves and new visions for their communities through the inspiration and discipline of rigorous training in world performance traditions
● Two at-large community residents
● Determine outreach priorities for the community
● Determine the number and kind of events to inform and engage the community
● Create collateral materials that describe the Project
● Host outreach events sponsored/planned/implemented by the board each year
● Host celebration of the community planned/sponsored/implemented by board each year
● Set dates for board meetings including public meetings
● Take/keep/approve meeting notes/decisions
● Suggest trainings board members like to attend
● Identify possible sources of additional/ongoing funding for the initiative
● Identify/brainstorm additions and modifications that board members would like to make to the Harbour Hall – CRC Project (this item will be on every CSS meeting agenda).
The Civic Engagement Board will be responsible for making the following decisions:
● Adding and/or removing board members as necessary
There will be an Executive Committee of the Civic Engagement Board to ensure effective meetings, adherence to governance policies and management of potential conflicts between Board members.
The Executive Committee of the Civic Engagement Board will be composed of one representative from each of the following organizations:
● Pogo Park
● The City of Richmond
● Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council
● Set goals and objectives for Civic Engagement Board
● Monitor progress of Civic Engagement Board and make necessary adjustments
● Identify possible sources of additional/ongoing funding for the initiative
● Assign someone to record minutes for the meetings
● Identify skill gaps, and hire appropriate trainers/consultants
The Executive Committee will be responsible for making the following decisions:
● Make decisions on behalf of the Board in emergency situations where the Board can’t convene quickly enough to handle a significant, time-sensitive matter
● Manage conflicts between partners
● Determine how many meetings/year are needed
● Plan board meetings including setting agendas with input from whole Board
● Select at-large community members to include on board (maybe someone who came from the community but is no longer in the community)
Pogo Park will recruit and hire a person to be the Chair of the Harbour Hall – CRC Project’s Civic Engagement Board. Their role: to ensure that the planning, communications, and outreach / engagement work created by the Board is executed.
The Board Chair will lead the Executive Committee and the Civic Engagement Board.
The Board Chair will:
● Facilitate CRC Project’s Board meetings and all public meetings
● Assemble feedback and ideas from the CRC Project Board to develop a vision for the CRC that the entire Board can support
● Ensure that CRC Project Board members have the training and information they need to make best decisions for the Project
● Create measurable goals for the Board
● Model expected norms of behavior and boundaries for the Board
● Keep the Board focused on the big picture, leaving day-to-day operations to Project staff
● Establish trust and develop constructive relationships with and between all CRC Project Board members
● Provide training in consensus decision-making
● Staffing and staff supervision
● Budget
● Pogo Park implemented programs and program components
● In the case of a tie vote, the Board Chair will attempt to build consensus in the group. If that fails, the Board Chair will serve as the tie breaking vote.
The Civic Engagement Board will work together to determine processes for operating. A skilled facilitator will lead a CEB retreat to establish processes that encourage collegiality, candor, and participation. The CEB will discuss and agree upon the process for consensus decision-making and policies related to conflict resolution.
Although we expect modifications to our Operating Processes after our retreat, as a start, Pogo Park proposes the following draft of the CSS’s operating processes:
A. Code of Conduct: Board members will adhere to a mutually agreed upon Code of Conduct.
B. Conflict of Interest: Board members will adhere to a mutually agreed up Conflict of Interest Policy
C. Board Size: The CRC Project Board will have a minimum of 5 members and a maximum of 13 members with the exact number to be determined by the Board.
D. Board Composition: The Board should be composed of organizations and individuals that represent diverse sectors, subject matter expertise, lived experience, and intergenerational perspectives of The Iron Triangle and surrounding community.
E. Board Chair: The Board Chair will be Pogo Park’s (the Lead Applicant) board representative. The Board Chair shall preside at all CRC Project Board meetings or have assigned someone from the Executive Committee to act as a substitute. The Board Chair will serve as Chair of the Executive Committee and will be responsible for ensuring the Civic Engagement Board follows best governance practices and its operating processes.
F. Recusals: Board members should recuse themselves from discussion and voting on matters where that board member has a conflict of interest. This may include matters of compensation, or matters involving a board member’s family member, or business or personal partner.
G. Board Terms: CRC Project Board members are encouraged to remain on the Board throughout the term of the grant as long as they are working for the organization they represent. In some cases, even if they no longer work for their original organization, they may be asked to stay on the Board because of a specific expertise or perspective.
H. Adding/Removing Board Members: A board member may be removed without cause by a majority of board members. If the removed member represents Pogo Park or The City of Richmond (the Lead-Applicant and the Co-Applicant), the respective organizations are responsible for identifying someone else to represent them. If the removed applicant represents another organization, the Board will vote to decide if they want to find someone else from within the same organization, or identify a different organization to join the board. If the removed member is a community resident, the Executive Board, with input and suggestions from the whole Board, will select a new member.
I. Meetings: Meetings will be held at a location that is convenient for board members and remote access and language access will be available. A meeting schedule will be announced at the beginning of each year with at least one
month's notice for the first meeting. Occasionally, there may be a reason to hold a special meeting (at the discretion of the Executive Committee), and best attempts will be made to give advance notice and to attend the meeting.
The CRC Project Board would be responsible for setting their meeting schedule, but we envision a schedule similar to this:
Year 1: one 1.5 hour meeting every month
Year 2: one 1.5 hour meeting every 2 months
Year 3: one 1.5 hour meeting every 3 months
Year 4: one 1.5 hour meeting every 4 months
Year 5: one 1.5 hour meeting every 4 months
The CRC Project Executive Committee would meet for 30 minutes prior to each Board meeting and as needed.
The Board Chair will facilitate all meetings.
At least two meetings per year will be open to the public. These public meetings allow anyone to provide input, advice, appreciations and concerns regarding the Project. The public does not make any decisions.
J. Quorum: A majority of board members in attendance either in person or remotely will constitute a quorum.
K. Committees: The CRC Project Board has one committee: the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee has the option to create additional committees, as necessary These might include, but are not limited to: communications and publicity, resident committee, fundraising, and event planning.
Once the governance and operating processes are agreed upon, they may only be changed by 80% majority vote of the CRC Project Board.
NOTE: We have gone into more detail than usual, about staffing roles and responsibilities as well as group decision-making. Over the long-term, we understand that respect, and a focus on relationship-building are key to community engagement and empowerment.
We also know that adequately supporting staff particularly staff who have deep and broad connections with the Iron Triangle community, and having clarity about authority and decision making between individuals, groups, and organizations are key pieces to the success of community engagement and empowerment initiatives.
Pogo Park will maintain legal, fiscal, and fiduciary responsibilities, including managing grant funds in accordance with SGC regulations, policies, and guidelines. Pogo Park is responsible for the development and submission of all reports to CRC Program staff and additional funding agencies, bookkeeping, accounting, and grant compliance services.
See the above Operating Processes.
Pogo Park will have subcontractor agreements and contracts that will include clear invoice and reimbursement terms, and dispute resolution processes. Templates for these already exist and we will execute as needed if we are awarded the grant.
Pogo Park and each Co-Applicant shall have equal standing and collective accountability for implementing grant program requirements within the Collaborative Stakeholder Structure. Pogo Park does not assume liability for any third-party claims for damages arising out of this Agreement and each Co-Applicant does not assume liability to SGC for damages arising out of this Agreement.
Pogo Park and Co-Applicants are committed to equal employment opportunity and to ensuring that all employees have a work environment that is free of conduct that could be considered discriminatory or harassing based on an employee’s protected status. Pogo Park and Co-Applicants will not allow anyone, including any supervisor, co-worker, vendor, client, or customer, to unlawfully harass or discriminate against employees or applicants for employment. Pogo Park will take prompt and effective remedial action upon discovery of such conduct.
This Agreement may be revised during Post-Award Consultation or upon written agreement of the parties to comply with all administrative, statutory, and CRC Program requirements. This Agreement creates no right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or equity The parties shall manage their respective resources and activities in a separate, coordinated, and mutually beneficial manner to meet the purposes of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this draft Partnership Agreement on ___________, 2023.
Lead Applicant Signature:
[name of Lead Applicant, name of authorized signatory and their role in the organization.]
Co-Applicant 1 Signature:
[name of co-applicant, name of authorized signatory and their role in the co-applicant's organization.]
This Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU” or “Agreement”) is entered into between Pogo Park (“Pogo Park”) and the City of Richmond (the “City”) with respect to the planning, development, and operation of the City-owned recreational facilities and infrastructure described below. Pogo Park and the City are sometimes individually referred as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.” This MOU is effective as of the date it is last signed by the Parties below (the “Effective Date”)
WHEREAS, Pogo Park is a non-profit California public benefit corporation dedicated to transforming dispirited and underutilized city parks in Richmond into safe, green, and beautiful public spaces for children to play and the community to gather.
WHEREAS, Pogo Park has secured $50,000,000, to date, in government grants and philanthropic funding to design and build extensive community improvements at the following locations throughout the Iron Triangle neighborhood of Richmond, California: (i) Elm Playlot at 720 Elm Avenue (the “Elm Playlot”); (ii) Harbour-8 Park along the Richmond Greenway Trail between Harbour Way and 8th Street (“Harbour-8 Park”); and (iii) the Yellow Brick Road® street and sidewalk improvements located in the City’s right-of-way along (a) 8th Street between Lincoln Avenue and Ohio Avenue, (b) Pennsylvania Avenue between 9th Street and 3rd Street, and (c) 7th Street between Ripley Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue (the preceding locations are collectively referred to as the “YBR”). The Elm Playlot, Harbour-8 Park, and the YBR are collectively referred to as the “Pogo Improvements.”
WHEREAS, Pogo Park has also facilitated in-kind contributions of $720,000 of materials, tools, equipment, and services and 22,500 hours of volunteer labor to implement and operate the Pogo Improvements through the Effective Date, and it expects to secure substantially more of the same as Harbour-8 Park and the YBR improvements are completed.
WHEREAS, the City has partnered with Pogo Park in numerous ways to facilitate the Pogo Improvements, including but not limited to serving as the direct recipient of grants from the State of California, the federal government, and others to support the Pogo Improvements; and
WHEREAS, Pogo Park and the City enter into this MOU to formalize their intentions concerning the design, development, operation, and management of the Pogo Improvements.
NOW, THEREFORE, POGO PARK AND THE CITY AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
AGREEMENT
1. Pogo Park’s Responsibilities Pogo Park shall have the exclusive right and responsibility to design, arrange and manage construction, manage, operate, and maintain the Pogo
Improvements, which without limitation shall include (i) engaging design professionals, contractors, and specialty suppliers to help to design and build the Pogo Improvements; (ii) planting, pruning, fertilizing, and watering all landscaping; (iii) preventing the accumulation of trash and litter; (iv) providing onsite staffing at Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park during regular business hours; (v) after-hours alarm service at Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park; (vi) routine maintenance and repairs that do not require specialized skill; (vii) community outreach, coordination, and the enactment and implementation of reasonable policies to facilitate appropriate use of the Pogo Improvements; and (viii) recruiting, training, and supervising staff and community volunteers to assist in the implementation of this MOU. Pogo Park shall also be primarily responsible for fundraising to support the ongoing operation and improvement of the Pogo Improvements through direct grants to Pogo Park, the City, and others, as well through revenue-generating activities conducted at the Pogo Improvements.
2. City’s Responsibilities. The City shall provide the following services for the Pogo Improvements at no cost to Pogo Park: (i) review, inspection, and approval of the design and construction of the Pogo Improvements; (ii) all utilities serving the Pogo Improvements, including but not limited to water, electricity and natural gas; (iii) routine trash, recycling, and compost pick up at frequencies necessary to avoid excessive onsite accumulation of the same thereof; (iv) special pick-up and hauling of construction debris and green waste; (v) non-routine and other repairs and improvements that require specialized skill; (vi) police, fire, and emergency medical personnel in response to calls at and around the Pogo Improvements in the same manner the City provides these services elsewhere in the City;and (vii) crosspromotion of programs and offerings at the Pogo Improvements in the City’s promotion of its other recreational offerings, including hyperlinks on applicable City websites to relevant online postings by Pogo Park To help ensure thoughtful planning consistent with the purposes of the Pogo Improvements, the City will notify and coordinate with Pogo Park before approving or implementing any new construction, zoning changes, or other major improvements within one block of the Pogo Improvements. Likewise, the City will not act or permit others to alter any structure, landscaping, or artwork within the Pogo Improvements, nor will it implement any other changes that could damage or threaten the same, without first obtaining Pogo Park’s consent, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Notice and coordination is not required for issuing building permits for improvements that do not change the footprint, density, or zoning category of any existing residential or commercial buildings adjacent to the Pogo Improvements.
3. Term The term of this MOU shall begin on the Effective Date and continue for a period of three years (the “Initial Term”). After the Initial Term, the term will automatically renew for successive terms of one year each (each an “Additional Term”) unless Pogo Park provides the City written notice at least 90 days before the end of the then current term communicating its desire not to extend the term further. The Initial Term and each Additional Term are collectively referred to as the “Term.”
4. Compliance with Laws. Pogo Park will not use or knowingly permit any part of the Pogo Improvements to be used for any purpose that is contrary to federal, state, county, or City law or that creates a nuisance as defined by applicable statutory or decisional law.
5. Indemnity. Each Party will indemnify, hold harmless, defend and protect the other, and its respective officers, directors, elected officials, and employees from and against any and all third-party claims for losses, damages, liabilities, and expenses of any kind (including attorneys' fees) that arise from personal injury (including death) or property damage, to the proportional extent that the same is caused by the first Party’s negligence or breach of its obligations under this MOU.
6. Insurance. Throughout the Term, Pogo Park shall at its cost maintain sufficient public liability and property damage insurance with a single combined limit of $1,000,000, auto liability of $1,000,000 for each occurrence and a property damage limit of not less than $500,000 insuring against all liability of Pogo Park and its authorized representatives arising out of and in connection with Pogo Park’s operations and management of the Pogo Improvements. The City, its employees and elected officials shall be named as additional insured on the foregoing insurance policies to the extent the same commercially available.
7. Notice. Any notice required under this Agreement shall be delivered in writing and delivered by first-class certified U.S. mail, return receipt requested, or an overnight or same day courier that provides proof of delivery. Notice shall be addressed to the individuals referenced below or any additional or alternate person a Party specifies by providing notice as provided in this section (each an “Authorized Representative”) Notice may instead be delivered by e-mail to the Authorized Representative if and when the recipient confirms receipt and advises the sender that e-mail delivery satisfies the notice requirements of this MOU. Notice shall be deemed complete (a) five days after it has been deposited in the mail or (b) upon the Authorized Representative’s confirmation that he or she has received e-mail, each delivered in the manner specified above.
Pogo Park’s Authorized Representative:
Toody Maher, Executive Director
Pogo Park 2604 Roosevelt Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 215-5500
toody@pogopark.org
City’s Authorized Representative: Shasa Curl City Manager
450 Civic Center Plaza, Ste. 300 Richmond, CA 94804 510-620-6512
shasa_curl@ci.richmond.ca.us
8. Miscellaneous. This MOU constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties concerning the ongoing operation and management of the Pogo Improvements, and it supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, and agreements concerning the same, whether oral or written. This MOU does not supersede or modify in any way the terms and conditions of any agreement between the City and Pogo Park regarding the design and construction of any of the Pogo Improvements. This MOU may be amended or modified only by a written instrument executed by both Parties. The Preamble and Recitals set forth above are incorporated into this Agreement by reference. Each person signing this MOU on behalf of a Party below represents that they have full power and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. This MOU maybe signed using electronic signatures of any kind, and it may be signed in counterparts that shall be together construed as a single document. This MOU shall be performed in the City of Richmond, Contra Costa County, and is governed by the laws of the State of California.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties execute this Agreement through their duly authorized representatives as of the date they last sign below.
POGO PARK
By: ___________________________________
Name: Toody Maher
Its: Executive Director
CITY OF RICHMOND
By: ___________________________________
Name: Shasa Curl
Its: City Manager
City of Richmond, CA
Parcel Number 538-420-032: This parcel is owned by the City of Richmond. The County parcel maps have not been updated to show the current status of this parcel. Harbour Hall is under construction on this parcel.
Parcel Number 538-420-022: This parcel is owned by the City of Richmond. The proposed commercial kitchen will be constructed on this parcel
City of Richmond, CA
Parcel Number 538-420-031: This parcel is owned by the City of Richmond. A section of Harbour-8 Park will be located on this parcel.
Parcel Number 538-420-30: This parcel is owned by the City of Richmond. Most of Harbour-8 Park will be located on this parcel.
September 14, 2023
Toody Maher Executive DirectorPogo Park Richmond, California
Attn: Toody,
I am writing on behalf of the Richmond Fire Department about the important collaborative initiative between the City of Richmond and Pogo Park. Our joint effort aims to ensure the efficient and safe development of projects within our city, with an intent to focus on road capacity analysis for a evacuation route.
As a part of our commitment to enhancing public safety and infrastructure within Richmond, we are embarking on an analysis of road capacity for the route from Harbour 8 Park to the Nevin Community Center. The Nevin Community Center serves as the nearest pre-determined evacuation center, making this route of paramount importance in ensuring the well-being and success of our community during emergencies.
Our systematic approach to this analysis includes the following steps:
1. Data Collection: Gathering essential data on traffic patterns, road dimensions, and historical traffic information for the designated route.
2. Traffic Projections: Forecasting future traffic volumes and patterns along this critical evacuation route.
3. Capacity Assessment: Evaluating the theoretical capacity of roadways on this route, considering factors such as lane width, signalization, and intersections.
4. Level of Service Evaluation: Assessing the current and projected levels of service to ensure smooth traffic flow for evacuees.
5. Intersection Analysis: Analyzing intersections along this route to identify potential areas for optimization, especially during evacuation scenarios.
6. Environmental Considerations: Ensuring that any proposed assessments align with environmental regulations and sustainability goals for this crucial route.
7. Community Engagement: Engaging with the public and stakeholders residing along the route to gather valuable input and address concerns.
This collaborative effort reflects our dedication to enhancing the quality of life for our residents and ensuring their safety, especially during emergencies. We believe that by working together, we can create a safer and more efficient evacuation route from Harbour 8 Park to the Nevin Community Center, during and emergency.
We look forward to keeping you updated on our progress and involving City of Richmond staff in the decision-making process as we move forward with this assessment. Your insights and support are invaluable to the success of this project.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me
Sincerely,
Battalion Chief
Richmond Fire Department
440 Civic Center Plaza, Suite #200 Richmond, California 94804
City of Richmond, CA
The proposed Harbour Hall CRC is located in area zoned for light industrial uses. It is also located directly ajacent to existing parkland. These two land uses are compatible with the intent to develop a CRC in this location.
LI - zoned for light industrial uses
PR - zoned for parks and recreation
Proposed Harbour Hall CRC location
DATE: September 15, 2023
TO: Strategic Growth Council
FROM: Toody Maher, Executive Director, POGO PARK
RE: Financial Feasibility
Please find attached the following documents to demonstrate that the Harbour Hall – CRC Project is financially feasible:
A summary of committed funds for Harbour-8 Park and Yellow Brick Road, two sites that are part of the Harbour Hall – CRC site.
Summary of grant funding that Pogo Park secured for Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood.
Three year summary of income sources 2023-2025.
Projected Income Statement – 15 years.
Application to David and Lucile Packard Foundation’s Mission Investing Department. This document contains some of the best information about Pogo Park’s approach to public works projects. In response to this document, the Foundation felt comfortable and confident in the financial feasibility of the Harbour-8 Project and awarded a $1 million loan to Pogo Park to help finance receivables during the construction phase of this project.
A CRC grant will catalyze our Projects and help to leverage support from philanthropy to make the Harbour Hall – CRC Project truly impactful.
Thank you for your consideration,
Toody Maher Executive Director
Resource
Sunlight Giving Foundation
Dean and Margaret Lesher Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The California Endowment
California Wellness Foundation
Justice Outdoors - Youth Access to Nature Fund
Hellman Family Foundation
Kaiser Permanente
East Bay Community Foundation - Donor Advised Funds
Magic Cabinet Foundation
San Francisco Foundation
Marin Community Foundation
Kresge Foundation
Strategic Growth Council - CRC Program MillsDavis
David and Lucile Packard Foundation
Resource
Sunlight Giving Foundation
Dean and Margaret Lesher Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
The California Endowment
Hellman Family Foundation
Kaiser Permanente
East Bay Community Foundation - Donor Advised Funds
Magic Cabinet Foundation
Sydney
Dean and Margaret Lesher Foundation
LANDSCAPE Roseann Dal Bello Landscape Architect PO Box 973, Woodacre, CA 94973
TEL: 415.297.4364
CIVIL
ST2 210 Washington Ave G, Richmond, CA 94801 TEL: 925.523.4004
STRUCTURAL MKM & Associates
TEL: 707.578.8185
ELECTRICAL Summit Engineering, inc
TEL: 707.527.0775
LAND SURVEYOR Kister, Savio & Rei, inc 825 San Pablo Avenue, Pinole, CA 94564
TEL: 510.222.4020
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL KITCHENBUILDING
MICRO-GRID
EMERGENCYSUPPLY STORAGEROOM
HARBOURHALLCOMMUNITYRESILIENCECENTER COMMERCIALKITCHENFLOORPLAN
HARBOURHALL (UNDERCONSTRUCTION)
GRAPHICSCALE:1/8"=1'
IncludeallanticipatedexpensesfortheCRCfacilitymaintenanceandoperations,andanticipatedfundingtopayforoperationsandmaintenanceexpensesfor15yearsafterimplementationoftheproject. Theinformationsubmittedinthisdocumentmaybesubmittedasadraft,andmaychangeoncetheprojectisoperational.
CommunityResilienceServicesandProgramsarenotrequiredtocontinuebeyondthegrantterm.Includeanyknownserviceandprogramcostsandincomesourcesinthetablebelow.
Usethetimelinebelowtoprovideschedulesforannualmaintenanceactivitiesandprogrammedmaintenancecarriedoutovermultipleyears,tohelptheCRCfacilityreachitsusefullife.
Instructions
1.Applicantsshouldfillinthewhitecellsonly.Donoteditanyshadedcells,headers,orcellswithformulasincluded.
2.IncludeallanticipatedexpensesfortheCRCfacilityinthetablebelow.Ifanexpenseisnotanticipatedleavethecell(s)blank.
3.Usethecommentstoprovideadditionaldetailorexplanationforaparticularlineitem
4.Toaddmorerows,highlightarowdesiredtobeduplicatedandselect"InsertRows"
5.Toaddadditionalyearsofoperation,rightclickonthecolumntitled"YearX",and"InsertTableColumnstotheleft.Thiswillensurethattheformulasproperlyextendacrossallcolumns.
September 15, 2023
California Strategic Growth Council
Lynn von Koch-Liebert, Executive Director 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. von Koch-Liebert,
The City of Richmond is excited to be a co-applicant with Pogo Park to transform Harbour Hall, a 3,500 square foot community center locatedat Harbour-8 Park, into a Community Resilience Center (CRC). Harbour Hall - CRC would service thousands of vulnerable Richmond residents during specific climate or emergency events,as well as provide regular programming and community services year-round.
Specifically, the requested CRC grant willprovide funding for the following key elements to transform Harbour Hall to a Community Resilience Center:
Designing and building Harbour-8 Park’s Information Station
Designing and building an ~1,850 SF commercial kitchen building with water and battery storage
Installing a bioretention area, trees, and drought tolerant and fire smart landscaping at Harbour-8 Park
Installing water stations at Harbour-8 Park and Elm Playlot
Installing 49 120V outlets at Harbour-8 Park
Installing two benches along the Yellow Brick Road
Supporting Services and Programs relating to climate and community resilience
Supporting the evaluation of our CRC Project
Supporting on-going management and maintenance of Harbour Hall and its campus
To support this work, the City of Richmond will provide staff time from various City departments, including, but not limited to the following, in support of this Project:
Fire Department - 6 hours/month
Community Development Department - 6 hours/month
City Manager’s Office -6 hours/month
Police Department - 3-4 hours/month
Public Works Department - 3-4 hours/month
Parks and Landscaping - 3-4 hours/month
September 14, 2023
California Strategic Growth Council 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814
To Whom It May Concern,
This leFer confirms that Pogo Park will commit to leading and implemenKng the Harbour Hall – CRC Project.
Moreover, Pogo Park is commiFed to ensuring that all tasks that are detailed in the ApplicaKon Workbook and the Partnership Agreement will be completed on Kme and within budget.
To support this work, Pogo Park will dedicate the following staff Kme:
• ExecuKve Director- 10 hours / week
• Project Manager- 40 hours / week
• Project Staff (2 people / 20 hours / week) - 40 hours / week
• Program Manager - 10 hours / week
• CollaboraKve Stakeholder Manager - 30 hours / week
• CollaboraKve Stakeholder Staff - 30 hours / week
As the first and only CRC in Contra Costa County, it is clear that Harbour Hall will help one of Richmond’s most under-resourced communiKes prepare for and recover from climate-related and other emergencies.
Harbour Hall will improve the health and wellness of our community by serving as a vibrant community hub, and a place for the community to come together and forge social connecKons year-round.
Pogo Park has a long-running, well-documented working relaKonship with the City of Richmond. We look forward to conKnuing to develop and grow our successful public / private partnership and accomplishing our mutual goal of making the City of Richmond a desirable place for ALL residents to live, work, and play.
Pogo Park is uniquely qualified to authenKcally engage the community in this work. Community engagement is in our DNA and at the heart of our work over the past 16 years. We are poised and ready to tackle this exciKng project. We hope you will consider Harbour Hall - CRC Project for funding in Round 1.
Sincerely,
Toody Maher ExecuKve Director Pogo Park
September 15, 2023
Ms. Lynn von Koch-Liebert Executive Director
California Strategic Growth Council 1400 Tenth Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Ms. von Koch-Liebert, I am writing to you for two reasons.
First, to express the City of Richmond’s Parks and Landscaping Department’s enthusiastic support for Pogo Park’s “Harbour Hall – CRC” project. Creating a Community Resilience Center (and adjoining CRC campus) in the heart of Richmond’s Iron Triangle, one of California’s most underserved neighborhoods, will make a tremendous impact on thousands of vulnerable residents who live in this community.
Second, to speak to the quality and timeliness of Pogo Park’s work in Richmond. Pogo Park and the City of Richmond have worked in partnership for the past 17 years. Together, the City and Pogo Park have worked to empower a core team of community residents from the Iron Triangle to reclaim, reimagine, and rebuild underperforming parks and playgrounds in their own neighborhood.
Pogo Park’s grassroots, community-led, build-from-the-inside-out process to transform dispirited city parks is working. The City is pleased to partner with Pogo Park to make this important change happen.
Over 17 years, Pogo Park and the City secured funding to allow us to work shoulder-toshoulder and implement multiple community-driven public works projects in Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood totaling $38.5 million, Those projects include:
From working with Pogo Park for over a decade, I can attest that Pogo Park produces high-quality work in a timely fashion.
I hope you will consider providing support for Pogo Park’s Harbour Hall – CRC Project in the Strategic Growth Council’s Community Resilience Center Program grant.
Sincerely,
Greg Hardesty Parks and Landscaping Superintendent
Part III Statement of Program Service Accomplishments
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part III Briefly describe the organization's mission:
1 Did the organization undertake any significant program services during the year which were not listed on the prior
POGO PARK TRANSFORMS DISPIRITED CITY PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS INTO SAFE, HEALTHY, AND MAGICAL OUTDOOR PUBLIC SPACES FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY AND FOR THE COMMUNITY TO
2 Form 990 or 990-EZ? Yes No
If "Yes," describe these new services on Schedule O.
Did the organization cease conducting, or make significant changes in how it conducts, any program services?
3 Yes No
If "Yes," describe these changes on Schedule O.
4 Describe the organization's program service accomplishments for each of its three largest program services, as measured by expenses. Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations are required to report the amount of grants and allocations to others, the total expenses, and revenue, if any, for each program service reported.
PLACE: MAKE PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENTS TO PUBLIC SPACES, NAMELY CITY PARKS AND STREETS.
Is the organization described in section 501(c)(3) or 4947(a)(1) (other than a private foundation)? If 'Yes,' complete
? See instructions
or
Did
any donor advised funds or any similar funds or accounts for which donors have the right
to provide advice on the distribution or investment of amounts in such funds or accounts? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule D, Part I
complete Schedule D, Part III
Did the organization report an amount in Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability, serve as a custodian
9 for amounts not listed in Part X; or provide credit counseling, debt management, credit repair, or debt negotiation services? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule D, Part IV 9
Did the organization, directly or through a related organization, hold assets in donor-restricted endowments 10 or in quasi endowments? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule D, Part V
If the organization's answer to any of the following questions is 'Yes',
22 column (A), line 2? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule I, Parts I and III
Did the organization report more than $5,000 of grants or other assistance to or for domestic individuals on Part IX,
23 and former officers, directors, trustees, key employees, and highest compensated employees? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule J
Did the organization answer 'Yes' to Part VII, Section A, line 3, 4, or 5, about compensation of the organization's current
Yes No
22
23
24 a the last day of the year, that was issued after December 31, 2002? If 'Yes,' answer lines 24b through 24d and complete Schedule K. If 'No, 'go to line 25a
b
Did the organization have a tax-exempt bond issue with an outstanding principal amount of more than $100,000 as of
Did the organization invest any proceeds of tax-exempt bonds beyond a temporary period exception?
c any tax-exempt bonds?
d
Did the organization maintain an escrow account other than a refunding escrow at any time during the year to defease
Did the organization act as an 'on behalf of' issuer for bonds outstanding at any time during the year?
25 a Section 501(c)(3), 501(c)(4), and 501(c)(29) organizations. Did the organization engage in an excess benefit
24a
24b
24c
24d
25a transaction with a disqualified person during the year? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule L, Part I
Is the organization aware that it engaged in an excess benefit transaction with a disqualified person in a prior year, and b that the transaction has not been reported on any of the organization's prior Forms 990 or 990-EZ? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule L, Part I
25b
Did the organization report any amount on Part X, line 5 or 22, for receivables from or payables to any current or
26 former officer, director, trustee, key employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor, or 35% controlled entity or family member of any of these persons? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule L, Part II
Did the organization provide a grant or other assistance to any current or former officer, director, trustee, key
employee, creator or founder, substantial contributor or employee thereof, a grant selection committee member, or to a 35% controlled entity (including an employee thereof) or family member of any of these
persons? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule L, Part III
Was the organization a party to a business transaction with one of the following parties (see the Schedule L, Part IV,
instructions for applicable filing thresholds, conditions, and exceptions):
Yes No
Enter the number of employees reported on Form W-3, Transmittal of Wage and Tax State-
2 a ments, filed for the calendar year ending with or within the year covered by this return 2 a
If at least one is reported on line 2a, did the organization file all required federal employment tax returns?
b 2 b
Note: If the sum of lines 1a and 2a is greater than 250, you may be required to e-file. See instructions.
Did the organization have unrelated business gross income of $1,000 or more during the year?
3 a 3 a
If 'Yes,' has it filed a Form 990-T for this year? If 'No' to line 3b, provide an explanation on Schedule O b 3 b
At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a
4 a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account, or other financial account)?
If 'Yes,' enter the name of the foreign countryG
b See instructions for filing requirements for FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBAR). Was the organization a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction at any time during the tax year?
4 a
5 a 5 a Did any taxable party notify the organization that it was or is a party to a prohibited tax shelter transaction?
than $100,000, and did the organization 6
b
Part VI Governance, Management, and Disclosure. For each 'Yes' response to lines 2 through 7b below, and for a 'No' response to line 8a, 8b, or 10b below, describe the circumstances, processes, or changes on Schedule O. See instructions.
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VI Section
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VII
Section A. Officers, Directors, Trustees, Key Employees, and Highest Compensated Employees
1 a Complete this table for all persons required to be listed. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization's tax year.
? List all of the organization's current officers, directors, trustees (whether individuals or organizations), regardless of amount of compensation. Enter -0- in columns (D), (E), and (F) if no compensation was paid.
? List all of the organization's current key employees, if any. See the instructions for definition of 'key employee.'
? List the organization's five current highest compensated employees (other than an officer, director, trustee, or key employee) who received reportable compensation (box 5 of Form W-2, Form 1099-MISC, and/or box 1 of Form 1099-NEC) of more than $100,000 from the organization and any related organizations.
? List all of the organization's former officers, key employees, and highest compensated employees who received more than $100,000 of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.
? List all of the organization's former directors or trustees that received, in the capacity as a former director or trustee of the organization, more than $10,000 of reportable compensation from the organization and any related organizations.
See the instructions for the order in which to list the persons above.
Check this box if neither the organization nor any related organization compensated any current officer, director, or trustee.
(15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)
4
organization and related organizations greater than
such individual
from
If 'Yes,' complete Schedule J for
5 Did any person listed on line 1a receive or accrue compensation from any unrelated organization or individual
for services rendered to the organization? If 'Yes,' complete Schedule J for such person
Section B. Independent Contractors
1 Complete this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization's tax year.
Part VIII Statement of Revenue
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part VIII
Section 501(c)(3) and 501(c)(4) organizations must complete all columns. All other organizations must complete column (A).
Check if Schedule O contains a response or note to any line in this Part IX (A) (B) (C) (D)
Do not include amounts reported on lines Total expenses Management and Program service Fundraising 6b, 7b, 8b, 9b, and 10b of Part VIII. general expenses expenses expenses
Grants and other assistance to domestic 1 organizations and domestic governments. See Part IV, line 21
Grants and other assistance to domestic 2 individuals. See Part IV, line 22
Grants and other assistance to foreign
3 organizations, foreign governments, and foreign individuals. See Part IV, lines 15 and 16
4
Benefits paid to or for members
of current officers, directors,
trustees, and key employees
4958(f)(1)) and persons
in section 4958(c)(3)(B)
If
organization changed either its oversight process or selection process during the tax year, explain on Schedule O. As a result of a federal award, was the organization required to undergo an audit or audits as set forth in the Single
Complete if the organization is a section 501(c)(3) organization or a section (Form 990)
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust.
G Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-EZ.
Open to Public Department of the Treasury Inspection
Internal Revenue Service
Name of the organization
G Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
Employer identification number
Reason for Public Charity Status. (All organizations must complete this part.) See instructions. Part I
The organization is not a private foundation because it is: (For lines 1 through 12, check only one box.)
1 A church, convention of churches, or association of churches described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(i).
2 A school described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ii). (Attach Schedule E (Form 990).)
3 A hospital or a cooperative hospital service organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii).
4 A medical research organization operated in conjunction with a hospital described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iii). Enter the hospital's name, city, and state:
5 An organization operated for the benefit of a college or university owned or operated by a governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(iv). (Complete Part II.)
6 A federal, state, or local government or governmental unit described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(v).
7 An organization that normally receives a substantial part of its support from a governmental unit or from the general public described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)
8 A community trust described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi). (Complete Part II.)
9 or university or a non-land-grant college of agriculture (see instructions). Enter the name, city, and state of the college or university:
10
An agricultural research organization described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(ix) operated in conjunction with a land-grant college
An organization that normally receives (1) more than 33-1/3% of its support from contributions, membership fees, and gross receipts from activities related to its exempt functions, subject to certain exceptions; and (2) no more than 33-1/3% of its support from gross investment income and unrelated business taxable income (less section 511 tax) from businesses acquired by the organization after June 30, 1975. See section 509(a)(2). (Complete Part III.)
11 An organization organized and operated exclusively to test for public safety. See section 509(a)(4).
12 An organization organized and operated exclusively for the benefit of, to perform the functions of, or to carry out the purposes of one or more publicly supported organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or section 509(a)(2). See section 509(a)(3). Check the box on lines 12a through 12d that describes the type of supporting organization and complete lines 12e, 12f, and 12g.
a Type I. A supporting organization operated, supervised, or controlled by its supported organization(s), typically by giving the supported organization(s) the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the directors or trustees of the supporting organization. You must complete Part IV, Sections A and B.
b Type II. A supporting organization supervised or controlled in connection with its supported organization(s), by having control or management of the supporting organization vested in the same persons that control or manage the supported organization(s). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and C.
c Type III functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with, and functionally integrated with, its supported organization(s) (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A, D, and E.
d Type III non-functionally integrated. A supporting organization operated in connection with its supported organization(s) that is not functionally integrated. The organization generally must satisfy a distribution requirement and an attentiveness requirement (see instructions). You must complete Part IV, Sections A and D, and Part V.
e Check this box if the organization received a written determination from the IRS that it is a Type I, Type II, Type III functionally integrated, or Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organization. Enter the number of supported organizations
g
f Provide the following information about the supported organization(s).
Yes No
Part II Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Sections 170(b)(1)(A)(iv) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 5, 7, or 8 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part III. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part III.)
Calendar year (or fiscal year
Gifts, grants, contributions, and 1 membership fees received. (Do not include any 'unusual grants.')
Tax revenues levied for the 2 organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf
The value of services or 3 facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge
4 Total. Add lines 1 through 3
The portion of total 5 contributions by each person (other than a governmental unit or publicly supported organization) included on line 1 that exceeds 2% of the amount shown on line 11, column (f)
6 Public support. Subtract line 5 from line 4
The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
17a 10%-facts-and-circumstances test 2021. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, or 16b, and line 14 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test, check this box and stop here. Explain in Part VI how G the organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
b 10%-facts-and-circumstances test 2020. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, or 17a, and line 15 is 10% or more, and if the organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test, check this box and stop here. Explain in Part VI how the G organization meets the facts-and-circumstances test. The organization qualifies as a publicly supported organization
18 G Private foundation. If the organization did not check a box on line 13, 16a, 16b, 17a, or 17b, check this box and see instructions
BAA
A (Form 990) 2021
Part III Support Schedule for Organizations Described in Section 509(a)(2) (Complete only if you checked the box on line 10 of Part I or if the organization failed to qualify under Part II. If the organization fails to qualify under the tests listed below, please complete Part II.)
Gifts, grants, contributions, 1 and membership fees received. (Do not include any 'unusual grants.')
Gross receipts from admissions, 2 merchandise sold or services performed, or facilities furnished in any activity that is related to the organization's tax-exempt purpose
Gross receipts from activities 3 that are not an unrelated trade or business under section 513
Tax revenues levied for the 4 organization's benefit and either paid to or expended on its behalf
The value of services or 5 facilities furnished by a governmental unit to the organization without charge
6 Total. Add lines 1 through 5
Amounts included on lines 1, 7a 2, and 3 received from disqualified persons
Amounts included on lines 2 b and 3 received from other than disqualified persons that exceed the greater of $5,000 or 1% of the amount on line 13 for the year
Add lines 7a and 7b c
8 Public support. (Subtract line 7c from line 6.)
(Complete only if you checked a box in line 12 on Part I. If you checked box 12a, Part I, complete Sections A and B. If you checked box 12b, Part I, complete Sections A and C. If you checked box 12c, Part I, complete Sections A, D, and E. If you checked box 12d, Part I, complete Sections A and D, and complete Part V.)
1 If 'No,' describe in Part VI how the supported organizations are designated. If designated by class or purpose, describe the designation. If historic and continuing relationship, explain.
Are all of the organization's supported organizations listed by name in the organization's governing documents?
Did the organization have any supported organization that does not have an IRS determination of status under section 2 509(a)(1) or (2)? If 'Yes,' explain in Part VI how the organization determined that the supported organization was described in section 509(a)(1) or (2)
Did the organization have a supported organization described in section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6)? If 'Yes,' answer lines 3b 3a and 3c below.
Did the organization confirm that each supported organization qualified under section 501(c)(4), (5), or (6) and b satisfied the public support tests under section 509(a)(2)? If 'Yes,' describe in Part VI when and how the organization made the determination
c Did the organization ensure that all support to such organizations was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes? If 'Yes,' explain in Part VI what controls the organization put in place to ensure such use.
Was any supported organization not organized in the United States ('foreign supported organization')? If 'Yes' and 4a if you checked box 12a or 12b in Part I, answer lines 4b and 4c below.
Did the organization have ultimate control and discretion in deciding whether to make grants to the foreign supported b organization? If 'Yes,' describe in Part VI how the organization had such control and discretion despite being controlled or supervised by or in connection with its supported organizations
Did the organization support any foreign supported organization that does not have an IRS determination under
c sections 501(c)(3) and 509(a)(1) or (2)? If 'Yes,' explain in Part VI what controls the organization used to ensure that all support to the foreign supported organization was used exclusively for section 170(c)(2)(B) purposes.
1
2
3a
3b
3c
4a
4b
4c
Yes No
Did the organization add, substitute, or remove any supported organizations during the tax year? If 'Yes,' answer lines
5a 5b and 5c below (if applicable). Also, provide detail in Part VI, including (i) the names and EIN numbers of the supported organizations added, substituted, or removed; (ii) the reasons for each such action; (iii) the authority under the organization's organizing document authorizing such action; and (iv) how the action was
5a accomplished (such as by amendment to the organizing document)
Type I or Type II only. Was any added or substituted supported organization part of a class already designated in the b organization's organizing document?
c Substitutions only. Was the substitution the result of an event beyond the organization's control?
6 Did the organization provide support (whether in the form of grants or the provision of services or facilities) to anyone other than (i) its supported organizations, (ii) individuals that are part of the charitable class benefited by one or more of its supported organizations, or (iii) other supporting organizations that also support or benefit one or more of
5b
5c
6 the filing organization's supported organizations? If 'Yes,' provide detail in Part VI.
Did the organization provide a grant, loan, compensation, or other similar payment to a substantial contributor 7 (as defined in section 4958(c)(3)(C)), a family member of a substantial contributor, or a 35% controlled entity with regard to a substantial contributor? If 'Yes,' complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990)
8 complete Part I of Schedule L (Form 990).
Did the organization make a loan to a disqualified person (as defined in section 4958) not described on line 7? If 'Yes,'
7
8
Was the organization controlled directly or indirectly at any time during the tax year by one or more disqualified persons, 9a as defined in section 4946 (other than foundation managers and organizations described in section 509(a)(1) or (2))? If 'Yes,' provide detail in Part VI. 9a
Did one or more disqualified persons (as defined on line 9a) hold a controlling interest in any entity in which the b supporting organization had an interest? If 'Yes,' provide detail in Part VI. 9b
Did a disqualified person (as defined on line 9a) have an ownership interest in, or derive any personal benefit from, c assets in which the supporting organization also had an interest? If 'Yes,' provide detail in Part VI. 9c
Was the organization subject to the excess business holdings rules of section 4943 because of section 4943(f) (regarding 10a certain Type II supporting organizations, and all Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations)? If 'Yes,' answer line 10b below. 10a
Did the organization have any excess business holdings in the tax year? (Use Schedule C, Form 4720, to determine b whether the organization had excess business holdings.) 10b
TEEA0404L 08/31/21 BAA Schedule A (Form 990) 2021
11
Has the organization accepted a gift or contribution from any of the following persons?
a A person who directly or indirectly controls, either alone or together with persons described on lines 11b and 11c below, the governing body of a supported organization?
Yes No
11a
b 11b
A family member of a person described on line 11a above?
c 11c A 35% controlled entity of a person described on line 11a or 11b above? If 'Yes' to line 11a, 11b, or 11c, provide detail in Part VI.
Did the governing body, members of the governing body, officers acting in their official capacity, or membership of one
1 or more supported organizations have the power to regularly appoint or elect at least a majority of the organization's officers, directors, or trustees at all times during the tax year? If 'No,' describe in Part VI how the supported organization(s) effectively operated, supervised, or controlled the organization's activities. If the organization had more than one supported organization, describe how the powers to appoint and/or remove officers, directors, or trustees were allocated among the supported organizations and what conditions or restrictions, if any, applied to such powers 1 during the tax year.
2 Did the organization operate for the benefit of any supported organization other than the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the supporting organization? If 'Yes,' explain in Part VI how providing such benefit carried out the purposes of the supported organization(s) that operated, supervised, or controlled the 2 supporting organization.
1 Were a majority of the organization's directors or trustees during the tax year also a majority of the directors or trustees of each of the organization's supported organization(s)? If 'No,' describe in Part VI how control or management of the 1 supporting organization was vested in the same persons that controlled or managed the supported organization(s).
1 Did the organization provide to each of its supported organizations, by the last day of the fifth month of the organization's tax year, (i) a written notice describing the type and amount of support provided during the prior tax year, (ii) a copy of the Form 990 that was most recently filed as of the date of notification, and (iii) copies of the 1 organization's governing documents in effect on the date of notification, to the extent not previously provided?
Were any of the organization's officers, directors, or trustees either (i) appointed or elected by the supported
2 organization(s) or (ii) serving on the governing body of a supported organization? If 'No,' explain in Part VI how the organization maintained a close and continuous working relationship with the supported organization(s). 2
3 By reason of the relationship described on line 2, above, did the organization's supported organizations have a significant voice in the organization's investment policies and in directing the use of the organization's income or assets at all times during the tax year? If 'Yes,' describe in Part VI the role the organization's supported organizations played 3 in this regard.
1 Check the box next to the method that the organization used to satisfy the Integral Part Test during the year (see instructions).
a
The organization satisfied the Activities Test. Complete line 2 below.
The organization is the parent of each of its supported organizations. Complete line 3 below.
Yes No
Yes No
Yes No
b The organization supported a governmental entity. Describe in Part VI how you supported a governmental entity (see instructions).
c
2 Activities Test. Answer lines 2a and 2b below. Yes No
a Did substantially all of the organization's activities during the tax year directly further the exempt purposes of the supported organization(s) to which the organization was responsive? If 'Yes,' then in Part VI identify those supported organizations and explain how these activities directly furthered their exempt purposes, how the organization was responsive to those supported organizations, and how the organization determined that these activities constituted 2a substantially all of its activities.
b Did the activities described on line 2a, above, constitute activities that, but for the organization's involvement, one or more of the organization's supported organization(s) would have been engaged in? If 'Yes,' explain in Part VI the reasons for the organization's position that its supported organization(s) would have engaged in these activities 2b but for the organization's involvement.
3
Parent of Supported Organizations. Answer lines 3a and 3b below.
Did the organization have the power to regularly appoint or elect a majority of the officers, directors, or trustees of a each of the supported organizations? If 'Yes' or 'No,' provide details in Part VI. 3a
Did the organization exercise a substantial degree of direction over the policies, programs, and activities of each of its b supported organizations? If 'Yes,' describe in Part VI the role played by the organization in this regard. 3b TEEA0405L 08/31/21
Part V
1 Check here if the organization satisfied the Integral Part Test as a qualifying trust on Nov. 20, 1970 (explain in Part VI). See instructions. All other Type III non-functionally integrated supporting organizations must complete Sections A through E.
7 Check here if the current year is the organization's first as a non-functionally integrated Type III supporting organization (see instructions).
1 1 Amounts paid to supported organizations to accomplish exempt purposes
2 Amounts paid to perform activity that directly furthers exempt purposes of supported organizations, 2 in excess of income from activity
3
3 Administrative expenses paid to accomplish exempt purposes of supported organizations
4 4 Amounts paid to acquire exempt-use assets
5
6
7
5 Qualified set-aside amounts (prior IRS approval required ' provide details in Part VI)
6 Other distributions (describe in Part VI). See instructions.
7 Total annual distributions. Add lines 1 through 6.
8 Distributions to attentive supported organizations to which the organization is responsive (provide details 8 in Part VI). See instructions.
9
10
9 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6
Line 8 amount divided by line 9 amount
1 Distributable amount for 2021 from Section C, line 6
2 Underdistributions, if any, for years prior to 2021 (reasonable cause required ' explain in Part VI). See instructions.
3 Excess distributions carryover, if any, to 2021
a From 2016
b From 2017
c From 2018
d From 2019
e From 2020
f Total of lines 3a through 3e
g Applied to underdistributions of prior years
h Applied to 2021 distributable amount
i Carryover from 2016 not applied (see instructions)
j Remainder. Subtract lines 3g, 3h, and 3i from line 3f.
4 Distributions for 2021 from Section D, line 7: $
a Applied to underdistributions of prior years
b Applied to 2021 distributable amount
c
Remainder. Subtract lines 4a and 4b from line 4.
5 Remaining underdistributions for years prior to 2021, if any. Subtract lines 3g and 4a from line 2. For result greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
6 Remaining underdistributions for 2021. Subtract lines 3h and 4b from line 1. For result greater than zero, explain in Part VI. See instructions.
7 Excess distributions carryover to 2022. Add lines 3j and 4c.
8 Breakdown of line 7:
a Excess from 2017
b Excess from 2018
c Excess from 2019
d Excess from 2020
e Excess from 2021
Part VI
Supplemental Information. Provide the explanations required by Part II, line 10; Part II, line 17a or 17b; Part III, line 12; Part IV, Section A, lines 1, 2, 3b, 3c, 4b, 4c, 5a, 6, 9a, 9b, 9c, 11a, 11b, and 11c; Part IV, Section B, lines 1 and 2; Part IV, Section C, line 1; Part IV, Section D, lines 2 and 3; Part IV, Section E, lines 1c, 2a, 2b, 3a, and 3b; Part V, line 1; Part V, Section B, line 1e; Part V, Section D, lines 5, 6, and 8; and Part V, Section E, lines 2, 5, and 6. Also complete this part for any additional information. (See instructions.)
G Attach to Form 990 or Form 990-PF. Department of
G Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for the latest information.
Name of the organization Employer identification number
Organization type (check one):
Filers of:
Section:
Form 990 or 990-EZ 501(c)( ) (enter number) organization
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust not treated as a private foundation
527 political organization
Form 990-PF
501(c)(3) exempt private foundation
4947(a)(1) nonexempt charitable trust treated as a private foundation
501(c)(3) taxable private foundation
Check if your organization is covered by the General Rule or a Special Rule.
Note: Only a section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) organization can check boxes for both the General Rule and a Special Rule. See instructions.
For an organization filing Form 990, 990-EZ, or 990-PF that received, during the year, contributions totaling $5,000 or more (in money or property) from any one contributor. Complete Parts I and II. See instructions for determining a contributor's total contributions.
For an organization described in section 501(c)(3) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that met the 33-1/3% support test of the regulations under sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi), that checked Schedule A (Form 990), Part II, line 13, 16a, or 16b, and that received from any one contributor, during the year, total contributions of the greater of (1) $5,000; or (2) 2% of the amount on (i) Form 990, Part VIII, line 1h; or (ii) Form 990-EZ, line 1. Complete Parts I and II.
For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor, during the year, total contributions of more than $1,000 exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals. Complete Parts I (entering 'N/A' in column (b) instead of the contributor name and address), II, and III.
For an organization described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) filing Form 990 or 990-EZ that received from any one contributor, during the year, contributions exclusively for religious, charitable, etc., purposes, but no such contributions totaled more than $1,000. If this box is checked, enter here the total contributions that were received during the year for an exclusively religious, charitable, etc., purpose. Don't complete any of the parts unless the General Rule applies to this organization because it received nonexclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions $ totaling $5,000 or more during the year G
Caution: An organization that isn't covered by the General Rule and/or the Special Rules doesn't file Schedule B (Form 990), but it must answer 'No' on Part IV, line 2, of its Form 990; or check the box on line H of its Form 990-EZ or on its Form 990-PF, Part I, line 2, to certify that it doesn't meet the filing requirements of Schedule B (Form 990).
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
TEEA0701L 10/06/21
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Name of organization
Part I Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Employer identification number
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
of contribution
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash
(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Name of organization
Part I Contributors (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part I if additional space is needed.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
Employer identification number
(c) (d)
32-0318691 X
Person Payroll $ Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
of contribution
X 8
Person Payroll $ Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(a)
(b)
(c) (d)
X 9
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(a) (b)
TEEA0702L
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash
(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash (Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
(c) (d)
Person Payroll
Noncash
(Complete Part II for noncash contributions.)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Part II Noncash Property (see instructions). Use duplicate copies of Part II if additional space is needed.
(a) No.
(b)
(c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
(a) No.
(b)
(c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
(a) No.
(b) (c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
(a) No.
(b)
(c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
(a) No.
(b)
(c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
(a) No.
(b)
(c) (d) from Description of noncash property given FMV (or estimate) Date received Part I (See instructions.)
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
Name of organization Employer identification number
Part III Exclusively religious, charitable, etc., contributions to organizations described in section 501(c)(7), (8), or (10) that total more than $1,000 for the year from any one contributor. Complete columns (a) through (e) and the following line entry. For organizations completing Part III, enter the total of exclusively religious, charitable, etc., G contributions of $1,000 or less for the year. (Enter this information once. See instructions.) $ Use duplicate copies of Part III if additional space is needed.
(a) No.
(b) Purpose of gift
(c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held from Part I
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP + 4
Relationship of transferor to transferee
(a) No.
(b) Purpose of gift
(c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held from Part I
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP + 4
Relationship of transferor to transferee
(a) No.
(b) Purpose of gift
(c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held from Part I
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP + 4
Relationship of transferor to transferee
(a) No.
(b) Purpose of gift
(c) Use of gift (d) Description of how gift is held from Part I
(e) Transfer of gift
Transferee's name, address, and ZIP + 4
Relationship of transferor to transferee
Schedule B (Form 990) (2021)
OMB
(Form 990)
Department of the Treasury
G Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, 2021 Part IV, line 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11a, 11b, 11c, 11d, 11e, 11f, 12a, or 12b.
G Attach to Form 990.
Open to Public
Internal Revenue Service Inspection
G Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information.
Name of the organization Employer identification number
32-0318691
Part I
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 6.
(a) Donor advised funds (b) Funds and other accounts
1
2
3
4
Total number at end of year
Aggregate value of contributions to (during year)
Aggregate value of grants from (during year)
Aggregate value at end of year
5 Did the organization inform all donors and donor advisors in writing that the assets held in donor advised funds
Yes No are the organization's property, subject to the organization's exclusive legal control?
6 Did the organization inform all grantees, donors, and donor advisors in writing that grant funds can be used only for charitable purposes and not for the benefit of the donor or donor advisor, or for any other purpose conferring
Yes No impermissible private benefit?
Part II Conservation Easements.
1
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 7.
Purpose(s) of conservation easements held by the organization (check all that apply).
Preservation of land for public use (for example, recreation or education) Preservation of a historically important land area
Protection of natural habitat Preservation of a certified historic structure
Preservation of open space
2 Complete lines 2a through 2d if the organization held a qualified conservation contribution in the form of a conservation easement on the last day of the tax year.
Held at the End of the Tax Year
a
historic structure included in (a) c 2 c
d Number of conservation easements included in (c) acquired after 7/25/06, and not on a historic 2 d structure listed in the National Register
3 tax year G
Number of conservation easements modified, transferred, released, extinguished, or terminated by the organization during the
4 Number of states where property subject to conservation easement is located G
5
Does the organization have a written policy regarding the periodic monitoring, inspection, handling of violations,
Yes No and enforcement of the conservation easements it holds?
6 G
Staff and volunteer hours devoted to monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
7 G$
Amount of expenses incurred in monitoring, inspecting, handling of violations, and enforcing conservation easements during the year
8 Does each conservation easement reported on line 2(d) above satisfy the requirements of section 170(h)(4)(B)(i)
Yes No and section 170(h)(4)(B)(ii)?
9 In Part XIII, describe how the organization reports conservation easements in its revenue and expense statement and balance sheet, and include, if applicable, the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that describes the organization's accounting for conservation easements.
Part III
1
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 8.
a If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, not to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide in Part XIII the text of the footnote to its financial statements that describes these items.
b If the organization elected, as permitted under FASB ASC 958, to report in its revenue statement and balance sheet works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets held for public exhibition, education, or research in furtherance of public service, provide the following amounts relating to these items:
$G Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 (i)
Assets included in Form 990, Part X (ii)
$G
2 If the organization received or held works of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets for financial gain, provide the following amounts required to be reported under FASB ASC 958 relating to these items:
Revenue included on Form 990, Part VIII, line 1 a
Assets included in Form 990, Part X b
BAA For Paperwork Reduction Act Notice, see the Instructions for Form 990.
TEEA3301L 08/30/21
$G
$G
Schedule D (Form 990) 2021
Part III
3 Using the organization's acquisition, accession, and other records, check any of the following that make significant use of its collection items (check all that apply):
Public exhibition
Loan or exchange program a d
Scholarly research
Other b e
Preservation for future generations c
4 Provide a description of the organization's collections and explain how they further the organization's exempt purpose in Part XIII.
5 During the year, did the organization solicit or receive donations of art, historical treasures, or other similar assets
Yes No to be sold to raise funds rather than to be maintained as part of the organization's collection? Escrow and Custodial Arrangements. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV,
Part IV line 9, or reported an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21.
1 a Is the organization an agent, trustee, custodian or other intermediary for contributions or other assets not included
Yes No on Form 990, Part X?
b
If 'Yes,' explain the arrangement in Part XIII and complete the following table:
2 a
Did the organization include an amount on Form 990, Part X, line 21, for escrow or custodial account liability?
Yes No If 'Yes,' explain the arrangement in Part XIII. Check here if the explanation has been provided on Part XIII b
Part V
1 a
Endowment Funds. Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 10.
(a) Current year (b) Prior year (c) Two years back (d) Three years back (e) Four years back
Beginning of year balance
Contributions b
c Net investment earnings, gains, and losses
d
Grants or scholarships
e Other expenditures for facilities and programs
f
g
Administrative expenses
End of year balance
2 % Board designated or quasi-endowment G a % Permanent endowment G b
Provide the estimated percentage of the current year end balance (line 1g, column (a)) held as:
endowment G c
The percentages on lines 2a, 2b, and 2c should equal 100%.
3 a Are there endowment funds not in the possession of the organization that are held and administered for the
'Yes' on line 3a(ii), are the related organizations listed as required on Schedule R?
4 Part VI Land, Buildings, and Equipment. Complete
Describe in Part XIII the intended uses of the organization's endowment funds.
Part VII
Investments ' Other Securities.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11b. See Form 990, Part X, line 12.
(b) Book value (a) Description of security or category (including name of security) (c) Method of valuation: Cost or end-of-year market value
(1) Financial derivatives
(2) Closely held equity interests
(3) Other (A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H) (I)
Part VIII
Investments ' Program Related.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11c. See Form 990, Part X, line 13.
(a)
Cost or end-of-year market value (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
Part IX
Other Assets.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11d. See Form 990, Part X, line 15.
(a) Description (b) Book value (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)
G
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B) line 15.)
Part X
Other Liabilities.
Complete if the organization answered 'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 11e or 11f. See Form 990, Part X, line 25.
1. (1) Federal income taxes (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
(a) Description of liability (b) Book value
Total. (Column (b) must equal Form 990, Part X, column (B) line 25.)
G
2. Liability for uncertain tax positions. In Part XIII, provide the text of the footnote to the organization's financial statements that reports the organization's liability for uncertain tax positions under FASB ASC 740. Check here if the text of the footnote has been provided in Part XIII TEEA3303L 08/30/21
the
of Revenue per Audited Financial Statements With Revenue per Return.
'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
if the
'Yes' on Form 990, Part IV, line 12a.
Provide the descriptions required for Part II, lines 3, 5, and 9; Part III, lines 1a and 4; Part IV, lines 1b and 2b; Part V, line 4;
X, line 2; Part XI, lines 2d and 4b; and Part XII, lines 2d and 4b. Also complete this part to provide any additional information.
SCHEDULE
POGO PARK
32-0318691
FORM 990, PART I, LINE 1 - ORGANIZATION MISSION OR SIGNIFICANT ACTIVITIES
FOR THE PAST 15 YEARS, POGO PARK HAS ORGANIZED AND LED A HOLISTIC, – "BUILD FROM THE INSIDE/OUT", COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE IRON TRIANGLE THAT IS CENTERED AROUND EMPOWERING A TEAM OF LOCAL RESIDENTS TO TRANSFORM ONCE-ABANDONED NEIGHBORHOOD
PARKS INTO SAFE, GREEN, AND BEAUTIFUL PUBLIC SPACES FOR CHILDREN TO PLAY.
FORM 990, PART III, LINE 4D - OTHER PROGRAM SERVICES DESCRIPTION
PEOPLE: PROVIDE JOBS, TRAINING, AND SUPPORT FOR 15 PEOPLE WHO ARE LOW-INCOME AND LIVE IN AN UNDERSERVED COMMUNITY. PROVIDE AN ENRICHED PUBLIC PLAY SPACE FOR CHILDREN TO HELP THEM GROW AND THRIVE.
POGO PARK PRODUCTS: OPERATE A SOCIAL ENTERPRISE THAT SELLS TWO THINGS: 1)
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES TO REMAKE CITY PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS, 2) A LINE OF PARK AMENITIES (BENCHES, WATER FOUNTAINS, TRASH CANS, ETC.). CREATE JOBS FOR LOCAL PEOPLE AND PROVIDES A SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR POGO PARK.
FORM 990, PART VI, LINE 11B - FORM 990 REVIEW PROCESS
BOTH POGO PARK'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AND REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE OF POGO PARK'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEW FORM 990 BEFORE IT IA SUBMITTED TO THE IRS.
FORM 990, PART VI, LINE 12C - EXPLANATION OF MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT OF CONFLICTS
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REVIEWS THE CONFLICY OF INTEREST POLICY AT THE FIRST BOARD MEETING OF EACH CALENDAR YEAR.
FORM 990, PART VI, LINE 15A - COMPENSATION REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCESS - CEO & TOP MANAGEMENT
POGO PARK'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAS AUTHORIZED POGO PARK TO RETAIN STACY NELSON & ASSOCIATES TO CONDUCT A THOROUGH COMPENSATION REVIEW OF ALL POGO PARK STAFF. THE REPORT THAT STACY NELSON & ASSOCIATES PRODUCES HELPS GUIDE POGO PARK'S BOARD AND
FORM 990, PART VI, LINE 15A - COMPENSATION REVIEW & APPROVAL PROCESS - CEO & TOP MANAGEMENT (CONTINUED)
STAFF TO ENSURE COMPENSATION PAID TO ALL STAFF IS FAIR AND RESONABLE.
FORM 990, PART VI, LINE 19 - OTHER ORGANIZATION DOCUMENTS PUBLICLY AVAILABLE
UPON REQUEST, POGO PARK WILL PROVIDE ALL GOVERNING DOCUMENTS.
FORM 990, PART IX, LINE 11G
FORM 990, PART XII, LINE 1 - OTHER ACCOUNTING METHOD HYBRID
Harbour Hall, Richmond’s new Community Resilience Center, will serve 15,000 residents of Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood with a specific focus on improving the emergency preparedness of this priority population.
To follow is a summary of the local needs specific to and/or emergency response:
● STELLAR EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
It is imperative to work with our Partners to drastically and methodically improve the emergency communication system to rapidly disseminate alerts and updates to the community residents in both English and Spanish. Current alerts include: texts, sirens, and messages on social media and mobile apps. Today, few Iron Triangle residents are signed up to receive these critical alerts. Additionally, the current emergency communication system is unreliable. Case in point: when a fire erupted at Richmond’s Chevron Refinery in 2015, the City’s main emergency siren never sounded the alarm, the communication was spotty, and there was widespread and panicked confusion among residents about the severity of the fire and what – exactly – to do.
● IMPROVED COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, EDUCATION, AND PREPAREDNESS
Multiple partners dedicated to preparing Richmond’s citizens for emergencies have stated repeatedly that, more than any other community in Richmond, Iron Triangle residents are critically under-resourced and under-prepared for disasters and/or emergencies. This CRC grant provides an incredible opportunity to change this.
● IMPROVED SOCIAL CONNECTION
Because of the tough neighborhood conditions (dangerous streets, lack of safe, green public spaces for the community to gather) Iron Triangle residents are locked inside their homes behind closed doors, and do not know their own neighbors. Providing vibrant, culturally appropriate, year-round programs at the CRC and the CRC campus will enable residents to come together, engage in
year-round programs, sit in the shade and watch their children play, attend community events, get to know their neighbors and forge the social bonds to build community resilience during disasters.
Additionally a significant portion of the Iron Triangle community is Spanishspeaking, with limited English proficiency. There is a critical lack of resources to integrate diverse residents into a cohesive neighborhood identity, leading to low school attendance and limited participation in community and civic life. The Harbour Hall – CRC Project which will include culturally appropriate community activities designed by Spanish speaking residents, presents a significant opportunity to deeply involve and engage marginalized residents in the initiative.
● IMPROVED ACCESS TO BACK UP POWER, WATER, AND FOOD
Iron Triangle residents will require access to these essentials during emergencies. With a high number of seniors and disabled residents, members of the Iron Triangle community must have ready-made and accessible access to electricity to power their wheelchairs, portable oxygen tanks, and mobile devices. Moreover, conversations with community residents reveal that very few have critical supplies such as water, food, or medical supplies that will allow them to be resilient during the first days of disasters. Having a CRC in this community will be a boon to residents and provide a lifeline of support to this high priority population during emergencies.
● IMPROVE CONNECTION TO, COMMUNICATION WITH, AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS OF LOCAL SCHOOLS
The Iron Triangle has four schools (Lincoln Elementary, Peres Elementary and Sylvester Greenwood Academy High School and Leadership High School) that educate 2,500 school-age children and youth. These four schools serve as key hubs and connectors to local families. Overburdened and under-resourced, Iron Triangle schools admit that they are woefully unprepared for community emergencies. In fact, when asked to describe the school’s current emergency plans, they replied, “to call the Red Cross.” In short, there is no plan! If funded, Pogo Park’s Harbour Hall – CRC Project presents an incredible opportunity to bring multiple emergency preparedness partners together to help local schools put a plan in place to prepare for emergencies.
● IMPROVE CONNECTION TO, COMMUNICATION WITH, AND EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS WITH LOCAL MEDICAL FACILITIES
The Iron Triangle has two medical facilities (Kaiser Hospital and Lifelong Medical) and dozens of child care and in-home care centers. There are two Senior Housing facilities and four multi-generational low-income housing
complexes (Barrett Apartments, Barrett Plaza, Triangle Court, St. John’s Apartments, and Atchison Village). Additionally, there are two homeless shelters (Bay Area Rescue Mission and SOS Richmond). All of these locations house hundreds of people who will need assistance in the event of an emergency. This potential Harbour Hall – CRC grant will enable CSS Partners to connect with each facility and provide urgently needed educational materials, equipment, training and tools to help each location build their internal capacity to prepare for emergencies.
● PROVIDE A LOCATION TO OFFER
In the Iron Triangle today, there is not one designated place that residents can readily point to that could provide integrated delivery of essential services and programming to local communities during and following disasters, emergencies, and disruption events, including resources and assistance for folks experiencing and navigating post-disaster recovery. Harbour Hall, with grassroots, bottom-up planning and implementation led by residents, can change this.
Currently, there is no CRC facility in Richmond to serve residents during emergency conditions and/or climate events. If funded, Harbour Hall will be the first CRC in Richmond and Contra Costa County. During emergencies, Harbour Hall (and Elm Playlot, another “campus site”) will serve the local community in the following ways:
Harbour Hall will be a neighborhood communications hub. Iron Triangle Block Captains will communicate key information and make requests for assistance via GMSR radio directly to the communication center at Harbour Hall. In turn, Harbour Hall’s communication team will connect those requests directly to Richmond’s Emergency Operations Center who, in turn, are able to communicate out to the larger support network including Contra Costa County’s Office of Emergency Services, the Red Cross, National Guard, and FEMA.
Harbour Hall will have a solar-powered air conditioning system and filtered air to provide residents with a 3,500 square foot, safe, sheltered room to cool down during extreme heat events.
Harbour Hall will distribute critical supplies to residents during emergencies including: food, water, and medical supplies.
Harbour Hall will provide back-up power for residents to charge critical devices during emergencies including: mobile devices, wheelchairs, and oxygen machines.
Currently, there is not a CRC in Richmond, so there are no thresholds in place to decide when to open the CRC during emergencies. However, Pogo Park’s CSS Partners look forward to working with other partners and key stakeholders including the City of Richmond and Contra Costa County to develop a wellconceived and considered plan to determine the threshold levels for when to open Harbour Hall – CRC during emergencies.
Following is a list of the organizations, agencies, and partners and their proposed roles at the Harbour Hall – CRC during emergencies:
● Be available 24/7 to open and staff Harbour Hall and Elm Playlot during emergencies.
● CRC Manager and CERT-trained support staff will provide support and assistance to residents at Harbour Hall and Elm Playlot.
● CRC Director and CERT-Trained support staff will facilitate communication between the Harbour Hall – CRC, Elm Playlot and Richmond’s Emergency Operations Center.
As the primary emergency response partner, the City will:
● Coordinate all emergency relief efforts with the City’s Police, Fire, Public Works, Public Information Officer, and Office of Emergency Services to support residents during emergencies.
● Coordinate emergency support efforts with other partners including Contra Costa County, Chevron’s Fire Department at the Richmond Refinery, and Port of Richmond.
● Provide transportation from CRC to Nevin Community Center, the “primary” emergency evacuation center designated to serve Iron Triangle residents during disasters. The City’s Fire Department is creating a designated route from Harbour Hall – CRC to the Nevin Center that will be cleared and remain open for residents to easily walk, bike, or drive to reach.
● Provide mobile medical clinic at Harbour Hall
● Deliver emergency supplies including food, medical supplies, clothing, blankets to Harbour Hall
4. Training for Response.
● HOW STAFF WILL BE TRAINED TO OPERATE A CRC
Richmond CERT will train the staff of the CRC and certify them in emergency preparedness training. During collaborative meetings involving our entire CSS, we will work with CERT and the City of Richmond to develop processes about emergency training and protocols to enact during emergencies. Pogo Park’s emergency training will be Continuous and will constantly be updated to include new best practices, information, and the latest skills, to keep staff current and effective in their roles and ready to lead during emergencies.
We will always have staff working who are both Spanish and English speakers.Our staffing approach ensures continuous availability of both Spanish and English speakers at the CRC. Staff will receive training to use translation apps on their devices, facilitating effective communication across languages. Additionally, our program includes cultural awareness training to enhance communication across diverse cultures. It's important to highlight that all CRC staff will be members of the priority population, uniquely positioned to serve their community's needs.
Pogo Park will work with our CRC partners to establish a well-oiled system to communicate effectively and coordinate responses during emergencies. During a preliminary planning meeting, CSS partners envisioned the following communication methods:
● Phone / Text Tree amongst our dedicated partners listed above in question 3
● Radio Transmission
● Automated systems (i.e. Nixle)
● Neighborhood warning siren
● Nixle text alerts
● Robo-calls
● Social Media
Pogo Park looks forward to meeting with our multiple community partners in our CSS to assess the communications needs of local residents and develop a thoughtful and comprehensive strategy to communicate with the community during emergencies. To follow are the ideas generated by community residents and stakeholders:
● Text alerts – residents can sign up for texts in their language of choice
● Robo calls
● Information on the radio and television
● Neighborhood warning siren
● GMRS radio channel
● Social media
● Phone Trees
● Driving through streets with speakers on top of the car or walking with a bullhorn
● Communicating with Block Captains who go door to door on their block
● Emergency Preparedness Block Captains – Block Captain will play a vital role in communicating with residents and sharing information about emergencies and appropriate actions to take.
The need and interest in backup power and battery storage at Harbour Hall – CRC are paramount to ensure this facility's resilience during emergencies and power outages. Harbour Hall – CRC must be equipped to provide essential services, including powering medical devices and refrigeration for medications, for the community members who rely on it.
● Solar Battery backup: A solar powered battery backup is crucial to keep the CRC facility operational during power outages, ensuring that it can continue to serve the community's critical needs.
● Renewable Energy Generation: Adding solar panels to the CRC facility will reduce its reliance on the grid and enhance its sustainability.
● Battery Capability: Sufficient battery capacity is essential to power the CRC facility for an extended duration during outages. This will cater to community members on medical devices and those requiring medication refrigeration.
● Established partnership with GRID Alternatives. GRID Alternatives is responsible for installing and securing back up battery capacity for the Project.
Pogo Park held multiple meetings with Richmond’s Fire Department specifically to discuss creating accessible evacuation routes to and from Harbour Hall – CRC during emergencies. The Fire Department has agreed to create a dedicated evacuation route to and from the CRC.
Additionally, the Fire Department plans to create a dedicated route from the CRC to Nevin Community Center, the primary evacuation center in the Iron Triangle.
The primary focus of the evacuation route will be the Yellow Brick Road®, connecting Harbour-8 to the Elm Playlot CRC campus site, and running through the heart of the Iron Triangle community. Pogo Park successfully spearheaded the initiative to establish a safe biking and walking route in the neighborhood, after securing $13 million in
funding. This funding has resulted in the transformation of 24 intersections, creating a pedestrian-friendly pathway.
The Fire Department has made a commitment to clear, safeguard, and uphold dedicated evacuation routes. This entails the removal of any vehicles or obstacles from the streets to ensure unobstructed access for residents using wheelchairs, walkers, bicycles, cars, or other mobility devices. These measures aim to facilitate the movement of residents and service vehicles to reach centers for necessary support and supplies during emergencies.
The specific path of the Yellow Brick Road was established over a decade ago through community-led planning. Iron Triangle residents actively participated in selecting a route for a safe walking street within their neighborhood. The evacuation route will align with the route chosen by the residents of the Iron Triangle, ensuring that it reflects their preferences and priorities.
Currently, the Richmond Fire Department plays a central role in emergency preparedness for Richmond, and their established system involves funneling all emergency services through the Emergency Operation Center which is located in the basement of City Hall.
● Richmond Fire Department has set up an Emergency Logistic Center within the Emergency Operation Center. This center houses various resources, including the City's 15-seat paratransit vans and the fleet of city-owned car-share vehicles.
● Richmond’s Fire Department has predetermined arrangements with AC Transit to mobilize buses for the purpose of picking up residents and transporting them to a CRC facility.
● One of the primary goals of the grant is to bridge the gap between the existing emergency transportation system and residents who do not know how to access it.
● The CRC grant will focus on education and awareness within the community. This will involve organizing educational block parties and providing preparedness training for residents.
● The grant aims to empower marginalized and unprepared community members by providing them with the knowledge and tools necessary for self-survival during emergencies and connecting them to a broader network of support.
To follow is a description of Pogo Park’s communication about the CRC project with local government for use during emergencies:
● Level of Communication: Pogo Park has organized a core team of community residents along with community residents who are members with Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council to meet with key members of the City of Richmond to discuss the CRC project and its use for emergencies. The City of Richmond is an enthusiastic partner to Pogo Park’s project, specifically because the project will support efforts to engage with and prepare marginalized residents of the Iron Triangle neighborhood for emergencies.
● WHO:
○ City Manager – Shasa Curl
○ Fire Chief – Angel Montoya
○ Deputy Fire Chief – Aaron Osorio
○ Battalion Chief, Lead – Office of Emergency Preparedness, Rico Rincon
● Level of Communication: The same core team of residents had multiple meetings with Contra Costa Health Services to discuss how to collaborate and support each other’s efforts to increase emergency preparedness amongst high priority populations in Richmond’s Iron Triangle.
● Anthony Moore, the emergency planning coordinator for the country, who happens to be an Iron Triangle resident, will be a key partner in the project. Anthony will be on the governing board within the CSS structure, and is enthusiastic to connect the county’s efforts with the city’s and with the local community through Harbour Hall – CRC.
● WHO:
○ Anthony Moore, Emergency Planning Coordinator, Health Emergency Response Unit (HERU) Gerald D.Tamayo, Health Services Emergency Preparedness, CCHS
Daniella Poy-Wing, Program Manager, CCHS
○ Cameron Soo, Health Specialist I- Medical Countermeasures Coordinator, CCHS
○ Theresa Dade-Boone, Volunteer Program Coordinator-Medical Reserve Corp (MRC), CCHS
○ Luis Avalos, Inventory Manager for Health Emergency Response Unit, CCHS
Pogo Park, together with our CSS partners, has conducted a thorough study of the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), the County’s Emergency Operations Plan, and the City of Richmond General Plan Safety element. Pogo Park will continuously learn about vital emergency plans, as they evolve. The City, Richmond Fire Department and Richmond CERT have also kept us informed of their plans and have continually updated their processes to comply with the best practices of the County Emergency Operations.
Additionally, Pogo Park has studied the new Fire Safe Council. The Fire Safe Council plans mitigation of wildfires with procedures that are modified when a fire is located in an urban area. The Council includes input and participation from CalFire, the East Bay Regional Park District, East Bay Municipal Utility (Water) district, PG&E and CalTrans. They are developing evacuation routes and procedures, as well as fuel reduction strategies for households and vacant lots. They have developed a FireWise program to alert residents to steps to be taken to reduce vulnerability in the case of fire.
Pogo Park is in contact with the West Contra Costa Unified School District, so that our procedures to activate the CRC facility will be coordinated with local school emergency plans.
Pogo Park is committed to ensuring all residents have access to the CRC. The Civic Engagement Board will establish an efficient procedure for receiving and promptly addressing requests for reasonable modifications or accommodations from individuals with disabilities. Requests received via email, text or verbally, will be tracked and reviewed by the CEB, with transparent resolutions accessible to all residents.
Pogo Park
The Harbour-8 Park CRC will have a robust calendar with daily activities that rotate to accommodate community interests and needs. There will be a special focus on programs and services for this neighborhood’s priority populations including seniors, non-english speakers, children, and those with disabilities. Our Civic Engagement Board (our Collaborative Stakeholder Structure) will engage with the community to plan workshops, classes, social events, and other programming that build community resilience and strengthen bonds and friendships in the community resulting in stronger community connections and health.
We intend to have programming led by a variety of organizations including, but not limited to, our CSS partners, including: GRID Alternatives, Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council (ITNC), YES! Nature to Neighborhoods, (YES), Richmond CERT, Senior Circle, East Bay Center for Performing Arts (EBCPA). Community Resilience Programs and Services will include the following:
1. Block Captain Trainingoffered to resident who volunteer to serve as community leaders in the neighborhood during emergencies.
2. Emergency Preparedness Block Parties - organized by Pogo Park and led by Block Captains, these block-by-block community gatherings will educate the community on emergency preparedness and strengthen social networks in the neighborhood.
3. Emergency Preparedness Training. In collaboration with CERT, Staff will organize educational emergency
150 participants per week. Programs are tailored to different Iron Triangle demographics and there will be a focus on serving priority populations including seniors, non-english speakers, children and those with disabilities and mobility issues.
Programs build emergency preparedness by preparing residents for emergencies, programs build community resilience and improve public health by fostering social cohesion, community connectivity, physical fitness, skill development, and public safety
Programming will rotate seasonally and as community needs evolve based on local residents input via our Civic Engagement Board, as articulated in our CSS.
GRID Alternatives
preparedness trainings for community members.
4. Diverse park programming for children, youth, seniors, and families (i.e. art, chess, food, dance, senior circle and senior exercise, gardening, nature learning, Petting Zoo).
5. Community Walking School Bus Programs along the Yellow Brick Road®.
6. Special Events: movie nights, performing arts, community and holiday celebrations, voting, Town Hall community meetings, pop-up community market.
Workforce development training - job training to local residents in solar installation. These training sessions and activities will involve installing panels on Harbour Hall – CRC and will help provide economic opportunity for those looking to start or change careers.
ITNC Organize outreach to local residents, disseminate timely information and help to plan programming classes and workshops.
Weekly Approximately 50 residents per month from priority populations will be engaged in workforce development
Workforce development and training builds a skilled diversified and trained workforce in a a zero carbon economy future job that is resilient to future climate change impacts
With 17 years experience in workforce development for 17 years, Pogo Park will support GRID Alternatives with outreach to local Iron Triangle residents to identify and enroll residents with job training needs
Daily 50 participants per week – all from Iron Triangle underserved neighborhood
YES Nature based leadership programs for Youth, designed to support participants to develop leadership skills, social emotional skills and confidence to work toward supporting a just
Weekly 20 participants per week – all local youth from local underserved neighborhood
Community engagement by local residents builds, strengthens and and sustains grassroots engagement in civic and community development, social connectivity and community trust which strengthens Community Resilience
Youth leadership programs build community leadership and social cohesion which leads to
Richmond CERT
society and a sustainable environment.
Community CERT Training –Quarterly classes, training community members in emergency preparedness skills leading to Emergency certification. CERT will partner with local emergency providers including Richmond’s police and fire departments to build climate and community resilience.
Quarterly 50 participants per quarter – all local residents from local underserved neighborhood, who are in need of current job skills
Community Resilience
Training local residents to better handle emergencies builds emergency preparedness and strengthens community resilience
Senior Circle
Senior sewing circles, walks, and arts and craft activities.
EBCPA Performing arts classes and performances; music and dance classes.
Daily 30 participants per week –program will specifically target Senior living directing adjacent to park in Harbour-View Senior Center
Weekly 30 participants per week – all from local lowincome neighborhood
Senior programs build community resilience and improves health and social connectivity leading to Community Resilience
Music and Arts programs build community resilience, youth development training, fostering community resilience.
Lead Applicant: Pogo Park
Proposal Name: Harbour Hall – CRC
Jurisdiction: City of Richmond, Contra Costa County
Community Engagement Plan Overview
State your overarching goal for this Community Engagement Plan and explain how it will allow you to meet Implementation Grant Program Objectives
The overarching goal of Pogo Park’s Community Engagement Plan (CEP) is to develop a robust and comprehensive strategy to engage community residents – those who know their neighborhood best – and then empower those residents to play a leading role in the entire process to plan, design, implement, and (later) evaluate the Harbour Hall – CRC Project.
Community residents, empowered to dream of solutions to their community’s challenges, and then actualize that dream, is the key ingredient that will allow Pogo Park and our partners to meet every objective of this CRC Implementation grant.
Already, local residents have envisioned Harbour Hall as a vibrant, multi-benefit, space that provides integrated delivery of services and programs year-round. Residents will work with partners to provide programs that increase climate resilience, expand economic opportunities, and reduce health, environmental, and social inequities. Providing residents with workforce development and training opportunities builds, strengthens, and sustains local leadership.
"We had a team of people from the community to plan and do all the outreach ourselves. We worked together to figure out how to bring in the whole community. That process of people working together breaks down barriers, connects families, and builds trust."
– Carmen Lee, Pogo Park’s Community Development TeamProvide a description of how you developed your Community Engagement Plan, including the role of partners in your Collaborative Stakeholder Structure.
Pogo Park’s Community Development Team of 12 local residents worked together with other residents, community-based organizations, Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council (ITNC), and the City of Richmond to develop a robust, meaningful, and culturally appropriate Community Engagement Plan (CEP) for the Harbour Hall – CRC Project.
Pogo Park’s CEP builds upon over a decade of ongoing grassroots engagement work by the same resident team from the same underserved neighborhood. In short, local residents are the driving force behind our CEP.
Members of Pogo Park’s Community Development Team (the “CDT”) are diverse in age, race, and gender. All have deep-ties to the Iron Triangle – and, together, represent the lived-experience of the 15,000 residents who live here.
The CDT worked closely with the ITNC, another organization composed of local residents, to develop Pogo Park’s CEP.
The collaborative process expanded over several meetings, involving more stakeholders and refining the plan with input from partners, including the City of Richmond, the Office of Emergency Services, CERT, and others.
As specified in our Partnership Agreement, we intend to establish a Civic Engagement Board consisting of 9 local residents and CSS members. Moving forward, this board will serve as the governing body for CEP implementation.
Provide a detailed description and timeline of how community stakeholders including residents, local priority populations and other vulnerable residents, and key stakeholders from diverse backgrounds that are representative of the community, will be involved during the implementation and evaluation of the CRC Project.
At the heart of Pogo Park’s model is community engagement. The following plan outlines our approach to deeply engage community residents in every step of our Project:
Upon signing the grant agreement and until the five-year period has expired, Pogo Park will involve local residents and community stakeholders in all Harbour Hall – CRC Project phrases, including planning, implementation and evaluation.
During Year 1, Pogo Park’s CRC Director will form a core Community Engagement Planning team, collaborating with CSS partners to further develop a CEP. This planning team will include local residents from Pogo Park’s CDT, Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council Members, and two local CBO’s serving priority populations in the Project area.
The community will actively participate in crafting a Community Engagement Plan.
This planning team in conjunction with emergency preparedness partners (the City of Richmond’s Office of Emergency Services and Richmond CERT), will develop a preliminary plan to engage hard-to-reach, vulnerable residents. Additionally they will create a roadmap for how to establish infrastructure, programs, and services for community and climate resilience during emergencies.
(Note: the governance for community engagement decision-making is outlined in the Partnership Agreement.)
Engagement Methods: Pogo Park will organize a dedicated team of community residents and stakeholders to create and conduct the Project’s outreach efforts to reach out, connect with, and engage other residents. This team will use a variety of methods to engage traditionally hard-to-reach priority populations in crafting a vision and an implementation plan for the Harbour Hall – CRC Project.
Community engagement methods include: door-to-door canvassing; presentations at public meetings; educational block-parties that encourage residents to “come out of their houses”; physical and electronic surveys; dedicated project website and a comprehensive social media campaign.
In Years 2, 3, and 4, Pogo Park will empower residents to actively participate in implementing various aspects of the CEP creating local job, education, and training opportunities and fostering community leadership.
Engagement Methods: Pogo Park will hire, train, and empower community residents to be involved in multiple aspects of the Project’s implementation phase. Residents will organize, publicize and host educational block parties; make presentations to schools, senior centers, and neighborhood councils; become CERT educators and trainers; lead communication efforts; plant trees and plants; install solar power – and organize events and programs that build social connectivity.
During Year 5, Pogo Park will organize and empower a core team of residents to participate in evaluating the HARBOUR HALL – CRC – Project.
Engagement Methods: Pogo Park will organize a key team of residents and community stakeholders to work as paid staff with the CRC Implementation grant’s evaluation team. Please note that Pogo Park’s CDT has worked for over a decade with UC Berkeley’s School of Public Health on multiple research and evaluation projects. This phase provides an opportunity to involve additional residents in evaluation.
Project partners worked collaboratively over multiple meetings to identify key community engagement tasks, and well as the tools, equipment, licenses, and materials needed to support them. A planning team then met to assign costs to every task. Pogo Park assembled all the costs in an overall Project budget for community engagement.
Pogo Park’s community engagement activities improve outcomes by deeply involving local residents in neighborhood projects that will, ultimately, shape their lives. A 2022 UC Berkeley study comparing local community data from 2009 and 2019 demonstrates Pogo Park’s impact in the Iron Triangle. One of the key findings was that authentic resident engagement leads to increased social cohesion and improved safety outcomes. Corburn, Jason, UC Berkeley School of Public Health. Pogo Park Impact Story. https://pogo-park-impact-story.netlify.app/#social-cohesion-landing
We will use the following methods to inform the public about the Harbour Hall – CRC
Project:
• Social media
• Dedicated Harbour Hall – CRC website
• Physical mailings to home and businesses
• Flyers distributed both door-to-door and on community bulletin boards, churches, schools, and businesses
• Local media stories in Richmond Standard, Richmond Confidential, Richmond Pulse
• Educational Block Partied
• Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council meetings
• Community Resident Network – word-of-mouth
Pogo Park will track all complaints received via email, phone or verbal communication. Pogo Park views complaints as opportunities for improvement. We will analyze recurring issues and invite residents who complain to take part in community engagement projects, thereby enhancing project engagement, and transparency.
“All neighborhoods need to have projects like this where the neighborhood is actually involved instead of just people from other places. Because when people help you build things, they take ownership for it. People will treat it better when they feel they had a part in it."
–
BrandonHarris, Community resident
Partner Responsible Party Role in Community Engagement Plan (50
Plan Lead Entity
Pogo Park
Partner 1 Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council (ITNC)
Lead entity is responsible for ensuring that community residents have a voice, a “say so”, in how the CEP is planned, developed, and ultimately implemented. Responsible for leading, managing, administering, and implementing the Community Engagement Plan through all phases of the CRC project: planning, implementation, and evaluation.
Project Partner composed of community residents will assist Pogo Park to develop the CEP plan, identify key community residents and stakeholders, and help craft strategies to communicate and engage with other community residents. ITNC will also provide logistical help to plan and implement outreach events.
Partner 2 City of Richmond
Partner 3 GRID Alternatives
Partner 4 Senior Circle
Partner 5 Yes, Nature to Neighborhoods (YES)
Co-Applicant and Project Partner will assist the implementation of the CEP by: organizing physical mailings to every home and business in the Project area; helping to develop educational content; and publicizing information about the CRC Project on the city’s website and across their social media platforms.
Project Partner will publicize communication materials about the Harbour Hall – CRC Project through their existing network of community residents and stakeholders in the Project Area.
Project Partner will focus efforts on conducting outreach specifically to local seniors, one of the most vulnerable populations in the Project area. The Senior Circle Team, composed entirely of seniors, plan to meet, in person, and engage with other seniors “where they are” – in senior housing, and Richmond’s Senior Center.
Project Partner will deploy their community youth leadership team to conduct outreach
Partner 6 East Bay Center for the Performing Arts (EPPA)
Partner 7 Community Residents at-Large
specifically to engage with other youth in the Project Area. YES will assist with developing the communication strategy to connect and engage with other youth.
Project Partner with 50-year experience working in the Project Area, EBCPA will assist Pogo Park to develop a community engagement plan. EBCPA will also disseminate information about the CRC’s programs and services through their comprehensive mailing list of community residents and stakeholders.
Pogo Park plans to recruit, train, and empower 2-3 community residents to participate in design, planning, and implementation of the CEP. These 2-3 residents, along with residents from Pogo Park, ITNC, YES, and EBCPA will ensure that residents’ voices are represented through every phase of Harbour Hall –CRC Project.
Overall temperatures are projected to rise in California during the 21st century. While the entire state will experience temperature increases, the local impacts will vary greatly with many communities and ecosystems already experiencing the effects of rising temperatures.
Average of all the hottest daily temperatures in a year.
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Number of days in a year when daily maximum temperature is above a threshold temperature
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Average of all coldest daily temperatures in a year. of 89.5 °F
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Number of days in a year when daily minimum temperature is above a threshold temperature
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
4. Threshold temperature for a location is defined as the 98th percentile value of historical daily maximum/minimum temperatures (from 1961–1990, between April and October) observed at that location.
California's climate varies between wet and dry years. Research suggests that for much of the state, wet years will become wetter and the dry years will become drier. Dry years are also likely to be followed by dry years, increasing the risk of drought. While California does not see the average annual precipitation changing significantly in the next 50-75 years, precipitation will likely be delivered in more intense storms and within a shorter wet season. We are already seeing some of the impacts from a shift towards larger year to year fluctuations.
The maximum daily precipitation amount for each year. In other words, the greatest amount of daily rain or snow (over a 24 hour period) for each year.
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
The maximum length of dry spell for each year. In other words, the maximum number of consecutive days with precipitation < 1mm for each year.
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Number of months in a year with a Standardised Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) <= -1. SPEI is a multi-scalar drought index and can be used to detect, monitor and analyze droughts.
The standardized precipitation-evaporation index (SPEI) depicts the combined impacts of precipitation deficits and potential evapotranspiration on soil moisture. SPEI does not include impacts from effects like wind speed, relative humidity or solar radiation impacts (typically short-term forcing) – making it more reflective of long-term hydrological and ecological drought conditions. Here we present SPEI calculated for a 9-month period, attempting to reflect a length slightly longer than California’s typical
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Snow Water Equivalent (SWE), is a commonly used measurement used by hydrologists and water managers to gage the amount of liquid water contained within the snowpack.
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Total precipitation projected for a year
Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
The frequency, severity and impacts of wildfire are sensitive to climate change as well as many other factors, including development patterns, temperature increases, wind patterns, precipitation change and pest infestations. Therefore, it is more difficult to project exactly where and how fires will burn. Instead, climate models estimate increased risk to wildfires. The Annual Average Area Burned can help inform at a high level if wildfire activity is likely to increase. However, this information is not completemany regions across the state have no projections (such as regions outside combined fire state and federal protection responsibility areas), and more detailed analyses and projections are needed for local decision-making. These projections are most robust for the Sierra Nevada given model inputs. However, as we have seen in recent years, much of California can expect an increased risk of wildfire, with a wildfire season that starts earlier, runs longer, and features more extreme fire events. Fire danger is complex. It is impacted by human activity, vegetation, wind, temperature, relative humidity, atmospheric stability, etc. The Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) represents a simplified proxy for favorability of occurrence and spread of wildfire but is not itself a predictor of fire.
Average of the area projected to be at risk to burning in a year.
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
Number of days in a year where Keetch-Byram Drought Index (KBDI) > 600. KBDI provides an estimate for how dry the soil and vegetative detritus is.
KBDI is cumulative. The KBDI values increase on dry and warm days and decrease during rainy periods. In California we would expect KBDI to increase from the end of the wet season (spring) into the dry season (summer & fall). The list below explains what values of KBDI represent:
0–200
200–400
400–600
600–800Observed Medium Emissions (RCP 4.5) High Emissions (RCP 8.5)
1. Data derived from 32 LOCA downscaled climate projections generated to support California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Details are described in Pierce et al., 2018.
2. Observed historical data derived from Gridded Observed Meteorological Data. Details are described in Livneh et al., 2015.
3. Data presented is for LOCA grid cell (~ 6km x 6km resolution) at -122.36112,37.93102.
The work upon which this publication is based was funded in part through a Grant awarded by the
The City of Richmond developed the Richmond Resilience Roadmap in collaboration with a consultant team of The Trust for Public Land and PlaceWorks with input from diverse stakeholders such as residents and business owners within the Project Area. The roadmap connects and expands recent efforts, including the City’s Climate Action Plan, the Climate-Smart CitiesTM Initiative, and the Richmond Wellness Trail, with the goal of creating a roadmap of planned projects that support community resilience. The projects, which are intended to be built in the next five to ten years, require additional implementation funding support, from state grants, public-private partnerships, and other sources, to be built.
This Richmond Resilience Roadmap is a deliverable of the TCC Planning Grant, which was awarded to the City of Richmond (Lead Applicant), The Trust for Public Land (co-applicant), and the Richmond Community Foundation (co-applicant) in August 2018 The Roadmap, which is the result of a larger community outreach and engagement process, explores nine potential projects that can advance the Strategic Growth Council’s sustainable communities objectives, such as improving air quality, improving water quality, reducing GHG emissions, improving transportation, and strengthening community resiliency to the impacts of climate change. In addition to producing the Resilience Road Map, the TCC Planning Grant also funded the applicants to complete a portion of the existing conditions studies and schematic design for the Richmond Wellness Trail, which is one of the projects identified in the Road Map.
The Project Area consists of three neighborhoods within the City of Richmond: Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado. As shown in Figure 1, these neighborhoods are generally bounded by the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad to the north and west, Interstate 580 (I-580) to the south, and Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and Southern Pacific Railroad to the east. The Project Area has an ethnically diverse population with a high percentage of non-English speaking households that are primarily low-income and burdened by housing and transportation costs. This area has been identified as a priority area in the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG’s) 2015 Stronger Housing, Safer Communities study, which looks at vulnerability and resilience of Bay Area communities to flooding and seismic hazards. The Iron Triangle neighborhood, specifically, was also recognized in the 2015 Health in All Policies Report (HiAP Report) as an example of community engagement to build healthy places, such as parks, within the Project Area. 1
The Richmond Resilience Roadmap is comprised of nine projects that cover the Coronado, Santa Fe, and Iron Triangle neighborhoods. The projects include a range of project types that provide direct benefits of increasing community services and providing job training and education through resilience hubs, increasing mobility and reducing pollution through expansion of active transportation routes and complete streets, reducing long-term energy costs and increasing energy independence through rooftop solar and energy storage installations, and increasing housing security through affordable housing projects. These projects also provide co-benefits, which are indirect positive impacts of projects, such as reducing GHG emissions, improving public health, creating environmental benefits, and generating economic opportunity. Overall, implementation of the Richmond Resilience Roadmap will help improve
public health and environmental health within the Project Area, which can help close the “climate gap” created by historical disproportionate health and economic impacts in the Project Area.
The nine projects included in the Richmond Resilience Roadmap each contribute to an overall reduction in GHG emissions. Nearly all of the projects include landscaping, streetscaping, or tree planting that would help sequester carbon and store it in the soil, trucks, and stems, reducing the GHG emissions in the Project Area. The increase in vegetation and tree canopy cover would provide shade and reduce the urban heat island effect, which would curb the need to use energy for air conditioning. The corridor projects connect the Iron Triangle, Santa Fe, and Coronado neighborhoods internally and to regional transportation hubs through pedestrian and bicycle improvements, which encourage residents to walk and bike to destinations in the Project Area, which reduces GHG emissions generated from vehicles. The Income-Based Solar and Home Weatherization Project would provide solar PV systems to households in the Project Area, which would provide a source of renewable energy and reduce the need to rely on the larger electrical grid.
Implementation of the Richmond Resilience Roadmap will create both public health and environmental benefits in the Project Area. The green infrastructure elements will reduce flooding in the Project Area by collecting and conveying stormwater away from streets and built infrastructure. This also reduces the risk of human health hazards created by mosquitos, rodents, and ticks that tend to live near pooled water. Additionally, green infrastructure can help clean toxins from the water before it goes into the storm drain system. The vegetation and tree plantings clean the air and provide shade cover that reduces the urban heat island effect. This can reduce heat related illnesses, especially for children, seniors, and others who may be highly susceptible to very high temperatures. The corridor projects will encourage physical activity by creating safer and healthier active transportation routes, creating positive health outcomes in the community. The resilience hub projects will also improve health outcomes by providing residents with refuge centers to use during extreme heat weather, severe air pollution, or other natural disasters.
Construction of the projects on the roadmap will generate economic opportunities within the Project Area. Construction activities will create temporary construction and maintenance positions. The resilience hub projects will also create job training and other educational programs that the entire community could benefit from long term. Development of these projects will include community engagement and partnering with community-based organizations that can help the community be involved throughout all phases of implementation.
The following sections describe the planning process for the Richmond Resilience Roadmap, from defining terms, selecting project criteria, assessing climate vulnerability, evaluating projects, and engaging stakeholders.
Within the City of Richmond, resilience is defined as the ability of Richmond’s residents, infrastructure, response systems, and natural systems to close the “climate gap” and prepare for, absorb, and recover from disruptions caused by climate change. The City of Richmond uses “climate gap” in the City’s Climate Action Plan to describe the disproportionate and unequal health and economic impact that climate change has on people of color and low-income communities.
The Project Area falls within the 85th to 95th percentile of census tracts as measured by the CalEnviroScreen 3.0 tool, meaning that the Project Area ranks in the top 85 to 95 percent among all tracts in California for level of vulnerability to pollution and related effects. When the four census tracts are averaged together, the area is also in the top 82nd percentile for linguistically isolated population, 80th percentile for populations in poverty, and 77th percentile for cost-burdened households 2 The total pollution burden within the Project Area, on average, also falls within the 69th percentile of census tracts statewide 3
The high pollution burden, along with the historical and existing population characteristics, indicates that residents in the Project Area may not have the resources to invest in housing and neighborhood resilience, to create a community that is prepared and ready to withstand social and environmental challenges, and to recover equitably from disasters and disruptions. However, the Resilience Roadmap applied in the Project Area, developed to help the most disadvantaged areas of the City adapt to the effects of climate change, provides a suite of public projects that can increase the resiliency of community members, community facilities and services, businesses, and the neighborhoods to disruptions caused by climate change.
The Project Area is located in an area subject to a disproportionate and unequal health and economic challenges due to climate change hazards and climate justice issues. This section summarizes the climate change hazards and climate justice issues within the community, and then provides an overview of existing adaptation and resilience policies the City currently has to close the “climate gap” and create resilient communities.
According to the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment, there is high confidence that temperatures are warming, sea levels are rising, and heavy precipitation events are becoming more intense, and droughts are becoming more frequent throughout the state. 4 The Project Area, like other areas of the city, is expected to experience multiple direct impacts including potential sea level rise, flooding, extreme weather events, and extreme heat.
As global temperatures heat up, glaciers and other ice near the north and south poles melt and water expands in oceans. The water flows into the ocean, increasing sea levels across the globe gradually over years or decades. In California, guidance suggests that sea levels will increase in most places by 6 to 10 inches by 2030, 13 to 23 inches by 2050, and 41 to 83 inches by 2100, relative to the average sea levels between 1991 and 2009. 5 However, it is possible that sea level may increase faster than these
projections. Eventually, sea levels may increase to a point that permanently floods low-lying areas near the Richmond shoreline, including the southern and western portions of the Project Area.
Rising sea levels also mean that bayshore flooding can become more severe and more frequent within the Project Area. With higher tidal levels during normal conditions, coastal floods such as king tides or storm surges can reach further onto land. A storm that may have a one in ten chance of occurring in a given year, also known as a ten-year storm, can create a temporary increase in sea levels of up to 28 to 30 inches. Therefore, if sea levels rise by 24 inches during normal conditions, a ten-year storm event would create a temporary sea level rise of around 52 inches. 6
Both sea level rise and bayshore flooding can threaten buildings, roadways, and infrastructure that may be temporarily or permanently flooded by water. Bayshore flooding, in particular, can damage or destroy buildings in low-lying areas, disrupt transportation routes, and harm essential facilities within the Project Area. The Coronado and Santa Fe neighborhoods are especially vulnerable to sea level rise, as there are several low-lying areas along I-580, Cutting Boulevard, and Harbour Way that could be inundated by sea level rise and coastal storms.
Flooding occurs when there is too much water in inland areas to be held in local water bodies, to be carried away by drains or creeks, or to soak into the soil. Floods can be caused by heavy rainfall, long periods of moderate rainfall, or clogged drains during period of normal rainfall. The water can build up and wash into normally dry areas, causing significant harm to buildings, people, and infrastructure. Floodwaters can be deep enough to drown people and may move fast enough to carry people or heavy objects (such as cars) away. Floods that develop very quickly are called flash floods and can be especially dangerous because there may be little or no warning. Flooding can also cause water to pool in areas with poor drainage, which can lead to increased populations or animals such as mosquitos, rodents, and ticks, creating a greater risk of diseases carried by these animals, such as Lyme disease, West Nile virus, and hantavirus pulmonary syndrome. Although precipitation levels are not projected to change very much within the city or the Project Area, climate change is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of droughts and floods within the region. Within the Project Area, the portion of the Santa Fe neighborhood south of I-580 is located in a 100-year flood zone. 7
Extreme weather includes strong winds, hail, and lightning, and is typically caused by intense storm systems or Diablo wind events. Severe winds, such as the Diablo winds, can damage or destroy buildings, knock over trees, and damage power lines and electrical equipment. Hail can damage buildings and plants (and in extreme cases injure people); and lightening can spark fires, injure people, or cause fatalities. Strong winds, including the Diablo winds during the spring and fall, are the most common type of severe weather in the region. In some cases, strong winds can reach between 40 and 80 mph and cause trees to fallen and damage power lines. 8 Diablo wind events have recently also caused power outages throughout the state, which can make it difficult to carry out daily activities and cause economic hardship.
Extreme heat occurs when temperatures rise significantly above normal levels. “Extreme heat” is a relative term, as temperatures of 100 degrees are normal in locations like Palm Springs, but almost unprecedented in San Francisco. In the Project Area, the extreme heat threshold is approximately 90degree Fahrenheit, which may seem lower than other areas in the region, but higher than usual temperatures can be particularly harmful for a community that is not accustomed to high heat levels People living in typically cooler areas, such as the coastal climate zone, may be less acclimatized to heat, less likely to recognize the need to protect themselves from the negative health outcomes from heat, and have few options for cool, air conditioned spaces. 9 Extreme heat can harm residents in the Project Area by causing heat-related illnesses, such as heat cramps, heat exhaustion, and heat stroke, especially in areas that do not have shade structures or trees to reduce the urban heat island effect. Those most vulnerable to extreme heat include outdoor workers, households in poverty, persons without access to air conditioning or a vehicle, linguistically isolated populations, and those with existing chronic health conditions. According to the 2015 report Climate Change Vulnerability in Contra Costa County: A Focus on Heat developed by Contra Costa Health Services, the Project Area includes some of the highest scoring census tracts for heat vulnerability indicators in Contra Costa County. 10
Historically, the Project Area has experienced an average of four extreme heat days a year. This number is expected to increase because of climate change. By the middle of the 21st century (2040-2070), the
Project Area is likely to see an average of eight extreme heat days per year. By the end of the century, the Project Area is projected to experience an average of 14 extreme heat days per year. 11
According to the California Fourth Climate Change Assessment and Pacific Institute, climate justice is “the concept that no group of people should disproportionately bear the burden of climate impacts or the costs of mitigation and adaptation”. 12, 13 There are several climate justice issues within the Project Area that have formed a “climate gap” in the community, meaning that residents and businesses within these neighborhoods will be both the first ones impacted by climate change and the least capable of adapting to the resulting impacts. 14 The following sections describe the existing climate justice issues within the Project Area.
Climate change affects everyone though not all people are impacted equally. People of color and lower-income populations experience increased exposure and sensitivity to climate hazards and a reduced capacity to adapt. Lowerincome populations and communities of color are often burdened with multiple, overlapping factors that cumulatively impact their ability to respond to hazards. 15
Climate Vulnerability: the degree to which a system is exposed to, susceptible to, and unable to cope with the adverse effects of climate change.
Impact: an effect of climate change on the structure or function of a system.
Adaptive Capacity: the ability of a system to respond to climate change, moderate potential damages, take advantage of opportunities, and cope with the consequences.
Differences in health outcomes by race and ethnicity, income, educational attainment, and geographic location continue to occur and are increasing for certain health conditions. Disparities in education and limited English proficiency make it difficult for communities to adapt to climate change because they are less informed about the risks and may not understand, or even receive, instructions during climate-related disasters. Within the Project Area, according to the U.S. Census Bureau approximately 57 percent of the population is Hispanic, and 32 percent of the population is African American. The Project Area, when averaging the four census tracts in the area, is in the 82nd percentile of statewide census tracts for linguistically isolated populations, according to CalEnviroScreen 3.0 It is difficult to isolate race, ethnicity, and disparities in education as a cause for greater climate vulnerability instead of inequities from other socioeconomic factors. However, institutional, structural, and interpersonal racism often lead to an inequitable distribution or lack of resources and increase rates of health disparities that make it harder to adapt to climate change. 16
A lack of access to financial resources decreases the adaptive capacity of a community, because adaptation and resilience efforts typically require access to a certain level of funding and related resources. CalEnviroScreen 3.0 identifies the Project Area is, on average, in the 80th percentile of statewide census tracts for households in poverty and 77th percentile of census tracts for households paying over 30 percent of their income towards housing costs. There are increased climate justice issues for this community because a lack of financial resources can mean that households may not be able to buy insurance or afford higher-quality housing that makes it easier to withstand or recover from a
climate-related disaster. 17 Such households may also be unable to evacuate nor be able to afford air conditioning during periods of extreme heat, which can lead to devastating health consequences.
The Project Area is located in an urbanized community with few shade structures and abundance of impervious surface that contribute to the heat island effect. The Project Area currently suffers from heat island effects and residents may experience even higher temperatures from climate change, which are project to increase in frequency and severity within the community. Increased temperatures subsequently create a higher demand for electricity, which increases utility costs in a community that already experiences high rates of poverty and air pollution. Due to the close proximity to the San Francisco Bay, many homes may lack air conditioning and residents may not have access to cool locations during heat waves. Additionally, residents in the Project Area may not have access to a vehicle or public transit options to travel to cooling centers within the City to seek relief from the high temperatures
Figure 3 shows the Cool Priority Areas and Figure 4 shows the Connect Priority Areas designated by the Climate Smart CitiesTM Richmond project, led by the City of Richmond, The Trust for Public Land, and members of the Technical Advisory Team created for the Climate Smart CitiesTM Initiative.
One of the primary climate justice issues within the Project Area is the existing environmental and public health problems within the community. As shown in Figure 5, CalEnviroScreen 3.0 identifies the Project Area, on average, as being in the 69th percentile of statewide census tracts for level of pollution burden. This is primarily due to the close proximity of the Project Area to heavy industrial areas and oil refineries, which cause both air and groundwater pollution to flow into the community. This in turn has caused high rates of asthma and cardiovascular diseases in residents within the community. 18 Populations who experience disproportionate impacts from air pollution, water pollution, and contaminated land are less likely to be able to adapt to climate change and may be further exposed to the release of pollutants from climate-related disasters.
The City of Richmond has several policy documents that contain adaptation and resilience goals, policies, and programs to help the community, including the Project Area, adapt to the changing climate.
• The primary blueprint for the City, the 2030 General Plan adopted in April 2012, contains resilience strategies in the Energy and Climate Change Element and the Public Safety and Noise Element. These sections provide goals, policies, and actions in the Project Area for climateresilient development, risk management of natural disasters, high levels of fire service, and emergency preparedness. Specific topic areas covered in the Energy and Climate Change Element, related to resiliency, include leadership in managing climate change, community revitalization and economic development, and climate-resilient communities.
• The City of Richmond Climate Action Plan, adopted in October 2016, contains sustainability and resilience policies that focus on resilient housing, ground transportation, energy infrastructure, water supply, and wastewater management to help the Project Area adapt to more frequent flooding, sea level rise, coastal storms, extreme heat, and extreme weather events.
• The City of Richmond also has an Urban Greening Master Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and Pedestrian Plan, which indirectly can help increase resilience in the Project Area through reducing the heat island effect, capture and clean stormwater, and connect residents to the rest of the City through safe and healthy active transportation methods. The Pedestrian Plan also includes the Yellow Brick Road Iron Triangle Walkable Neighborhood Plan and the Richmond Wellness Trail, which increase safe active transportation opportunities and add urban greening elements in the Project Area.
The projects chosen as part of the Resilience Roadmap help implement the policies or programs within all of these plans.
The projects selected for inclusion in the Richmond Resilience Roadmap were identified by looking at the existing planned projects within the Project Area and narrowing down the list based on specific criteria. When this effort began, the City of Richmond provided The Trust for Public Land and PlaceWorks with a list of over 40 projects that support resilience within the Project Area including the following project types: urban greening, access to healthy food options, complete streets and mobility, park improvements, affordable housing, energy efficiency and renewable energy, natural ecosystems, and waste reduction. This list was then narrowed to 21 projects based on project status, location, available information, and co-benefits The chosen projects included those that were ready for construction, within the Project Area, had available information to analyze the project’s consistency with TCC Implementation Grant Guidelines, and had several co-benefits to improve public health and environmental health within the Project Area. The team evaluated these projects based on a set of resilience and sustainability and resilience measures (discussed below). The project team then short-listed ten projects based on the evaluation and narrowed this list to eight projects based on if they aligned with climate adaptation and resilience goals, and Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Strategies that reduce GHG emissions and achieve public
health, environmental, and economic benefits City staff determined a need for housing projects at different levels of construction readiness in the roadmap to meet the City’s objectives, and therefore added a ninth project to the final list. Figure 6 shows the projects within the Richmond Resilience Roadmap. The nine projects are:
1. Nystrom Village Redevelopment
2. Martin Luther King Jr. Resilience Hub
3. Richmond Wellness Trail
4. Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization
5. Urban Greening Master Plan – Street Tree Planting Along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way
6. Harbour Way Complete Street Project
7. Richmond Greenway Master Plan
8. Nevin Resilience Hub
9. Hacienda Rehabilitation
Each of the projects included in the Richmond Resilience Roadmap will increase the resilience of the Project Area, help the community adapt to climate change, and address climate justice issues. Many of the projects include multiple co-benefits and help implement the City’s resilience goals. For example, the Nystrom Village Redevelopment project will not only provide affordable family units but will also provide community services, green infrastructure on-site, and will revitalize a historic site that is important to the community. Other projects, such as the Richmond Wellness Trail, Harbour Way Complete Street, and the Richmond Greenway Master Plan will provide the Project Area with safe pedestrian and bicyclist transportation routes. These projects will also provide green stormwater infrastructure, street trees that will naturally cool the area and reduce the urban heat island effect and improve the overall health and well-being of the residents in the Project Area.
An important component of the Resilience Roadmap is the development of two resilience hubs: The Martin Luther King Jr. Resilience Hub (new construction) and the Nevin Resilience Hub (renovations) Resilience hubs are neighborhood centers that support residents and offer community services, activities, and opportunities and help to increase community capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from climate-related disasters. They provide educational and capacity building resources and reliable, clean electricity year-round. Resilience hubs also provide shelter, food, medical supplies, information, and other supplies and resources in the event of an emergency. Resilience hubs are easily accessible to neighborhood residents, connect to community resources, and can provide up to 72 hours of renewable energy supply. They can be constructed as new facilities, or existing facilities such as libraries or community centers can be retrofitted to act as resilience hubs.
When developing the Richmond Resilience Roadmap project list, the project team collected data on all of the 40+ projects. This data included site plans, conceptual designs, citywide planning documents, and previous grant applications. Based on the availability of project data and construction readiness of the projects, the project team narrowed down the list projects to 21 projects. These projects were then evaluated based on four core objectives of the Climate-Smart CitiesTM Initiative, as shown in Figure 7 below. Appendix A provides an evaluation matrix used to assess each of the 21 projects. Each of the four objectives had a set of questions, developed by PlaceWorks, the Trust for Public Land, and the City of Richmond, to determine whether each of the projects fully met the objective. These questions were:
• Connect
o Transit access and mobility - Does the project make it easier and safer for community members, especially those with limited or no vehicle access, to travel to and from key destinations in a low- or zero-carbon way?
o Health and well-being - Does the project improve connections to places that improve public health and well-being, civic and social engagement, employment, or education?
• Cool
o Land conservation and restoration - Does the project protect, restore, or expand natural ecosystems or ecosystem services?
o Reduce Urban Heat Island - Does the project help protect residents from high temperatures and extreme weather events?
o Decarbonized energy and energy efficiency - Does the project reduce energy use, support more renewable and zero net energy and building, or improve energy storage and energy independence?
• Absorb
o Urban greening and green infrastructure - Does the project increase the number of parks or green spaces, street trees, permeable paving, bioswales, or other green infrastructure features?
o Water efficiency - Does the project reduce water use, increase use of captured rainwater or greywater, or promote recycled water use?
• Protect
o Materials management - Does the project reduce the amount of waste generated by the community, increase rates of recycling or composting, or allow waste materials to be reused locally?
o Flood Protection - Does the project include natural elements that help safeguard infrastructure, neighborhoods, and residents from flooding events?
o Equitable housing and neighborhood development - Does the project make it easier for current community members to stay in their homes while also improving the quality of existing homes or expanding the supply of locally affordable housing units?
Protecting the
infrastructure, neighborhoods, and residents from flooding and extreme weather events through shoreline parks and natural lands.
The Richmond Resilience Roadmap included community engagement and outreach events throughout the community to provide community members the opportunity to give input and feedback. Community engagement activities included the project Kick-Off Meeting, National Night Out, NURVE meeting, and the Richmond Wellness Trail Fitness Zone Opening.
The Project kick-off meeting was held on February 12, 2019, from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. at Richmond City Hall. The Trust for Public Land and PlaceWorks met with staff from the City of Richmond to discuss the work plan and timeline for the Richmond Resilience Roadmap. Various City departments attended the meeting and helped identify projects and programs for the Resilience Roadmap. Participants included Lina Velasco (Department of Planning and Building), Tawfic Halaby (Department of Engineering and Public Improvements), Greg Hardesty (Parks and Landscaping Division), LaShonda White (City Manager’s Office), Joanne Le (Water Resource Recovery), Adam Lenz (City Manager’s Office), and Denee Evans (City Manager’s Office, Transportation Services).
National Night Out is an annual event that takes place nationwide to promote police-community partnerships and neighborhood camaraderie, with the goal of making neighborhoods safer and more caring places to live. The City, Trust for Public Land, and PlaceWorks attended the National Night Out Event hosted by the Coronado Neighborhood Council on August 6, 2019, from 5:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The community closed down a residential block in the Coronado neighborhood and made it a block party with a BBQ and other food, a bounce castle, a band, and other activities. The project team brought poster boards that included a map of the
Resilience Roadmap, project descriptions, definitions of resilience, and maps of sea level rise, pollution burden, cool priorities, and connect priorities, as shown in Appendix B
Many attendees came up and spoke to the project team and commented on the board and projects. They were very interested in the identified projects and were supportive of the City’s efforts to secure more funding to improve resilience in their neighborhoods. Many people had heard of some of the projects on the list and the three projects that stood out the most were the Nystrom Village Redevelopment, the Richmond Wellness Trail, and the Martin Luther King Jr. Resilience Hub
On October 24, from 2:00 p.m to 3:30 p.m., the City Manager’s Office hosted a NURVE (Nystrom United Revitalization Effort) meeting, and the Resilience Roadmap team had the opportunity to present and get feedback. The NURVE area includes portions of the Santa Fe and Coronado neighborhoods, and is a longstanding group comprised of staff from the City of Richmond, West Contra Costa Unified School District, National Parks Service, and community members that meet quarterly. PlaceWorks presented the nine projects selected for the Resilience Road Map, and asked for feedback. The community members said that Richmond had done a lot of planning around the nine projects, and were excited to hear that the City would be applying for an implementation grant which could potentially make all the planning work a reality. The community and several city officials cautioned that maintenance costs must be considered during the planning and design process, especially for projects such as the Richmond Wellness Trail, given limited City resources.
On October 27, 2019, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m., The Trust for Public Land hosted an event at Martin Luther King Jr. Park to share the draft Resilience Roadmap with the community to receive comments, celebrate the opening of the Richmond Wellness Trail Fitness Zone, and get feedback about the design of Richmond Wellness Trail Phase 1 improvements. Unfortunately, attendance was not as high as expected, due to nearby wildfires and an ongoing Public Safety Power Shutoff. These significant events, however,
only underscore the need for projects like the Resilience Roadmap to support community resilience planning.
The project team (The City of Richmond, The Trust for Public Land, and PlaceWorks) displayed boards with the Resilience Roadmap, resilience definitions, and draft list and graphics of resilience projects on the fence that separates Marina Way South and Martin Luther King Jr. Park. Several neighbors walking along Marina Way South stopped to read the boards and asked about the projects included in the roadmap. Neighbors said they were supportive of this idea of creating resilience hubs and agreed with the suite of projects. However, they were skeptical of the City’s ability to finance these projects alone.
Because the team also had boards about the Richmond Wellness Trail (which is part of the Richmond Resilience Roadmap), many neighbors inquired about that project and seemed excited that the trail will link the different neighborhoods and provide connections to regional transportation. A few people said that the Richmond Wellness Trail will not help them because they need to use their cars to get to work east of Richmond in areas that are not easily accessible by public transportation. Others were excited to see Nystrom Village redevelopment as a potential project to get funding and said that Richmond really needs high quality housing. Many people also discussed the Public Safety Power Shutoffs and wildfires and were emphatic that resilience planning is one of their top priorities for the City.
The following sections describe each of the nine projects chosen for the Richmond Resilience Roadmap. There are two types of projects: 1) site specific projects and 2) corridor projects. The site-specific projects are those located on a parcel or set of parcels. Corridor projects are located along a roadway or bike path Figure 8 shows the location of the projects on the Roadmap. Each of the project descriptions includes the following elements, which not only describe the projects, but also provide an overview of how the projects meet the different elements of the Transformative Climate Communities (TCC) Program:
• Project Description: An overview of the location, type of project, and project components.
• TCC Program Objective Strategies: A description of which objective strategies from the TCC Implementation Grant Guidelines the project meets and how the project will meet those strategies when implemented.
• GHG Emission Reduction Potential: A brief summary of how the project will reduce GHG emissions, including reducing the heat island effect, carbon sequestration, and reducing vehicle miles traveled.
• Co-Benefits: A description of the positive public health and environmental health benefits the project will generate.
• Expanded Economic Opportunities and Shared Prosperity: An overview of how the community was involved in developing and planning the project. This section also describes the economic benefits the project will create.
• Consistency with Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans: A list of the land use and transportation plans that the project must comply with, and a description of how the project complies with those plans.
• Project Status: Where the project is in development, the construction readiness, and the TCC readiness requirements in the TCC Implementation Grant Guidelines that still need to be met.
Nystrom Village Redevelopment is a redevelopment and historic preservation project located in the Coronado Neighborhood and encompasses four city blocks between Florida Avenue to the north, 16th Street to the east, Virginia Avenue to the south, and 13th Street to the west. Currently, the project site contains approximately 100 public-housing units, associated parking, and playgrounds. The first part of the Nystrom Village Redevelopment will be the rehabilitation of five historical buildings, which will be exempt from CEQA. These buildings will be rehabilitated to convey the historical significance of the housing site during World War II. The second part of the Nystrom Village Redevelopment is the development of affordable rental units, senior residential units, and for-sale homes, totaling up to 225 residential units. This phase includes proposed community facilities and street and infrastructure improvements. This phase has a preliminary concept, and the City intends to release a Request for Proposals for a developer and partner in the first few months of 2020.
The Nystrom Village Redevelopment meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Equitable Housing and Neighborhood Development. This project will be required to conform to the Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities Program Guidelines and conform to the Integrated Connectivity Project Area type guidelines to meet this objective. Nystrom Village Redevelopment will include new pedestrian facilities and other potential transportation services to residents and/or community members. The project will connect to the transit services along Cutting Boulevard and 23rd Street. The redevelopment will include pedestrian facilities such as new walkways, streetscape improvements, and street crossings.
• Solar Installation and Energy Efficiency The Nystrom Redevelopment will demolish a portion of the four blocks of housing built during the WWII period to build affordable rental units, senior residential units, and for-sale homes that conform to current building and energy efficiency codes. One of the historic housing sections will be rehabilitated and preserved and converted into a non-profit and museum space. The project will also include streetscaping that will help reduce the urban heat island effect in the neighborhood.
• Water Efficiency This project will include the replacement of inefficient appliances with highefficiency models, replacement of inefficient fixtures with high-efficiency models, and water efficiency upgrades throughout the new buildings as part of the new development.
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure. This redevelopment project will plant streetscape and landscape vegetation and trees that will be strategically places to shade the proposed structures, in addition to the surrounding roadways and pedestrian facilities. Due to stormwater and storm drain requirements in the city, the project will be required to install permeable surfaces, green infrastructure, and other low impact development elements to collect and convey stormwater. These landscaping and permeable elements will provide additional shade on-site and will enhance the community space provided by the rehabilitation of the historic Nystrom Village.
The following describes the census tract where the Nystrom Village Redevelopment project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 19:
• Census Tract: 6013379000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 90-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 77
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 97
Many elements of the Nystrom Village Redevelopment can contribute to GHG emission reductions, including energy and water efficiency upgrades, urban greening, green infrastructure, connection to transit services, and pedestrian facilities. The energy and water efficiency elements would reduce the need for electricity use on-site, and therefore will reduce the GHG emissions generated to create the electricity. Urban greening, including trees and other landscaping, will provide shading for paved areas and buildings, which will reduce the need for air conditioning on-site and in the surrounding neighborhood, helping to reduce GHG emissions. Green infrastructure, which includes vegetation and permeable surfaces that collect and convey water, can reduce the electricity needed pump stormwater off of the site. Connection to transit services and the installation of pedestrian facilities encourages residents and the surrounding neighborhood to use public transit or active transportation options, which reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions generated from vehicles.
The Nystrom Village Redevelopment will improve public and environmental health in the Coronado neighborhood. The streetscaping and landscaping, green infrastructure, and pedestrian pathways will increase the amount of shading and greenery within the neighborhood, which can both clean the air and reduce the heat island effect, helping to reduce asthma and cardiovascular illness rates. The green infrastructure could not only help reduce flooding hazards in the neighborhood but could also filter out harmful chemicals and heavy metals transported by stormwater runoff, to clean the stormwater prior to being discharged into the storm drain system, creating co-benefits for both public health and environmental health. The proposed pedestrian facilities will encourage walking by residents in the new development and surrounding neighborhood, which can improve health outcomes for all ages.
Development of the project design included community engagement, which considered how this redevelopment project could both generate affordable housing while also considering the historical context of Nystrom Village and the surrounding neighborhood. This project will include affordable housing units that will reduce the chance for displacement within the community and ensure that current residents of the neighborhood will also benefit from the project. The proposed development of this project will also create construction, maintenance, and property management jobs within the neighborhood.
• Zoning District: The project site is zoned Medium Density Multi-Family Residential (RM-1), which is intended for single and multi-use family housing types. The maximum density is 26 dwelling units per acres and a minimum density of 10 units per acre, with a maximum of three stories and
required landscaping of at least 15 percent of the project site. The Nystrom Village Redevelopment will be consistent with these requirements.
• South Richmond Transportation Connectivity Plan: The project will be located along Marina Way and in close proximity to Cutting Boulevard, with potential roadway and transit improvement areas in this plan and the General Plan.
Project Status
Construction Readiness TCC Readiness Requirements Needed Site Design Not Construction Ready (Project designs still needed) CEQA Documentation, Permits, Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
Project Description
Zero Net Energy: the actual annual consumed energy of the building is less than or equal to the on-site renewable generated energy.
The Martin Luther King Jr. Resilience Hub will include the redesign and reconstruction of the MLK community center, which is located north of MLK Park along Harbour Way. The MLK community center will be rebuilt with resilience features to protect the building and provide resources to the community before, during, and after a natural disaster. The building will be zero net energy with solar energy generation and energy storage systems, and it will have the ability to operate at least 72 hours or longer, if a power outage occurs. In addition to the building, programming of the MLK Resilience Hub will provide the community with the tools to increase resilience. This project will have the ability to provide other essential resources to community members, such as food, ice, charging stations, and basic medical supplies during a natural disaster. This resilience hub will act as a cooling center during extreme heat days or as a clean air centers during days of severe air pollution. The MLK Resilience Hub could also be an education center for the community to learn about hazards, in addition to providing a place to gather, access information, and social support services.
The MLK Resilience Hub meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Solar Installation and Energy Efficiency. The MLK Resilience Hub will install energy efficient components that will meet and exceed the 2019 California Building Energy Standards, in addition to constructing a photovoltaic solar system and energy storage system.
• Water Efficiency. This project will include the installation of water fixtures that are more water efficient than the fixtures in the previous community center. The construction of the MLK Resilience Hub will also include extensive water efficiency measures such as installation of low water use landscaping and water-efficient irrigation.
• Health and Well-Being. The MLK Resilience Hub will include food access elements that will improve community well-being, including a community kitchen or community garden.
The following describes the census tract where the MLK Resilience Hub project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 20:
• Census Tract: 6013379000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 90-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 77
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 97
The MLK Resilience Hub project will include the following element that will reduce GHG emissions: energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, and urban greening. The project will install energy efficient fixtures and appliances, in addition to a solar photovoltaic system and battery storage that will reduce the GHG emissions generated by electricity use. The landscaping of the project will provide urban greening that can add shade to the surrounding neighborhood and reduce the urban heat island effect that forces residents to use air conditioning. This project will also provide a place for local community members to gather or escape extreme heat or air pollution, which means they will not have to drive elsewhere to find cooling centers.
The MLK Resilience Hub will improve public health and climate justice issues within the Coronado and Santa Fe neighborhoods. This project will provide a place for community members to seek refuge during extreme heat events, severe air pollution, or other natural disasters. If there are power shutoffs, this resilience hub can provide ice and refrigeration for medicine, or electricity to power essential medical equipment. Programming at this center could include educational programs, sport programs, or community activities that will not only bring community members together but also encourage active lifestyle that can improve health outcomes within the community. Other co-benefits will include the installation of landscaping and green infrastructure as part of the project.
Development and planning of this project will include community outreach to shape how the resilience hub can best meet the needs of the community. The MLK Resilience Hub could include educational and skill training programs to help residents secure jobs. This project will create construction jobs, in addition to programming positions for the various activities that the MLK Resilience Hub could support.
• Zoning District: The MLK Resilience Hub will be located on a parcel zoned Parks and Recreation, which allows parks and recreation facilities, government buildings, cultural facilities, and community gardens, but does not allow emergency shelters or public safety buildings.
• General Plan: This project will implement Goal EC6, Climate-Resilient Communities, of the General Plan Energy and Climate Change Element.
• Climate Action Plan: This project will be consistent with Strategy RC6 of the Climate Action Plan, which is to support programs and adaptation responses that protect public health and promote health equity.
Project Status
Construction Readiness TCC Readiness Requirements Needed Planning Not Construction Ready (Project designs still needed)
CEQA Documentation, Permits, Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
Project Description
The Richmond Wellness Trail is a four-mile trail designed to attract and inspire users to experience and build health and wellness-oriented activity into their daily lives, and function as a multi-benefit green infrastructure corridor with bioswales that slow and capture stormwater and trees that shade buildings and offset greenhouse gases. In addition to the stormwater and GHG-reducing design elements, the trail includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements, activity and rest areas, cultural and natural interpretive features, and interactive elements that support a healthy lifestyle. The Wellness Trail connects the BART and Amtrak station to the new San Francisco Ferry Terminal, while also creating smaller -scale connections to Unity Park, Richmond Greenway, Nystrom Village, Martin Luther King Jr. Park, and Kaiser Field Hospital.
Funding from a TCC Planning Grant supports preparation of technical drawings for Phase 1 of this project, the first 1.1 miles. Phase 1 is on schedule to start construction in Decembe r 2020. Appendix C provides additional project information on the Richmond Wellness Trail.
The Richmond Wellness Trail meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Active Transportation. The Richmond Wellness Trail will include the construction of new bike lanes and pedestrian facilities. Project components include a new cycle track, streetscape improvements, and street crossing enhancements.
• Water Efficiency. The landscaping and green infrastructure along the Richmond Wellness Trail will include holistic water efficiency upgrades and native and drought tolerant plant palette where possible.
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure. This project will include urban tree planting and green infrastructure elements that will both provide shade in the neighborhood and capture and convey stormwater.
• Health and Well-Being This project will increase access to parks and green space by the urban greening components of the project, in addition to providing a connection from the Richmond BART station to Unity Park, Richmond Greenway, Nystrom Village, and Martin Luther King Jr. Park.
The following describes the census tract where the Richmond Wellness Trail project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 21:
• Census Tracts: 6013376000, 6013377000, 66013379000, 6013380000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 85-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 62-80
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 78-97
GHG benefits from the Richmond Wellness Trail will be extensive. Phase 1 will add approximately 125 small trees and 15 large trees to the streetscape, which will provide carbon sequestration that will capture carbon dioxide and store it in the soil, reducing overall GHG emissions in the Project Area. A primary goal of the trail is to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by providing people with the opportunity to walk and bike in a safe and interesting environment. VMT will likely continue to decrease as additional segments are built. While the project does not yet have technical drawings for the remaining trail segments trees will likely be planted at similar intervals as Phase 1
The co-benefits of improving public health and environmental health associated with the Richmond Wellness Trail will be significant. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, trails like the Richmond Wellness Trail can offer significant health benefits, such as weight control, reduce risk for cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and some cancers, strengthen bones and muscles, improve mental health, and help foster community. 22 Moreover, according to American Trails, trails like the Richmond Wellness Trail improve public safety and environmental health of the City 23 Phase 1 will plant approximately 125 small trees and 15 large trees, install infrastructure to treat 13,000 gallons of stormwater, and decrease VMTs by encouraging people to drive less and instead use non-vehicular modes of transportation such as walking and biking. For the City of Richmond, which faces chronic air quality issues and flooding, the benefits of tree planting and capturing stormwater will have acutely positive impacts in the Santa Fe, Coronado, and Iron Triangle neighborhoods.
Development of this project included outreach and community engagement during site design. Construction and maintenance of this project will provide temporary construction jobs and other maintenance positions. This project also connects the Iron Triangle and Coronado neighborhoods to several important centers and promotes active transportation methods within the Project Area.
• City of Richmond General Plan: The Richmond Wellness Trail was adopted as an Addendum to the Pedestrian Plan in the City of Richmond General Plan on April 25, 2017 and is therefore consistent with the plan.
• Urban Greening Master Plan: The Richmond Wellness Trail directly implements the Urban Greening Master Plan and will use the Approved Street Tree List and tree planting best practices.
• Climate Action Plan: The Richmond Wellness Trail complies with the policies of the Climate Action Plan, as urban greening is a strategy that helps reduce energy use, moderate temperature and urban heat island effect, reduce noise and air pollution, and enhance safety.
• Richmond Wellness Trail Vision Plan: This project directly implements the Richmond Wellness Trail Vision Plan, which is part of the Richmond Pedestrian Master Plan.
• Parks Master Plan: The Richmond Wellness Trail connects parks and open space within the City and will adhere to the Parks Master Plan design guidelines.
• Bicycle Master Plan: The Richmond Wellness Trail includes a cycle track and elements proposed in the Bicycle Master Plan, which directly implements the plan.
• California Statewide Plans: This project is consistent with several state plans including the State Coastal Conservancy Strategic Plan, California Water Action Plan, California @ 50 Million, and California Climate Adaptation Strategy/Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk Plan.
CEQA Documentation, Permits, Operations and Maintenance Plan
(Phase 1 technical drawings are in progress. Anticipated construction start date in December 2020. Phase 2 of the project will need to go through technical design before construction can start. We already have the appropriate consultant team assembled and are just seeking funding.)
Project Description
Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization is an ongoing project that occurs throughout the Project Area. This project continues a partnership with GRID Alternatives to install community-wide solar within the Project Area. The Weatherization Program is available through Contra Costa Energy Programs, which assists low-income residents by testing and replacing gas appliances that are not working properly. This program offers home energy audits to recommend energy savings measures. GRID Alternatives, a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization based on Oakland, provides free solar energy systems to households that own and live in their home and makes less than 80 percent of the area median income. GRID Alternatives partners with local governments, utilities, the solar industry, and affordable housing providers to install solar photovoltaic (PV) systems, as well as provide workforce training programs.
The Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization Project meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Solar Installation and Energy Efficiency. This project will include the installation of energy efficiency measures and solar PV systems, in addition to home weatherization elements to residential structures within the Project Area. They also meet the household income eligibility requirements for single family and multi-family buildings.
The following describes the census tract where the Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 24:
• Census Tracts: 6013376000, 6013377000, 66013379000, 6013380000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 85-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 62-80
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 78-97
This project will install renewable energy sources and provide home weatherization elements that will directly reduce GHG emissions. The installation of solar PV systems will allow homeowners to be less dependent on the grid, which include non-renewable sources for its energy supply. The home weatherization retrofits will mean that residents will use less electricity to cool or heat their homes, reducing the overall amount of energy generation needed in the Project Area.
The primary co-benefits of the Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization Project are reducing energy bills for residents and improving the health of the indoor environment for residents in the Project Area. Solar installations provide free energy for residents and home weatherization retrofits reduce the energy use, which reduces the housing cost-burdens for households. Home weatherization retrofits can also help control the temperature and air quality within homes, to help indoor temperatures remain in an acceptable range and prevent air pollution from entering homes.
Partnering with GRID Alternatives provides opportunities for workface training programs for residents in the Project Area. Participants can learn hands-on installation skills such as array layout, module installation, electrical wiring, and electrical layout and mounting, which they can use to obtain jobs within the solar or construction industry.
• Climate Action Plan: This program directly implements the goals and strategies of the City’s Climate Action Plan.
• General Plan: This project will implement Goal EC3, Sustainable and Efficiency Energy Systems, and Goal EC4, Sustainable Development, of the General Plan Energy and Climate Change Element.
Project Status
Construction Readiness
Ongoing Partially Construction Ready
TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
Project Map, Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
Project Description
The City of Richmond Urban Greening Master Plan, adopted in March 2017, identifies gaps in the tree canopy throughout the City and provides strategies and design guidelines to enhance and maintain the City’s urban forest. The Project Area lies within Zones 3, 4, and 10 of the Urban Greening Master Plan. Within these zones, the Plan designates Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way as areas for additional street tree planting. Groundwork Richmond and other groups are continuously trying to plant trees proposed in the Urban Greening Master Plan, through the City’s Adopt-a-Tree Program. Cutting Boulevard has approximately 100 available planting locations and Harbour Way has approximately 120 available planting locations. The Urban Greening Master Plan will also include bioswales that help manage stormwater and provide more landscaped areas.
The Urban Greening Master Plan – Street Tree Planting along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way Project meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure. This project will include the planting of trees and other vegetation along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way. These trees may or may not provide shade near buildings. Green infrastructure elements will also be included in this project.
The following describes the census tract where the Urban Greening Master Plan – Street Tree Planting along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way Project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 25:
• Census Tracts: 6013377000, 66013379000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 90-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 69-77
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 97
This project will indirectly reduce GHG emissions within the Project Area. Planting trees along these roadways will provide additional shade cover to the Project Area, which will reduce the heat island effect. If the temperatures within the Project Area decrease, then residents are likely to use less electricity to cool their homes during high temperatures, subsequently reducing GHG emissions. Adding trees and vegetation to the Project Area may also encourage residents to walk and bike instead of drive to destinations within the neighborhood. Furthermore, trees act to naturally sequester carbon, removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it in the soil and in the biomass of the trees
This project would provide urban greening that will promote both public and environmental health in the Project Area. Tree plantings will not only provide additional tree canopy cover to the neighborhood but can also help clean the air and water. This project will add pervious surfaces to an urbanized area, which will help prevent flooding by capturing water where it falls and filtering out toxins as it percolates through the soil. Additionally, urban greening can encourage residents to walk and bike instead of drive to destinations within the neighborhood, which promotes physical activity. This can increase positive health outcomes for residents in the Project Area.
Installation and maintenance of this project will create temporary landscaping jobs and other maintenance positions for those in the community. The entire community will benefit from additional urban greening and reduction in the urban heat island effect.
• General Plan: This project complies with the Urban Greening Master Plan, which complies with General Plan policies.
• Climate Action Plan: The Street Tree Planting along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way complies with the policies of the Climate Action Plan, as urban greening is a strategy that helps reduce energy use and moderate temperature and urban heat island effect.
• Urban Greening Master Plan: The Street Tree Planting along Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way directly implements the Urban Greening Master Plan and will use the Approved Street Tree List and tree planting best practices.
Project Status
Construction Readiness
Ongoing Partially Construction Ready
(Conceptual designs and CEQA documentation for the Urban Greening Master Plan complete, no permit needed)
Project Description
TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
Project Map, Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
The Harbour Way Complete Street Project is located along Harbour Way from I-580 to Downtown and provides a connection between Downtown Richmond and Ford Peninsula area, through the Coronado and Santa Fe neighborhoods. This corridor currently includes four lanes of fast-moving traffic that create barriers to pedestrians and bicyclists between neighborhoods on either side. This project will include restriping Harbour Way from three lanes to two lanes, adding bike lanes, and adding pedestrian-scale lighting in the short-term. Medium term improvements will include raised medians, installing mid-block crossings, curb extensions, reducing lane width, painting sharrows, and planting medium to large trees in planting strips along the roadways. Long-term improvements will include a road diet from Ohio Avenue to Hoffman Boulevard. 26 This project will also connect MLK Park, the proposed MLK Resilience Hub, and Nystrom Elementary School to the Richmond Greenway and Downtown Richmond.
The Harbour Way Complete Street Project meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Active Transportation. The Harbour Way Complete Street Project will include the construction of new bike lanes and pedestrian facilities. Project components include new bike lanes, streetscape improvements, street crossing enhancements, and traffic calming measures.
• Water Efficiency. The landscaping and green infrastructure along the Harbour Way Complete Street Project will include holistic water efficiency upgrades to any landscaping that is current onsite
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure. This project will include urban tree planting and green infrastructure elements that will both provide shade in the neighborhood and capture and convey stormwater.
• Health and Well-Being. This project will increase access to parks and green space by the urban greening components of the project, in addition to providing a connection from the MLK Park, MLK Resilience Hub, and Nystrom Elementary School to the Richmond Greenway and Downtown Richmond.
The following describes the census tract where the Harbour Way Complete Street project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 27:
• Census Tracts: 6013377000, 66013379000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 90-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 69-77
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 97
The Harbour Way Complete Streets Project will reduce GHG emissions through reducing VMTs and increasing urban greening. The road diet, pedestrian improvements, and installation of bicycle lanes will encourage active transportation and naturally slow traffic in the area. This will make it safer for community members to use Harbour Way to walk and bike to key destinations, therefore reducing the amount of GHG emissions generated by cars. Additionally, the streetscape and landscaping proposed as part of this project will provide shade to the surrounding area, reducing the need for air conditioning during hot days, and therefore reducing energy use. Furthermore, trees act to naturally sequester carbon, removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it in the soil and in the biomass of the trees.
Co-benefits of this project include providing a safe environment that encourages physical activity, installing green infrastructure, and cleaning both the air and water. The road diet and pedestrian facility improvements will encourage walking and biking, as vehicle traffic will be generally slower. This will increase physical activity and positive health outcomes for residents in the area. The trees and vegetation will also provide green infrastructure, which will collect and convey stormwater to reduce flooding within the Project Area.
This project is part of the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan, which included outreach and community engagement as part of its development. Installation and maintenance of this project will create temporary jobs and other maintenance positions for those in the community. The entire community will benefit from slower traffic, safer pedestrian routes, urban greening, and reduction in the urban heat island effect.
• General Plan: This project will be consistent with Goals CR1, CR2, and CR3 of the General Plan Circulation Element. This project will also comply with goals in the Energy and Climate Element, Health and Wellness Element, and Public Safety and Noise Element.
• Climate Action Plan: This project will directly implement Objective 3: Sustainable Transportation and Land Use, Strategies TL2 and TL3 of the City of Richmond Climate Action Plan.
• City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan: This project is part of the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan and will directly implement the plan objectives.
• City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan: This project will provide Class II bike lanes along Harbour Way, which is consistent with the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan.
Project Status
Construction Readiness TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
Site Design Not Construction Ready (Conceptual designs and CEQA documentation complete, no permit needed)
Project Description
Detailed Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
Greening the Last Mile includes completing the Richmond Greenway Master Plan from I -80 to Carlson Boulevard. Greening the Last Mile connects to the Project Area via the Portman Portal. This project will both provide urban greening and also external connectivity of the Project Area with other areas of Richmond via a safe active transportation route. The project includes six difference project areas that have pedestrian and landscape elements such as bioswales, meadows, linear orchards, tree plantings, access improvements, plazas, stormwater management, and access to the Ohlone Greenway and Baxter Creek Gateway.
TCC Program Objective Strategies
The Richmond Greenway Master Plan – Greening the Last Mile Project meets the following TCC Program
Objectives:
• Active Transportation. The Greening the Last Mile Project will include the construction of new bike lanes and pedestrian facilities. Project components include new bike lanes and streetscape improvements.
• Water Efficiency. The landscaping and green infrastructure along Greening the Last Mile Project will include holistic water efficiency upgrades to any landscaping that is current on-site.
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure. This project will include urban tree planting and green infrastructure elements that will both provide shade in the neighborhood and capture and convey stormwater.
• Health and Well-Being. This project will increase access to parks and green space by the urban greening components of the project, in addition to providing food access through the installation of a linear orchard.
The following describes the census tract where the Richmond Greenway Master Plan project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 28:
• Census Tracts: 6013377000, 6013381000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 80-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 62-69
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 85-95
The Greening the Last Mile Project will reduce GHG emissions through reducing VMTs and increasing urban greening. The access improvements and pedestrian elements will encourage active transportation and make it safer for community members to connect to other neighborhoods in Richmond using the
Richmond Greenway, therefore reducing the amount of GHG emissions generated by cars. Additionally, the landscaping improvements of this project will provide shade to the surrounding area, reducing the need for air conditioning during hot days, and therefore reducing energy use. Furthermore, trees act to naturally sequester carbon, removing carbon dioxide from the air and storing it in the soil and in the biomass of the trees.
Co-benefits of this project include providing a safe environment that encourages physical activity, installing green infrastructure, and cleaning both the air and water. The access and pedestrian facility improvements will encourage walking and biking to travel to the eastern portion of Richmond, which will increase physical activity and positive health outcomes for residents in the area. The trees and vegetation will also provide green infrastructure, which will collect and convey stormwater to reduce flooding within the Project Area. The linear orchard will provide food access to an area that is currently a food desert.
This project is part of the Richmond Greenway Master Plan, which included outreach and community engagement as part of its development. Installation and maintenance of this project will create temporary jobs and other maintenance positions for those in the community. The entire community will benefit from safer pedestrian and bicycle routes, urban greening, and reduction in the urban heat island effect.
• General Plan: This project is consistent with goals and policies in the Energy and Climate Change Element and Health and Wellness Element of the General Plan.
• Climate Action Plan: This project will directly implement Objective 3: Sustainable Transportation and Land Use, Strategy TL3 of the City of Richmond Climate Action Plan.
• Richmond Greenway Master Plan: This project is part of the Richmond Greenway Master Plan and will directly implement the plan objectives.
• City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan: This project is consistent with the City of Richmond Pedestrian Plan and will directly implement the plan objectives.
• City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan: This project will provide bike lanes along the Richmond Greenway route, which is consistent with the City of Richmond Bicycle Master Plan.
Project Status
Construction Readiness
Site Design Not Construction Ready (Conceptual designs and CEQA documentation for the Richmond Greenway Master Plan complete)
TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
Permits (if needed), Detailed Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
With a few upgrades, the Nevin Community Center can act as a resilience hub in the future by providing shelter to community members during disasters, in addition to educational and community programming. The Nevin Resilience Hub will be renovated with sustainability features such as low-flow water fixtures,
energy efficiency improvements, conversion of the HVAC from natural gas to electric, and installing solar panels to the roof of the building with batteries for energy storage. This resilience hub will include similar features to the MLK Resilience Hub but will be located in the Iron Triangle neighborhood.
The Nevin Resilience Hub meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Solar Installation and Energy Efficiency. The Nevin Resilience Hub will install energy efficient components that will go beyond state requirements, in addition to constructing a photovoltaic solar system and energy storage system, to create a zero net energy building.
• Water Efficiency. This project will include the installation of water fixtures that are more water efficient than the fixtures in the previous community center. The renovations to the Nevin Resilience Hub will also include extensive water efficiency measures such as installation of low water use landscaping and water efficient irrigation.
• Health and Well-Being. The Nevin Resilience Hub will include food access elements that will improve community well-being, including a community kitchen or community garden.
The following describes the census tract where the Nevin Resilience Hub project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 29:
• Census Tracts: 6013377000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 90-95
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 69
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 97
The Nevin Resilience Hub project will include the following element that will reduce GHG emissions: energy efficiency, renewable energy sources, and urban greening. The project will install energy efficient fixtures and appliances, in addition to a solar photovoltaic system and battery storage that will reduce the GHG emissions generated by electricity use. Additional landscaping or a community garden will provide urban greening that can add shade to the surrounding neighborhood and reduce the urban heat island effect that forces residents to use air conditioning. This project will also provide a place for local community members to gather or escape extreme heat or air pollution, which means they will not have to drive elsewhere to find cooling centers.
The Nevin Resilience Hub will improve public health and climate justice issues within the Iron Triangle neighborhood. This project will provide a place for community members to seek refuge during extreme heat events, severe air pollution, or other natural disasters. If there are power shutoffs, this resilience hub can provide ice and refrigeration for medicine, or electricity to power essential medical equipment. Programming at this center could include educational programs, sport programs, or community activities that will not only bring community members together but also encourage active lifestyle that can improve health outcomes within the community.
Expanded Economic Opportunities and Shared Prosperity Development and planning of this project will include community outreach to shape how the resilience hub can best meet the needs of the community. The Nevin Resilience Hub could include educational and skill training programs to help residents secure jobs, in addition to the existing activities that already take place at the community center. This project will create construction jobs, in addition to programming positions for the various activities that the Nevin Resilience Hub could support.
Consistency with Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans
• Zoning District: The Nevin Resilience Hub will be located on a parcel that is currently developed with a community center and park space. This project will only add resilience and sustainability features to the existing development and will not change the zoning.
• General Plan: This project will implement Goal EC6, Climate-Resilient Communities, of the General Plan Energy and Climate Change Element.
• Climate Action Plan: This project will be consistent with Strategy RC6 of the Climate Action Plan, which is to support programs and adaptation responses that protect public health and promote health equity.
Project Status
Construction Readiness
Planning Not Construction Ready (Conceptual designs needed)
TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
CEQA Documentation, Permits (if needed), Project Designs, Operations and Maintenance Plan
The Hacienda Rehabilitation project is located on Barrett Avenue, between 13th Street and Marina Way, on the eastern portion of the Iron Triangle neighborhood. This project includes the renovations of an existing 100 percent affordable senior housing apartment building and accessory off-street parking. Renovations involve site improvements, interior building improvements, exterior building improvements, and system modifications. Site improvements will include rehabilitation of landscaping and paving, repair of surface materials in the parking lot, and repairs to the lighting. Interior improvements will include refinishing the entire building, removing asbestos, bringing units up to accessibility code, and installing a fitness center. Exterior building improvements will involve the replacement of windows in all dwelling units, reroofing and insulating the roof, and balcony deck waterproofing. System modifications will include seismic retrofits to ensure safety of the occupants, updating and replacing the elevator system, and repairing or replacing equipment to improve energy efficiency on-site.
The Hacienda Rehabilitation project meets the following TCC Program Objectives:
• Equitable Housing and Neighborhood Development. The Hacienda Rehabilitation project will include a partnership with the City and Mercy Housing to renovate an existing affordable housing project that is less than 0.25 miles from a high-quality transit stop, including BART, Amtrak, and AC Transit transportation options.
• Solar Installation and Energy Efficiency. The Hacienda Rehabilitation project will install energy efficient components that will increase energy efficiency on-site, such as low flow water fixture, high efficiency light fixtures, and re-paving the parking lot.
• Water Efficiency. This project will include the installation of water fixtures that are more water efficient than the fixtures in the original housing development. The renovations to the Hacienda housing complex will also include extensive water efficiency measures such as installation of low water use landscaping and water efficient irrigation.
• Urban Greening and Green Infrastructure The Hacienda Rehabilitation project will include relandscaping the project site, which will include planting trees that will provide shade for both the building and surrounding neighborhood. This landscaping may also include green infrastructure elements to reduce flooding on-site.
• Health and Well-Being. This project will include a community garden on the northwest portion of the project site. This can provide residents of the community the opportunity to care or the garden and provides access to fresh food.
The following describes the census tract where the Hacienda Rehabilitation project is located, and the CalEnviroScreen population and pollution burden scores 30:
• Census Tracts: 601376000
• CalEnviroScreen 3.0 Percentile: 85-90
• Pollution Burden Percentile Score: 62
• Population Burden Percentile Score: 95
Many elements of the Hacienda Rehabilitation project can contribute to GHG emission reductions, including energy and water efficiency upgrades, urban greening, and connection to transit services. The energy and water efficiency elements would reduce the need for electricity use on-site, and therefore will reduce the GHG emissions generated to create the electricity. Urban greening, including trees and other landscaping, will provide shading for paved areas and buildings, which will reduce the need for air conditioning on-site and in the surrounding neighborhood, helping to reduce GHG emissions. Connection to transit services encourages residents and the surrounding neighborhood to use public transit or active transportation options, which reduce the number of vehicle miles traveled and GHG emissions generated from vehicles.
The Hacienda Rehabilitation will improve public and environmental health in the Iron Triangle neighborhood. The streetscaping and landscaping will increase the amount of shading and greenery within the neighborhood, which can both clean the air and reduce the heat island effect, helping to reduce asthma and cardiovascular illness rates. The increase in landscaped and permeable surfaces could not only help reduce flooding hazards in the neighborhood but could also filter out harmful chemicals and heavy metals transported by stormwater runoff, to clean the stormwater prior to being discharged into the storm drain system, creating co-benefits for both public health and environmental health.
Development of the rehabilitation components included community engagement, which considered how this redevelopment project could improve affordable housing and the surrounding neighborhood. This project will include affordable housing units that will reduce the chance for displacement within the community and ensure that current residents of the neighborhood will also benefit from the project. The proposed development of this project will also create construction, maintenance, and property management jobs within the neighborhood.
Consistency with Existing Land Use and Transportation Plans
• Zoning District: The project site is zoned Commercial Mixed-Use Activity Center (CM-5), which is intended for medium and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers. The zoning district allows for group residential units with a conditional use permit and has a maximum density of 40 units or 125 units per acre. The Hacienda Rehabilitation project meets the requirements of this zoning district and received an approved conditional use permit for the renovations to the existing building.
Project Status
Construction Readiness TCC Readiness Requirements Needed
Building Permits Construction Ready
(Site plans/designs, CEQA documentation, and approval of Conditional Use Permit complete. )
Operations and Maintenance Plan
1 City of Richmond, December 2015, Health in All Policies Report, http://www.ci.richmond.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/36978/HiAP_Report_Final?bidId=
2 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 10, 2019.
3 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 10, 2019.
4 Bedsworth, Louise, Dan Cayan, Guido Franco, Leah Fisher, Sonya Ziaja. (California Governor’s Office of Planning and\ Research, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, California Energy Commission, California Public Utilities Commission). 2018. Statewide Summary Report. California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment. Publication number: SUMCCCA4-2018-013.
5 California Coastal Commission, 2018, California Coastal Commission Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Science Update – July 2018, https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/assets/slr/guidance/2018/3_Ch3_2018AdoptedSLRGuidanceUpdate.pdf
6 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2017. “Adapting to Rising Tides: ART Bay Area Sea Level Rise and Shoreline Analysis Maps”. https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/download.
7 Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2018, National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer, https://www.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8b0adb51996444d4879338b5529aa9cd, accessed December 11, 2019.
8 Tetra Tech. 2018. Contra Costa County Hazard Mitigation Plan, Volume 1 – Planning Area-Wide Elements.
9 Contra Costa Health Services. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability in Contra Costa County: A Focus on Heat. https://cchealth.org/health-data/pdf/2015-climate-change.pdf
10 Contra Costa Health Services. 2015. Climate Change Vulnerability in Contra Costa County: A Focus on Heat. https://cchealth.org/health-data/pdf/2015-climate-change.pdf. Page 29.
11 California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018. “Cal-Adapt: Guidance on Using Climate Projections”. http://caladapt.org/resources/using -climate-projections/.
12 Roos, Michelle. (E4 Strategic Solutions), 2018, Climate Justice Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012. Page 11.
13 Cooley, H., E. Moore, M. Heberger, and L. Allen (Pacific Institute), 2012, Social Vulnerability to Climate Change in California: A White Paper from the California Energy Commission’s California Climate Change Center, White Paper, California Energy Commission, 2012.
14 Roos, Michelle. (E4 Strategic Solutions), 2018, Climate Justice Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012. Page 14.
15 Yuen, Tina, Eric Yurkovich, Lauren Grabowski, Beth Altshuler, 2017, Guide to Equitable Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning, Urban Sustainability Directors Network. Page 10.
16 Roos, Michelle. (E4 Strategic Solutions), 2018, Climate Justice Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012. Page 38.
17 Roos, Michelle. (E4 Strategic Solutions), 2018, Climate Justice Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, Publication number: SUM-CCCA4-2018-012. Page 39.
18 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 10, 2019.
19 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
20 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
21 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
22 Center for Disease Control, 2014, Healthy Places: Parks, Trails, and Health, https://www.cdc.gov/healthyplaces/healthtopics/parks.htm accessed December 13, 2019.
23 American Trails, 2018, Trail Effects on Neighborhoods: Home Value, Safety, Quality of Life , https://www.americantrails.org/resources/trail-effects-on-neighborhoods-home-value-safety-quality-of-life accessed December 16, 2019.
24 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
25 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
26 Local Government Commission, October 2011, City Richmond Pedestrian Plan, Pages 50 to 51.
27 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
28 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
29 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
30 California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, June 2018, CalEnviroScreen 3.0, https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-30 accessed December 27, 2019.
A PPENDIX A:
P ROJECT E VALUATION M ATRIX
A PPENDIX B:
P ROJECT B OARDS U SED FOR O UTREACH
What do you think about the Resilience Roadmap?
A collaborative effort between the City, community partners, and Trust for Public Land to identify, fund, and build public projects within Richmond’s neighborhoods that will continue to increase the resiliency of community members, community facilities and services, businesses, and the neighborhoods to disruptions caused by climate change.
To create a roadmap of planned projects that support community resilience and require additional implementation funding support from state grants and other sources to be built and achieve multiple community goals. The roadmap connects and expands recent efforts, including the City’s Climate Action Plan and the Climate-Smart CitiesTM Initiative. The four core objectives of the Climate-Smart CitiesTM Initiative are connecting the community by providing carbon-free transportation; cooling through creating shady green spaces that reduce the urban heat island effect; absorbing rainfall, reducing flooding, and recharging drinking water supplies; and protecting the vulnerable infrastructure, neighborhoods, and residents from flooding and extreme weather events through shoreline parks and natural lands.
Resilience Hubs are existing neighborhood centers that support residents and offer community services, activities, and opportunities and help to increase community capacity to prepare for, respond to, and recover from extreme events. They provide educational and capacity building resources and reliable, clean electricity year-round. Resilience Hubs also provide shelter, food, medical supplies, information, and other supplies in the event of an emergency. Resilience Hubs are easily accessed by neighborhood residents, connect to community resources, and have low carbon footprint.
1 Nystrom Village Redevelopment
The redevelopment of Nystrom Village encompasses 4 City blocks and will include affordable rental units, senior residential units, and for-sale homes. Other proposed features include community facilities, street and infrastructure improvements, and the rehabilitation of several of the historic buildings for interpretation on-site.
2 Martin Luther King Jr. Resilience Hub
The MLK Resilience Hub will include a reconstruction of the MLK community center, with resilience features to protect the building during a natural disaster. The building should be zero net energy with solar and energy storage systems. The MLK Resilience Hub can act as an education center for the community to learn about hazards and help community members better adapt to changing conditions.
3 Richmond Wellness Trail
The Richmond Wellness Trail is a four-mile trail that is designed to attract and inspire users to experience and build health and wellness-oriented activity into their daily lives. The trail includes bicycle and pedestrian improvements, activity and rest areas, cultural and natural interpretive features, and interactive elements that support a healthy lifestyle. The Wellness Trail connects the BART and Amtrak station to the future San Francisco Ferry Terminal, while also creating smaller-scale connections to the Unity Park, Richmond Greenway, Nystrom Village, MLK Park, and Kaiser Field Hospital.
4 Income-Linked Solar and Home Weatherization
GRID Alternatives provides free solar systems to households that own and live in their own home and make less than 80% of area median income. The Weatherization Program is available through Contra Costa County Energy Programs, which assists low-income residents by testing and replacing gas appliances that are not working properly. These programs also offer home energy audits to recommend energy saving measures.
5 Urban Greening Master Plan - Street tree Planting Along Cutting Blvd and Harbour Way
6 Harbour Way Complete Street Project
7 Richmond Greenway Master PlanGreening and Last Mile
8 Nevin Resilience Hub
The Urban Greening Master Plan designates Cutting Boulevard and Harbour Way as areas for additional street tree planting. Cutting Boulevard has approximately 100 available planting locations and Harbour Way has approximately 120 available planting locations. The Urban Greening Master Plan will also include bioswales, that help manage stormwater and provide more landscaped areas.
The Harbour Way Complete Street Project would include restriping Harbour Way from 3 lanes to 2 lanes and adding pedestrian-scale lighting in the short-term. Medium term improvements would include raised medians, installing mid-block crossings, curb extensions, reduce lane widths, painting sharrows, and planting medium to large trees in planting strips along the roadways. Long-term improvements include a road diet south of Ohio Avenue.
Greening the Last Mile includes completing the Richmond Greenway Master Plan from I-80 to Carlson Boulevard. This project includes 6 different project areas that have pedestrian and landscape elements such as bioswales, meadows, linear orchard, tree plantings, access improvements, plazas, stormwater management, and access to the Ohlone Greenway and Baxter Creek Gateway.
Nevin Park and Community Center renovations included the revitalization of the park’s sports fields and playgrounds with the help of the community. The community center can act as a resilience hub in the future by providing shelter to community members during disasters, in addition to educational and community programming. As a resilience hub, the community center would be renovated with sustainability features such as low-flow water fixtures, energy efficiency improvements, conversion of the HVAC from natural gas to electric, and installing solar panels to the roof of the building with batteries for energy storage.
» Resilience: The ability of Richmond’s residents, infrastructure, response systems, and natural systems to close the “climate gap” and prepare for, absorb, and recover from disruptions caused by climate change.
» Resilient Community: A community that is prepared and ready to withstand social and environmental challenges and can recover equitably from disasters and disruptions.
(CAP 2016, p.70)
» Climate Gap: The systematic disproportionate and unequal health and economic impact that climate change has on people of color and low-income communities. (CAP 2016, p.19)
» Resiliency ensures that Richmond neighborhoods and community members continue to prepare, respond, and recover from hazards caused by climate change.
» Co-benefits, which are indirect positive impacts of projects, such as improved public health, increased employment, and additional educational opportunities, can occur with increased resiliency.
Pollution burden score reflects the average of 7 exposure indicators and 5 environmental indicators, which are:
» Ozone
» Fine particle matter concentrations
» Diesel particulate matter
» Drinking water contamination
» Pesticide use
» Toxic releases from facilities
» Traffic density
» Cleanup sites
» Impaired water bodies
» Groundwater threats
» Hazardous waste facilities and generators
» Solid waste sites and facilities
A PPENDIX C:
R ICHMOND W ELLNESS T RAIL
S UPPORTING D OCUMENTS
Read Me Worksheet
California Air Resources Board
Calculator for the
California Natural Resources Agency
Urban Greening Grant Program
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Quantification Methodology
Fiscal Year 2016-2017
The California Air Resources Board (ARB) is responsible for providing the quantification methodology to estimate greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reductions from California Climate Investment projects receiving monies from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF).
This Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool accompanies the quantification methodology for the fiscal year (FY) 2016-17 GGRF Urban Greening Program available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cci-quantification
Applicants must use this Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool to estimate the net GHG benefit associated with the Urban Greening projects. Refer to the quantification methodology document for background, step-by-step detailed instructions, and examples. To use this Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool, follow these steps:
Step 1 Enter general project information: Enter the project name and the contact information for a person who can answer project specific questions from staff reviewers on the quantification calculations. Enter the date that the project completed the GHG calculations.
Project Name: Richmond Wellness Trail Phase I
Grant ID, if applicable:
Contact Name: Trudy Garber
Contact Phone Number: 415-800-5274
Contact Email: Trudy.Garber@tpl.org
Date Completed: 4/19/2017
Step 2 Identify the proposed project component(s): the applicant must select the appropriate project component(s) from the list of eligible urban greening project components listed in the quantification methodology.
Step 3 Determine the inputs needed: the applicant will use Tables 3 and 4 in the quantification methodology and the carbon calculator tools identified therein to determine the project information that must be input into this Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool for the applicable project component(s) selected in Step 2. For tree planting activities, many of the inputs will come from the output of urban greening carbon calculators identified in the quantification methodology.
Step 4 Estimate the net GHG benefit: the applicant will enter the project details identified in Step 3 into this calculator tool to calculate the net GHG benefit of the project.
Step 5 Submit documentation: Save file for submittal. This file will be submitted with other documentation requirements. See Section C of the quantification methodology for additional documentation requirements.
This Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool allows users to estimate the net GHG benefit from a variety of specific urban greening activities. Each eligible project component identified in Table 2 of the quantification methodology has a worksheet within the calculator (note: projects with tree planting components must select the "Carbon & Energy Savings" tab that is appropriate to the urban tree carbon accounting tool used). Applicants must input data into the worksheets that apply to the proposed project. The Urban Greening GHG Calculator Tool provides fields for users to input project specific information. User input fields are shaded yellow or green and calculator outputs of GHG emission reduction estimates are shaded grey After the user inputs are entered for each proposed project component, the GHG Summary worksheet displays the GHG benefit from each component, the GHG emissions from project implementation, the net GHG benefit of the project, as well as the estimated total project GHG benefit per Urban Greening GGRF fd td d th titd ttl jt GHG bfit ttl GGRF fd td
Cells Formatting Guide
User-input cells
User-input cells with a drop-down menu (drop-down menu appears when the cell is activated)
Cells with automated calculations
Tabs Formatting Guide
All applicants must enter data into the worksheets with a green tab
Information only; no data needs to be entered into worksheets with a black tab
For more information on ARB’s efforts to support implementation of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund investments, see: Questions on this document should be sent to:
Questions pertaining to the Urban Greening Program should be sent to CNRA. Contact information for CNRA can be found at:
https://www.arb.ca.gov/auctionproceeds. GGRFProgram@arb.ca.gov
http://resources.ca.gov/grants/urban-greening/
California Air Resources Board
Calculator for the California Natural Resources Agency
Urban Greening Grant Program
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Quantification Methodology
Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Project
Enter data below after using the i-Tree Streets to estimate tree carbon storage and electricity and natural gas savings of the population of project trees.
California Air Resources Board
Calculator for the California Natural Resources Agency
Urban Greening Grant Program
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Quantification Methodology
Fiscal Year 2016-2017
GHG Benefit of Carbon Stored in Live Project Trees Estimated Using the CTCC (MT CO2e)
GHG Benefit of Carbon Stored in Live Project Trees Estimated Using i-Tree Streets (MT CO2e)
GHG Benefit from Energy Savings Estimated Using the CTCC (MT CO2e)
GHG Benefit from Energy Savings Estimated Using i-Tree Streets (MT CO2e)
Avoided GHG from Establishment of New Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities (MT CO2e)
GHG Emissions from Project Implementation (MT CO2e)
Net GHG Benefit (MT CO2e)
Urban Greening GGRF Funds Requested ($)
Total GGRF Funds Requested ($)
Net GHG Benefit/Urban Greening GGRF Funds Requested (MT CO2e/$) Net GHG
GGRF Funds Requested (MT CO2e/$)
GHG Summary
To: Cynthia Greenberg
FROM: Robert Stevens and Mike Vidra
DATE: May 17, 2019
SUBJECT: Richmond Wellness Trail – Hydraulic Analysis
Our assessment of the hydraulic conditions along the Richmond Wellness Trail are summarized below:
Using the rational method for calculating stormwater discharge during a storm event is an appropriate method for this site. The rational method takes three factors into consideration to calculate stormwater discharge for a specific watershed area:
• A weighted stormwater runoff coefficient (C), based on surface type and grade,
• Rainfall intensity (i), based on historical data, and
• Surface tributary area (A), based on the site topography. These factors are multiplied directly by one another to calculated stormwater discharge. Therefore, if one factor is increased by a set amount the resultant will also be increased by that same amount.
• The runoff coefficient (C) is assumed to be consistent since the surface material throughout the project consists of asphalt pavement, concrete pavement, roofs and landscaping. We used an average C factor for these types of typical surfaces and neighborhood layouts of 0.7.
• The rainfall intensity (i) for the average San Francisco Bay area project of this size was used for this project and is 2.0 in/hr
• The surface area (A) was calculated individually for each zone defined in the analysis below. We assumed the entire roadway pavement section as well as the private residential lots immediately adjacent to the road together equated to the total tributary area.
For reference a pipe flow capacity table is below which demonstrates the size of pipe required to carry a certain flow. Additionally, a 29foot wide gutter pan running longitudinally down the side of road has the capacity equivalent to a 69inch pipe. Therefore, if the flow of stormwater in the tributary area is greater than the capacity of two 69inch pipes (two since there are two sides of the road), then spill over into the roadway will occur for a typical 109year storm event.
PIPE SIZE AND CAPACITY TABLE:
Pipe slope was set at 1.0% and assumed only flowing about 75% of full capacity.
EXISTING HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS:
16th Street: Macdonald Ave to Unity Park
• Macdonald to Bissell Ave: Flow = 5.5 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Storm drain curb inlet at south end
• Bissell Ave to Chanslor Ave: Flow = 4.3 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Storm drain curb inlet at south end
• Chanslor Ave to Unity Park: Flow = 3.0 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Storm drain curb inlet at south end
Marina Way South: Ohio Ave to Hoffman Blvd
• Ohio Ave to Florida Ave: Flow = 4.8 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Gutter flow continues down Florida Ave.
• Florida Ave to Maine Ave: Flow = 3.9 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Gutter flow continues down Maine Ave.
• Maine Ave to Virginia Ave: Flow = 3.5 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Gutter flow continues down Virginia Ave.
• Virginia Ave to Cutting Blvd: Flow = 3.9 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Connect to storm drain inlet at south end
• Cutting Blvd to Potrero Ave to Hoffman Blvd: Flow = 5.0 cfs
o Concentrated gutter flow
o Connect to storm drain inlet at south end
During the design of a project in the San Francisco Bay Area a consideration for stormwater treatment shall be evaluated and depending on the type of project implemented. A streetscape project along a roadway similar to 16th Street and Marina Way South are perfect examples of projects to receive stormwater treatment measures, such as:
• pervious paving,
• rain gardens,
• subsurface treatment such as silva cells,
• treatment tree planters,
• detention pipes, etc.
Designing systems such as these will improve many aspect related to stormwater issues, such as:
• reduce runoff and flooding,
• enhance stormwater discharge quality, and
• improve infiltration rates
One of the largest and most notable issues to be felt immediately upon installation of these types of measures is decreased flooding. Based on the calculations provided above flooding is a major concern requiring attention through this entire corridor. Due to the size of the tributary areas, any single stormwater treatment measure will not be sufficient. Typically a low impact development (LID) type treatment measure is calculated by taking the total impervious area and multiplying by 4 percent, which is your resultant treatment area size. However, a mechanic type or subsurface type treatment system is specifically designed to take on a set stormwater flow in units of cubic feet per second (cfs). A combined system using both type methods such as pervious paving within the parking section over an underground treatment & storage system with a subdrain, similar to a silva cell, would be ideal, but not always practical. Rain gardens placed in bulb9outs at the intersections and mid9block to collect, treat and detain stormwater are also appropriate methods. Bulb9outs designed appropriately with a subsurface drainage system may be the least impactful and most maintainable. This would be a reasonable consideration for 16th Street which currently has subsurface drainage system at the intersecting roadways. However, a subsurface drainage system extending the entire length of Marina Way South would prove quite costly, but still is the most appropriate method to relieve flooding. Once the subsurface drainage system is installed, adding the appropriate stormwater treatment measures would exponentially benefit the entire corridor.
To: Cynthia Greenberg
FROM: Robert Stevens and Mike Vidra
DATE: May 16, 2019
SUBJECT: Richmond Wellness Trail – Pavement Assessment
Our assessment of the vehicular roadway pavement conditions along the Richmond Wellness Trail are summarized below using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) method of analyzing pavement. The pedestrian sidewalk throughout this corridor was reviewed separately and in a more general assessment. A further assessment of the sidewalk may be warranted as the scope of this project is further refined.
The PCI index chart below specifies how the numeric range value given to a section of pavement is related to the actual condition of the pavement and a generic remediation technique.
PCI Range Description of Range Remediation techniques
100:90 Excellent – Newly constructed road no remediation required
90:85 Very Good – very minor cracking Seal coat and crack sealing
85:70 Good : low levels of distress, cracking throughout localized digouts required ranging from 4”:6”, crack sealing
70:60 Fair : significant distress large digouts required with minor grinding/overlay potential
60:25 Poor, deteriorating pavement large areas requiring full replacement with grind/overlay
25:11 Very Poor, major distress Full depth street section required
10:0 Failed, extremely rough pavement Full design and study required
ASSESSMENT OF PAVEMENT CONDITION:
16th Street
• Cross slope of shoulders range from 2% to 5% with limited areas exceeding 5%
• Most severe pavement distress occurs in roadway shoulder
• Macdonald to Bissell Ave: PCI = 80
o Very minor distress, few areas requiring digouts
o Oil stains throughout
• Bissell Ave to Chanslor Ave: PCI = 68
o Most distress is within the shoulders and at the intersections.
o Longitudinal cracking extending full length
• Chanslor Ave to Unity Park: PCI = 50
o Alligator cracking throughout
o Longitudinal cracking throughout
o Major distress within shoulder.
• Sidewalk along 16th Street:
o The majority of the sidewalk has appropriate clearance and cross slope
o Accessible curb ramps are incompliant
o Areas of major upheaving caused by tree roots
o Areas of cross sloping exceed accessibility standards (>2%)
Greenway Trail at Unity Park
• Upper Portion: PCI = 85
o Very minor cracking
o Cross slope ranging from 0.5% to 2%
• Lower Portion: PCI = 73
o Longitudinal cracking throughout
o Lateral cracking throughout, but sufficiently spaced
o Cross slope ranging from 1% to 3%
Marina Way South
• Ohio Ave to Cutting Blvd: PCI = 62
o Longitudinal cracking throughout
o Localized areas requiring digouts
o Steep shoulder along entire length ranging from 5% to 10%
o Major distress within intersections requiring large amounts of digouts
• Sidewalk along Marina Way South from Ohio Ave to Cutting Blvd:
o The majority of the sidewalk has appropriate clearance and cross slope.
• Cutting Blvd to Hoffman Blvd: PCI = 86
o Minor longitudinal cracking
o Concrete shoulder for parking shows most signs of distress.
Cross slope of concrete shoulders range from 2% to 4%
o Asphalt shoulder ranges from 2% to 5%
o Intersection at Hoffman Blvd shows major longitudinal cracks starting
• Sidewalk along Marina Way South Cutting Blvd to Hoffman Blvd:
o Portion of sidewalk is missing adjacent immediately south of Cutting Blvd.
o Joint Poles are within the sidewalk and do not allow proper clear width.
• Hoffman Blvd to Wright Ave: Concrete PCI = 88, Asphalt PCI = 80
o Concrete section has location of very minor cracking
o Concrete section shows slight raveling which is typical for a concrete roadway
o Asphalt section has longitudinal and spaced out lateral cracking
Hoffman Blvd to Wright Ave concrete section: PCI = 88
To: Cynthia Greenberg
FROM: Robert Stevens and Mike Vidra
DATE: May 16, 2019
SUBJECT: Richmond Wellness Trail – Photometric Analysis
Our assessment of the photometric analysis along the Richmond Wellness Trail are summarized below using standards from the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA). Specifically focusing on standards for roadway & intersection lighting applications and calculation methods. Field investigations took place on March 7th & May 2nd of 2019.
The table below shows Table 2 from IESNA RP:8:
• Pedestrian conflict is defined as high, medium or low over a one:hour peak night time period:
o high pedestrian conflict will have approximately 100 or more pedestrian,
The trail corridor of this project falls under this category
o medium pedestrian conflict will have 11 to 99 pedestrians and
The road corridor of this project falls under this category
o low pedestrian conflict will have under 10 pedestrian
• Pavement is classified as R1, R2, R3, or R4:
o R1 = Portland:cement concrete
o R2 & R3 = Asphalt, rough textured (typical roadway)
The corridor of this project falls under this category
o R4 = Asphalt, smooth textured
• Road types shown below are defined as Collector and Local.
o 16th street we are defining as a Local road
o Greenway Trail was are defining as a Local Road
o Marina Way South we are defining as a Collector road.
• ‘Lux’ is lumens per square meter
• ‘FC’ (foot:candles) is lumens per square foot. This is the preferred unit for California.
The below table was abridged to only show road types Collector and Local.
16th Street: Macdonald Ave to Unity Park
• Curb to curb = approximately 30 feet
• Street lights are on the east side of 16th Street.
• Street lights are spaced approximately 100 to 120 feet with additional light poles at the intersections
o There is at least one empty section between each of the blocks.
• The light projected from each street light illuminates the face of curb on the opposite side of the street from which the pole is mounted.
• PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS: Macdonald Ave to Unity Park
o Average foot:candles = 0.75
o Max Foot Candles (FC) = 2.0
o Min Foot Candles = 0.1
o Minimum to Maximum FC Ratio: 0.03
o Maximum to Minimum FC Ratio = 30.99
Typical Street Light along 16th Street
o Average to Minimum FC Ratio = 11.75 o
Maximum to Average FC Ratio = 2.66
• Table summary of photometric calculations comparing existing and preferred IESNA standards
• Conclusion: Additional light poles spaced appropriately throughout the entire corridor will increase the minimum FC Ratio and as a result lower the Uniformity Ratio closer to standard IESNA value of 6.0. Ideally the Uniformity Ratio is within 2.0 of the set IESNA Standard. Furthermore, adding additional light poles will have an adverse effect on the Average FC, but not substantial enough to increase the value so high as to be incompliant.
Greenway Trail at Unity Park:
• Street lights are spaced approximately 115 to 125 feet
• PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS: Macdonald Ave to Unity Park
o
Average foot:candles = 0.95
o Max Foot Candles (FC) = 2.0
o Min Foot Candles = 0.2
o Minimum to Maximum FC Ratio: 0.1
o Maximum to Minimum FC Ratio = 10.0
o Average to Minimum FC Ratio = 4.8
Maximum to Average FC Ratio = 2.1
• Table summary of photometric calculations comparing existing and preferred IESNA standards
• Conclusion: Additional light poles spaced appropriately along the lower portion of the Greenway Trail would help raise the uniformity ratio.
Marina Way South: Ohio Ave to Hoffman Blvd
• Curb to curb = 55:60 feet
• Street lights are on the east side of Marina Way South
• Streets lights are spaced with an average spacing 110 to 150 feet with additional light poles at the intersections
• The light projected from each street light illuminates past the centerline of the road and nearly to the curb on the opposite side from which the pole is mounted.
• PHOTOMETRIC CALCULATIONS: Ohio Ave to Hoffman Blvd
o Average foot:candles = 0.43
o Max Foot Candles = 2.9
o Min Foot Candles = 0.0
o Minimum to Maximum FC Ratio: (not calculable)
o Maximum to Minimum FC Ratio = 992.71(high due to no minimum)
o Average to Minimum FC Ratio = 145.56 (high due to no minimum)
o Maximum to Average FC Ratio = 6.75
• PHOTOMETRICS: Ohio Ave to Florida Ave
This more focused area was chosen since there is a more consistent spacing of light poles throughout this block. Allowing a more concise calculation of the photometric analysis and providing calculations as if all of the Marina Way South corridor had similar light pole spacing.
o Average foot:candles = 0.7
o Max Foot Candles = 2.0
o Min Foot Candles = 0.1
o Minimum to Maximum FC Ratio: 0.03
o Maximum to Minimum FC Ratio = 36.66
o Average to Minimum FC Ratio = 12.63
o Maximum to Average FC Ratio = 2.90
• Table summary of photometric calculations comparing existing and preferred IESNA standards
• Conclusion: The block from Ohio Ave to Florida Ave was chosen as the comparable block due to the inconsistency of the light pole spacing between Florida Ave and Hoffman Blvd. Additional light poles spaced appropriately throughout the entire corridor will increase the minimum FC Ratio and as a result lower the Uniformity Ratio closer to standard IESNA value of 4.0. Ideally the Uniformity Ratio is within 2.0 of the set IESNA Standard. Furthermore, adding additional light poles will have an adverse effect on the Average FC, but not substantial enough to increase the value so high as to be incompliant.
Looking south from Ohio Ave down Marina Way South
Greenway Trail through Unity Park
Upper Portion of Trail
Lower Portion of Trail
Richmond Wellness Trail Tree Evaluation Data Matrix
Individual Tree Data
Health and Structural Rating Key: Suitability for Preservation Ratings:
3.0 = moderate or better condition
2.5 = marginal to moderate
2.0 = marginal condition
1.5 = poor to marginal condition
1.0 = poor condition
Good: Trees in good health and structural condition with high potential for longevity.
Moderate: Trees in fair health and/or with structural defects that can usually be abated with treatment.
Fair: Trees in marginal health or structural condition that could possibly be mitigated or improved.
Poor: Trees in poor health and/or structural condition that probably cannot be effectively abated.
005 red maple (Acer rubrum )
006 crabapple (Malus spp .) 8 (low) multi 7 8
007 Aristocrat flowering pear (Pyrus calleryana 'Aristocrat')
2; 3; 3; 4.5; 5 5 20 18 2.5
008 gingko (maidenhair tree) (Gingko biloba ) 9 1 22 30 3.0
Semi-mature tree with closely spaced , multiple limb attachments forming at 5.5'. History of pruning . Vigor is variable with current flush of growth occurring. History of drought stress and branch dieback.
Stunted tree with asymmetrical from. Vigor is low with probable crown gall infection.
Two trunk structure forming at 4'. Vigor is low. Marginal form.
Marginal structural form. Vigor is low with crown gall infection and lower trunk canker.
Young tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments at 6'. Vigor is moderately low. Root collar suckering. Fair 3' x 3' None
Pruned as shrub. Good health. Nearby European white birch and Hollywood juniper shown in image 5899.
Semi-mature tree with low multiple trunk structure. Vigor is moderately low. Root collar suckering. Fair to Moderate 6' X continuous None
Young tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments at 7'. Vigor and foliage density are good. Good 1.5' x 1.5' Significant displacement.
No 5894; 95; 96; 97
No 5898; 5899
No 5901; 5902
009 Brisbane box (Lophostemon conferta )
010 London plane tree (Platanus hispanica x 'Columbia'
011 Marina arbutus (Arbutus x 'Marina'
012 Marina arbutus
014 purple-leaf plum (Prunus cerasifera 'Krauter Vesuvius')
015
016
live oak (Quercus agrifolia )
017 coast live oak
018 Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia 'Drakes')
019
020
021
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
Semi-mature tree with no significant structural defects. Symmetrical crown form. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. Good 6' X continuous
Moderate displacement and cracking. Moderate No 5903; 5904
New tree in moderate vigor with no significant structural defects. Appears to be the 'Columbia' cultivar. Good 6' X continuous History of displacement. Minor No 5905, 5906
Young tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments at 6'. Vigor is moderate. Probable aphid or scale infestation. Good 6' X continuous History of displacement. Minor No 5905;5906
Young tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments at 6'. Vigor is moderate. Probable aphid or scale infestation.
Young tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments at 6'. Vigor is moderate.
Stunted tree with severe aphid infestation. Marginal structure.
Young tree with somewhat marginal form. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. String trimmer damage to trunk.
Tree is leaning and partially collapsed. Moderately low vigor and foliage density. String trimmer damage to trunk.
6' X continuous History of displacement.
No 5905; 5907
6' X continuous None
Young tree with multiple attachments. Vigor is low. String trimmer damage to trunk. Fair 6' X continuous
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. Likely the 'Drake' cultivar (anthracnose resistant).
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. History of root pruning.
Good 6' X continuous Limited sidewalk lift occurring. Minor No 5911; 5912; 5913
Good 6' X continuous Minor displacement. Minor No 5914; 5915; 5916
Good 6' X continuous Minor displacement. Minor No 5917
Good 6' X continuous Minor displacement. Minor No 5918; 5919; 5920
022 Chinese elm
023 black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia )
024 Eastern redbud (Cercis canadensis )
23 1 30 to 35 25 to 30 1.5 1.5
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. History of root pruning. Topped on north side towards HV electrical lines.
Tree is in generally poor condition with significant limb dieback and a canker on the lower trunk. Vigor is low.
025 coast live oak 4 1 12 8 to 10 3.0 3.0
026 Chinese elm
to
027 Chinese elm
028 Chinese elm
029
Pavement Impact Pavement Displacement Rating (Current)
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
Good 6' X continuous Substantial displacement. Significant Partial 5921; 5922; 5923; 5924; 5925; 5926
Poor 6' X continuous Limited displacement occurring. Minor No 5927; 5928; 5929; 5930; 5931
New tree in moderate vigor with no significant structural defects. Oleanders planted nearby. Good 6' X continuous None None Yes 5932; 5933
Young tree with good vigor and dense growth. No significant structural defects observed. Dead Arbutus 'Marina around corner.
Mature tree that has been V-pruned for HV electrical line clearance. Co-dominant trunks form at 7'. History of root loss. Recent sidewalk repair.
Mature tree that has been partially topped pruned for electrical line clearance. Large trunk wound on south side. Pruned for electrical secondaries also.
Mature tree that has been V-pruned for HV electrical line clearance. Asymmetrical root distribution. Recent sidewalk repair.
Mature tree that has been partially topped pruned for electrical line clearance. No significant structural defects observed.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Good 6' X continuous Recent sidewalk repair. None Yes 5934; 5935; 5936
Moderate 6' X continuous Recent sidewalk repair. None Yes 5937; 5938; 5939
Poor 6' X continuous Recent sidewalk repair. None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous Minor displacement. Minor Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous Recent sidewalk repair. None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
031 Japanese zelkova 7 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
Health Rating Structural Rating Comments/Observations Suitability for Preservation Planter Size Pavement Impact Pavement Displacement Rating (Current)
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
032 Japanese zelkova 7 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
033 Japanese zelkova 6.5 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
7.5 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Moderate 6' X continuous None None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None
None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None
None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None
None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None
None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Pavement Impact Pavement Displacement Rating (Current)
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
037 Japanese zelkova 7 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
038 Japanese zelkova 6.5 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
039 Japanese zelkova 6 1 18 to 20 12 to 15
mountain she oak (Allocauserina verticilata ) (Casurina stricta )
041 mountain she oak
22 1 50 to 55
40
45 3.0 2.0
042 London plane tree (Platanus hispanica x 'Bloodgood' 25 1 60 50 to 55 2.5 3.0
043 pink iron bark (Eucalyptus sideroxylon 'Rosea'
044 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens )
19 1 30 35 3.0 3.0
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Young tree, pruned to rounded form below HV electrical lines. Closely spaced, multiple limb attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low with limited twig/branch dieback occurring. Planting appears water stressed. Bubblers are present.
Mature tree with generally symmetrical crown form. No significant structural defects observed. Lower trunk damage present. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. Dense surface root system.
Moderate 6' X continuous None None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Mature tree with large symmetrical crown form. History of pruning. No significant structural defects observed. Typical foliar problems of mildew.
Mature tree with symmetrical crown form. Lower trunk damage present. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Moderate 6' X continuous None None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 6' X continuous None
None Yes 5947; 5948; 5949; 5950
Moderate 7' x 7' Significant sidewalk displacement occurring.
Poor to Fair 7' x 7' Significant sidewalk displacement occurring.
Moderate 6' x 5' Significant sidewalk displacement occurring.
Good
Large, open area away from pavement.
Sidewalk displacement nearby with asphalt patch.
Significant No 5951; 5952; 5953
Significant No 5954; 5955; 5956; 5957; 5758
Significant No 5959; 5960; 5961
Significant No 5986; 5987
3 1 8 10 1.5 2.0
Stunted tree with extensive crown dieback. Variable vigor in response to winter rains. Poor
Large, open area away from pavement.
None
None No 5988
049
050
052
054
Semi-mature tree with two trunk structure. Upper crown dieback occurring. Vigor
Low,
Located on adjacent property. Nigh branch structure. Lower trunk damage. Moderate vigor and foliage density.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed. Limited lower trunk damage from string trimmer.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed. Limited lower trunk damage from string trimmer.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt. Lower trunk damage from string trimmer.
055
056
057
059 red maple Autumn
060 red maple Autumn
061
061
064
065
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low.
Young tree with lean. Drought stressed with dieback occurring. Vigor is low.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt. Lower trunk damage from string trimmer.
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed.
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed with low crown density.
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed.
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed.
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed.
Large, open area away from pavement.
Large, open area away from pavement.
open area away from pavement.
planter area away from pavement.
No 6009
No 6011
072
073
fern pine (Podocarpus gracilior ) (Afrocarpus falcatus )
074
saucer magnolia (Magnolia soulangeana ) 1 to 5 multi 6 4 3.0 3.0
075 fruiting apple (Malus domestica ) 4; 4.5; 6 3 15 12 3.0 3.0
076 Brisbane box 6; 6; 7.5 3 20 20 2.5 2.0
077
Southern magnolia (Magnolia grandiflora ) 10 1 20 20 3.0 3.0
Young tree with high-branched structure. No significant structural defects. Tree appears moderately water stressed.
Young tree in need of structural pruning with secondary trunk becoming dominant. Vigor appears moderate low.
Young tree with high-branched structure. Codominant trunks. Tree appears moderately water stressed with low crown density. Lean in trunk.
Young tree with good vigor and dense growth. No significant structural defects observed.
Young tree with good vigor and dense growth. No significant structural defects observed.
Young tree with good vigor and dense growth. No significant structural defects observed.
Young tree with good vigor and dense growth. No significant structural defects observed. Tree has been pruned for clearance for electrical service drop. Adjacent small fern pine and pineapple guava in planting strip.
Tree growing in front yard adjacent to sidewalk. Co-dominant trunk structure. Vigor and foliage density are good. Good front yard None
No 6018; 6019
Young, small tree with low multiple trunk structures. Vigor and foliage density are good. Good 3' x continuous None None No 6021
Tree growing in front yard adjacent to sidewalk. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are good.
Low three trunk structure with included attachments. Vigor and foliage density are moderately low. Probable aphid or scale infestation.
Tree growing in front yard adjacent to sidewalk. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are good.
Good front yard None None No 6022
Fair 3' x continuous Minor displacement. Minor No 6023; 6024
Good front yard Sidewalk crack. Minor No 6025; 6026
079 Aristocrat flowering pear
080
081 Chinese pistache
082
083
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
Semi-mature tree with narrow scaffold limb attachments mid-crown. Vigor and foliage density are moderate. Probable history of root pruning. Large Taxus growing in front yard nearby.
Semi-mature tree with closely spaced, multiple limb attachments occurring at 10'. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Semi-mature tree with asymmetrical upper crown growing towards street due to pruning for building clearance. Branch dieback occurring in upper crown. Variable vigor.
Young tree with spreading crown form. Drought stressed with dieback occurring. Vigor is variable.
Young tree with spreading crown form. Drought stressed with dieback occurring. Vigor is variable.
Low, multiple trunk structure. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree in serious drought stress. Probable branch dieback. No significant structural defects. Vigor is very low.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Semi-mature tree pruned low for clearance from overhead high voltage electrical lines. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are good.
Moderate 3' x continuous Limited displacement occurring.
Minor No 6027; 6028; 6029; 6030
Moderate 3' x continuous
Significant sidewalk displacement occurring. Asphalt patch.
Fair 3' x continuous
Significant sidewalk displacement occurring. Asphalt patch.
Significant No 6031; 6032
Significant No 6033; 6034; 6035
with grate.
planter
3' x 3' Limited displacement occurring.
Semi-mature tree pruned low for clearance from overhead high voltage electrical lines. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are good.
Semi-mature tree pruned low for clearance from overhead high voltage electrical lines. Co-dominant trunks at 4'. No significant structural defects. Vigor and foliage density are good.
Moderate 3' x 3' Significant displacement. Significant Yes 6043; 6047 092
Moderate
3' x 3' Minor
3' x 3' 1" displacement lift. Significant Yes 6048
3' x 3' 1" displacement lift. Significant Yes
3' x 3'
3'
magnolia
No 6051
3'
099
100 Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei )
Semi-mature tree that has been subject to harsh pruning for clearance over street.
Mature tree with fused two trunk structure. Subject to top pruning for electrical line clearance. Vigor and foliage density are moderate.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
103 red maple Red
104
to Moderate
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt. Fair to Moderate
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
to 15
to Moderate
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Fair to Moderate
Large, open area away from pavement.
Large, open area away from pavement.
Large, open area away from pavement.
Large, open area away from pavement.
None
Fair to Moderate
Fair to Moderate
Fair to Moderate
Large, open area away from pavement.
None
Large, open area away from pavement.
None
Large, open area away from pavement.
None
No 6059
None No 6060, 6061
None No 6060, 6061
None No 6060, 6061
None No 6060, 6061
None No 6060, 6061
109 red maple Red Sunset
110 red maple Red Sunset
111 red maple Red Sunset
coast live oak
2.5 1 7 3 2.0 3.0
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with foliage in wilt.
to Moderate
to Moderate
Large, open area away from pavement.
Large, open area away from pavement.
to Moderate
None None
Overhead HV Electrical Tree Image Reference
3.0 2.5
Young tree with no significant structural defects. Drought stressed with low vigor. Fair to Moderate
Fair
to Moderate
None None
No
No
No
No 6064
None None
No 6065
None None
No 6066; 6067
12 2
No No 6068; 6069
MAY 24, 2017 RICHMOND, CALIF From their windows in the Iron Triangle section of Richmond, Calif – a place synonymous with violence and urban blight – Rita Cerda and several other longtime residents watched as a crazy-seeming woman in pigtails poked around the then-deserted playground in their midst. Day after day in this heavily Latino and African-American neighborhood, she’d come to this sorry spot ridden with hypodermic needles and gin bottles, its swings shredded by pit bulls trained to improve their jaw strength by hanging from the seats.
“I’d be thinking, ‘What’s that white lady think she’s going to do in this neighborhood?” Ms. Cerda, who is Native American, recalls. “Everybody says they’re going to fix the park and nobody goes through with it.”
But as Cerda and her neighbors soon discovered, Toody Maher – the indefatigable force who helped them collectively transform that forlorn place into Pogo Park, one of the most innovative and jubilant public spaces in the United States – is definitely not everybody.
Ms Maher, whose rubber gardening boots complement the yellow rubber bands fastened around the pigtails she still wears in her mid-50s, is an urban visionary – a playground-whisperer who stubbornly believes that the most beautiful and enlightened public spaces, especially playgrounds, not only belong in the most disadvantaged communities but also can be designed, built, managed, and programmed by the people who live there.
Her unusual first name – a childhood mispronunciation of “Susie” by her brother – seems fitting for a 6-foot-tall former businesswoman-turned-urban renegade who likens the process of creating a richly detailed park to cooking a slow and delectable soup. Pogo Park has been years in the making – it’s still
simmering – and each tiny flourish, from hand-carved redwood benches to the cascading water that flows over rocks to mimic a mountain stream, profoundly reflects the spirit and place of its makers.
“You can’t microwave a park,” Maher observes of the time it takes to get it right. “Children’s play is a canary in a coal mine If you want to see how a community is doing, look at its playgrounds ”
Citizen participation in playground design isn’t new. But the reimagining of Elm Playlot and a new sister park by a “team” of residents – with Maher as coach and provocateur in chief – has considerably upped the ante Together, after seven years of meetings and learning how to weld, bend rebar, pour cement, and cajole local politicians, they have forged a dazzling oasis of calm and possibility in a neighborhood in which youngsters are frequently awakened by gunshots and more than a third of them live in poverty The team’s motto? “Think it; do it ”
Named for three sets of historical railroad tracks that form its border, the Iron Triangle has struggled since the end of World War II, when Richmond’s mighty Kaiser Shipyards – home to thousands of “Rosie the Riveters” – closed down, leaving nearly half the population out of work, particularly African-Americans who had moved west to join the war effort.
Today, a cornucopia of industrial pollutants buffets the neighborhood, creating unusually high asthma rates. And exposure to violence or the fear of it pervades the lives of children, plunging many into a constant state of stress.
Jason Corburn, a professor of planning and public health at the University of California, Berkeley, is beginning a study for the state of California to measure the effect of Pogo Park on the surrounding neighborhood. “Toody is not just about parks – she is a community builder,” Dr. Corburn observes. “Pogo Park is a heart that pumps life into the hardest-hit area of Richmond.”
The park has benefited from city policies that put health front and center in government decisionmaking, especially in land-use planning. It’s a recognition that there are steps a city can take to positively influence health, whether it’s planting more trees or installing streetlights to make neighborhoods safer.
Maher moved about a mile from the park with her partner in 2007 She was astonished to learn that although most kids in the Iron Triangle were stuck indoors, nearly a quarter of city-owned land was parks. “That’s a tremendous asset,” she observes. “But if you look at it from a business point of view, it was underperforming ”
She visited all 56 parks. But her evolution from an entrepreneur heralded by Forbes and Inc. to a crusader bringing a Jardin du Luxembourg sensibility to the Iron Triangle wasn’t exactly a foregone conclusion. Yet her approach remains the same. “My blessing and my curse is that I can’t stand when things aren’t done right,” she says.
Her out-of-the-box mind-set was nurtured early on: Her British parents, whose green thumb she inherited, did not believe in television, preferring storytelling followed by a nightcap of charades. Her
father’s job at a Brazilian airline allowed the family to travel the world. “Everyone else was watching ‘Adam-12’ and ‘The Waltons,’ but our parents gave everything to our experiences,” she says.
Raised in Montreal near the magnificent park on Mount Royal, and then outside Los Angeles, young Toody was teased relentlessly for a terrible stutter, sparking a deep sense of empathy for others in similar situations But she was also a natural athlete with a persistent (some might say willful) streak; at age 12, she pushed to become the first girl on the boys’ Little League team. “My sister is the kind of person who works through three root canals,” observes her older brother, Adrian Maher.
In the 1980s they became brother-sister entrepreneurs, securing the Western distribution rights for Swatch watches before launching a company that produced a clear telephone with lights.
Ms. Maher’s plan was to accrue enough wealth to pursue her Frederick Law Olmsted-ish fantasy of building a great park. Her partner, Julie Roemer, a writer and teacher, finally asked: “What are you waiting for?” Maher was itching to upend the mass-produced, creativity-zapping play equipment that she calls “the tyranny of unrelenting sameness. ”
Earning the community’s trust took years. “She was looking for some yokel-locals to help with the project,” recalls Carmen Lee, a revered neighborhood figure who was the first to come on board. “You know your community best,” Maher told them “I’m a bridge with the Man,” as she calls the business establishment. “Let’s partner up. ”
It was a modest start: a pop-up park consisting of a Home Depot fence, a cheap slide from Amazon, and a free shipping container. Maher savvily wired the park with free internet, bridging the digital divide and knitting wary neighbors together.
A core team of about a dozen residents went door to door soliciting ideas for the park, especially from children. No. 1 on the wish list was a zip line (done!). “The only thing we couldn’t deliver was a chocolate fountain,” says Tonie Lee, an original team member. Residents make full-scale mock-ups of their ideas, experimenting until it feels right.
Fortuitously, a company down the street, Scientific Art Studio, is a professional fabrication wizard that created the 26-foot-tall baseball glove at the San Francisco Giants ballpark. The studio has taken the team under its artful wing, helping craft igloo-shaped hide-outs and other never-before-seen play elements.
Maher may be happiest when pruning or going to the arborist to pick up mulch, but her business acumen has served Pogo Park well, including a recent $6.2 million grant from the state. She sets the bar high, bringing in innovative thinkers like Dan Burden, a widely respected street designer who is helping residents transform a bleak and dangerous thoroughfare into a lush, pedestrian-friendly “yellow brick road” linking schools and parks.
Maher has an eye for perfection – for perfect trees planted with perfect acorns – that members of the core team have inherited. They receive a salary to watch over the park, keep it spiffy, and organize daily activities, from hula hoop play to rock-balancing. The park also serves meals and snacks free of charge to children as an official distribution point for the school district (most kids qualify for free or reduced-price lunches) “Some are really hungry, sorry to say, ” Carmen Lee says
Flower memorials to youngsters killed in gun violence – two worked at the park – are reminders of the considerable challenges that remain in the Iron Triangle
But on a warm afternoon in the dappled light under sycamores, the park’s role in the lives of neighborhood children was set off in bas-relief. Teens ate snacks on disc swings while a young girl
waded barefoot in the pebbled stream. Perhaps the biggest gift Pogo Park offers children is the ability to put the world on hold for a time, to get lost in a daydream while skipping a stone in a brook.
“I’m glad we built this park,” Ms. Lee observes. “It wasn’t Toody opening a book. It came from the community – for the people, by the people, however you want to put it It’s one place kids can come where it’s safe and they feel loved.”
• For more, visit pogopark org
UC Berkeley
Center for Global Healthy Cities
Parks, Health Equity and Preventing Displacement: A Participatory Study in Richmond’s Iron Triangle Neighborhood 2022: Project Summary
Introduction
This brief summarize the major tasks, accomplishments and deliverables by the UCB, Center for Global Healthy Cities, for the RWJF grant #78434 (4/2021-4/2024), “Parks, Health Equity & Preventing Displacement,” for 2022. This is an action-research project in collaboration with Pogo Park. Collaborative action research means we have Pogo Park staff as research leaders, Pogo and community members participate in and benefit from the research, and we share-back preliminary findings to inform practice, policy and other interventions. The overall objective is to support on-going work by Pogo Park and others in the Iron Triangle that improves the quality of life, public safety and well-being, opportunities for recreation and play, and security of housing for all residents. The project is funded through April 2024. 2022
Task #1 - Green Gentrification & Healthy Resilience Study.
Questions:
How are the Pogo Park projects impacting the social, economic & physical health of households in the Iron Triangle? How might the processes of redevelopment used by Pogo Park mitigate potential displacement? Are the projects contributing to gentrification?
Methods & Data:
January-May 2022
UC Berkeley research team members collected built environment data from the City of Richmond for future built environment analysis. Data collected includes land values, assessment parcels, and building information. Property values along the Iron Triangle’s 8th Street transect were collected using publicly available data (i.e. 2021 Zillow data) and developed a test webpage. Web site posted preliminary research findings (see images below)
April-July 2022
Pogo Park and UC Berkeley research team members visited Pogo Park staff and observed preparation for construction and transformation of the Harbour-8 project.
July 2022 (ongoing)
UC Berkeley research team members documented construction changes of intersections and sidewalks along the Iron Triangle’s 8th Street transect. Time lapse pictures of YBR and Harbour8 changes (Brandon leader).
Using the Iron Triangle as geographic unit of analysis (defined by census tracts, Richmond neighborhood boundaries), we will analyze the changes over time, if any of the following administrative data:
● % of home ownership, renters, average rent costs (Source: ACS)
● Average property values (Source: Zillow/county tax assessment records)
● % population in poverty, average median household income (Source: ACS)
● Resident ratings of quality of life, quality of their neighborhood, access to green infrastructure, perceptions of safety & crime (Source: RCS)
● Select human health outcomes (Source: CDC, 500 Cities, census tracts)
Web site/mapping
We developed and updated a website that allows users to learn about Pogo Park and its impact in the Iron Triangle community. This is still a work-in-progress, but data have been updated about property values and changes to the built environment at this linked webpage
https://pogo-park-impact-story.netlify.app/#pogo-intro
https://pogopark-changes-test.netlify.app/
We hypothesized that place and the design, access and control of local environments influence stress pathways (and thus human health) as well as safety/crime.
Methods & Data:
We designed a rapid survey instrument (Pulse Survey) delivered in both English and Spanish. Questions were based on the Neighborhood Health Questionnaire/Chicago Project on Human Development questions.1
February-June
Survey design and beta testing
July-November 2022
Surveying was conducted in-person using paper surveys at Elm Playlot (Pogo Park) During surveying, Pogo Park and UC Berkeley research team members were present at a table station. Park attendees were invited to complete either an English and Spanish survey. Surveying was conducted on a weekly basis during regular park hours. Surveying was also conducted at community events located at Elm Playlot/Pogo Park.
Preliminary Results:
In-person surveying held from July to October 2022 resulted in 54 interview responses (46 English responses, 8 Spanish responses).
Elm Playlot Engagement
● 56% identified as living in this neighborhood or the Iron Triangle (n=30)
● 74% were present with kids, children 17 years old or younger (n=40)
● 76% rated the quality of Elm Playlot as excellent (n=41), 22% as okay (n=12), and 2% as bad (n=1)
Safety, Built Environment, and Affordability
● 81% identified as feeling safe on the streets/sidewalks around Elm Playlot (n=44)
● 87% said that the changes to the sidewalks/streets that they have seen around Elm Playlot will make the community safer (n=47)
● 48% felt concerned the street or park improvements around Elm Playlot might cause housing costs to increase and might make this place less affordable (n=26)
December 2022-
On-line version of survey sent to Pogo Park list serve. Awaiting results.
1 Earls, Felton J., Brooks-Gunn, Jeanne, Raudenbush, Stephen W., and Sampson, Robert J. Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Community Survey, 1994-1995. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2007-10-29. https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02766.v3
Questions:
What impacts have the on-going improvements to the neighborhood had on your family? Are the park and street improvements benefiting families that live here?
Do you think these improvements contribute to gentrification? That is, are people being forced to move away and new families moving in because of these improvements?
Methods & Data:
We are interviewing 13 families every six months. We designed a set of questions as open ended questions (see questionnaire here). We selected a set of families based on ensuring representation that included: the age of respondents (18-34; 35-65; 66+); whether or not they were home owners in the Iron Triangle neighborhood; the race/ethnicity (AA, Latino and Asian); whether they had children (currently <18yrs; raised children now grown); used Elm Playlot; and worked at Elm Playlot/Pogo Park. Below is an overview of the interview process to date.
March-April 2022
Thirteen (13) participants were recruited to participate in interviews. Participants are residents of Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood and will be interviewed twice a year for the next two years (ending April 2024). Interviews were conducted and recorded with each participant. After each interview, participants were compensated with one $100 gift card. At each interview, participants were asked specific questions with respect to park usage, neighborhood safety, and ongoing improvements to the neighborhood.
April-May 2022
All thirteen (13) interview recordings were manually transcribed for further analysis by the Pogo Park and UC Berkeley research team.
May 2022
Pogo Park and UC Berkeley research team members reviewed and analyzed interview transcripts to develop themes. On May 6, 2022, a research retreat was held in which research team members conducted a collaborative, thematic analysis.
Eight (8) themes were identified which include:
(1) Richmond (2) Parks (3) Economics/$ (4) Housing & Displacement (5) Iron Triangle/Place/Community Change (6) Violence (7) Institutional Racism (8) SafetyRoad/Pedestrian
Utilizing the themes above, Pogo Park and UC Berkeley research team members re-evaluated interview transcripts and identified interviewee responses respective to themes.
August 2022
A preliminary summary of findings was developed based on the first round of family interviews held in March and April of 2022.
October 2022
The thirteen (13) participants were recruited to participate in a second round of interviews. Participants were also invited to participate in the Pulse Survey.
Preliminary Findings: Quotes
• Richmond being a family within itself. And everybody is supposed to be related to each other just for being a Richmond residents. So we all supposed to be looking out for each other so that's my I feel safe. I feel like my community have my back
• I’m really excited about what’s happening on this block. It’s been fun watching the plywood construction pieces to identify where stuff goes. I’m totally digging that
• the Nevin Center was open and we out there and its 300 people in the park. Kids and people come up and shooting up the park looking for certain people you know what I mean and like just and they you know the older folks out there drinking and you know what I mean It’s like it’s not a ideal place to take your kid no more
• We just think it’s like slowly moving into gentrification. We don’t know how soon this is going to happen but it’s kind of like we kind of feel like it’s probably the inevitable because usually with you know entities put money into stuff it’s not usually for the colored population per say.
• most of the neighbors that we live around I feel like that they’re very open to you know being friendly but to a point where them asking or saying “oh you know I’m scared of losing my house,” I don’t think they’re open enough to do that just yet I would say.
• Before the neighborhood kinda everybody watched everybody. Everybody watched everybody kids. Like you know “oh there go that person oh let me make sure oh baby look both ways before you cross the street” and now it be like “oh there goes somebody kid about to get hit and oh I’m not going to do anything about it.”
• the violence that’s in Richmond you know it’s very unsafe to allow a kid to just be free and to be normal kids go outside and play. And then as an adult you know just walking to the store anything can happen you know. It’s just unsafe in Richmond right now
• The white people at the top, you know, like they don't provide Black communities like this with the same resources and the same thing that could provide communities like American Canyon and Vallejo like stuff like that
• If the City can pay for the construction for them to add a crossing walk light there. Then the City can conjure up some funds to have a actual crossing guard there if that's what is actually needed because something gots to give
• Pogo Park Vision Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4hSpUZnFtw
• CA Parks Now: Pogo Park Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3GGXEeoWNU
• East Bay Express: Park Wins $2 Million in Funding
https://eastbayexpress.com/richmond-park-wins-2-million-in-funding-1/
• San Francisco Foundation: Leadership Award Video from San Francisco Foundation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OLFUrs7EVo&t=10s
Di convenatius fex me adhui postrem isqui ego Catem sendiente condem se vidis, o aperid patifec errarius fac red intellego ari ius?
Otam escibus silnem. Opulto ex mactus. Mullaris occivivernim temque etiusa comnium ut vicatursu mentia dinatis bonica re, iurio me aciens orum nerfena, que et forsus hum loccia ocus hostand eatium ut prenena, nonsulus aperum es audees nostrum nihinerum horum pris, nempopu blicape ricaelis, sulegeri, nocula L. Ifecum inum inam iam re cut L. Ari, omnondam nis vium nunum vis, ex ses ego in in pecer quemena tilicas sest is. Graris noncula rivitators cont. Go iam inte, utere consulies? Astrum es cae inculia det; es ciem. merum, consunum, fue escibus rem hos aucta, ciemenica perfessum omnoccientis convolum orum ut atis et imum pri porae coteli supim licat Catquam iu movereo, nem.
Dec tus, Catrariciem fur que audamei factemne ad cris. Seris, Palabentium deoritantere inaturistia? De iaequam clarium sulvilicis. Porum consum, fui in sestrebutua converum defaci perorum rei pro clus porudes cuperitiuro invere, Catum, quam, Catilius rendicio auctem tu vivignon horum es enti, stiusque cont, praci tam tarbis; eti te conlocut pra con seditus
Toody Maher Executive Director Pogo Park
Founded in 2007, Pogo Park is an entrepreneurial 501(c)3 community development nonprofit working in one of America’s most critically underserved neighborhoods: Richmond, California’s “Iron Triangle.”
OUR MISSION:
To transform lives by transforming public spaces.
OUR WORK:
For the past 16 years, Pogo Park has organized and led a holistic, “Build from the Inside/Out”, community development project in the Iron Triangle. Our work is centered around empowering a core team of community residents – those who know their neighborhood best – to transform broken, blighted, and little-used city parks into vibrant public spaces for children to play. We also work to redesign and rebuild the streets that connect our parks into a safe passageway for children to walk and bike.
“Pogo Parks” are staffed by community residents who care for and tend to the park and provide free enrichment programs for children.
First, the Build From the Inside/Out Process that Pogo Park uses to transform dispirited city parks is radically different from the typical “Design-Bid-Build” process used by every city in America. Rather than putting a public works project out to bid, and hiring professionals from outside the community to design and build local parks “for” the people, Pogo Park hires, trains, and empowers community residents to join Pogo Park’s Community Development Team (CDT) as paid staff and play a leading role in the entire process to plan, design, build, and later manage these public parks themselves.
Second, once we design and build a “Pogo Park,” we staff the park with people from the community who green it, care for it, watch over it, and organize its programs. Our community staff have a steady job and earn a living wage transforming city parks in their neighborhood that were once described as “dirty, dull, and dangerous” into safe, green, and vibrant hubs of community life.
Third, we use our parks and playgrounds as vehicles to impact the lives of thousands of local children by providing high-quality, creative, enriched play programs that are designed to spark and foster their healthy development. Decades of research shows that play is how children learn and develop the cognitive, linguistic, social/emotional, physical, and creative skills they need to grow and thrive.
Today, we have three neighborhood transformation projects centered in Richmond’s Iron Triangle:
1) Elm Playlot (Pogo Park #1), a .5-acre pocket park in the very heart of the neighborhood, and the founding model of our broader work;
2) Harbour-8 Park (Pogo Park #2), a 2-acre park located on a 2-block section of the Richmond Greenway that is being constructed now;
3) Yellow Brick Road®, a safe biking and walking route that runs 27 blocks through the Iron Triangle neighborhood and connects our two Pogo Parks together. Our Yellow Brick Road® project is being constructed now.
“When you put something like Pogo Park in the middle of a community, you bring joy to the joyless, hope to the hopeless, and opportunity to folks who felt they were in despair.”
RESULT:
The result is the rebirth of a community and a triple bottom line: beautiful, public green spaces, an empowered community, and thousands of low-income children with everyday access to high-quality, imaginative, enriched play opportunities that are specifically designed to help them grow and thrive.
OUR GOALS:
1) To become a replicable model that can be shared with other cities for how to bring dispirited and failing parks in America’s inner-city neighborhoods to life;
2) To support local children by providing them with high-quality parks and high-quality enrichment programs that are designed to spark and foster their healthy development;
3) To use our Build From the Inside/Out process to support and empower community residents to play a leading, decision-making role in the efforts to transform public parks and streets in their own neighborhood;
4) To develop neighborhood parks and streets in ways that benefit local people and prevent displacement.
Pogo Park’s Build From the Inside/Out park model works. Both the State of California Parks Department and researchers from UC Berkeley point to Pogo Park’s grass-roots, bottom-up process as a promising, disruptive, and scalable model for how to bring to life thousands of parks in underserved neighborhoods across America.
– Sam Vaughn, Program Manager of Richmond’s Office of Neighborhood Safety(clockwise from bottom left) Team members Karina Guadalupe, Jose Reyes (in baseball cap), Richard Muro, and Tonie Lee bend rebar for Elm Playlot’s “Global Village” of child-sized houses.
Named for the three railroad tracks that define its border, Richmond, California’s Iron Triangle is one of America’s most critically underserved neighborhoods.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHALLENGES: Residents of the Iron Triangle live in a blighted, heavy-industrial neighborhood with virtually no trees and little functional green space. The Iron Triangle is adjacent to the Chevron Refinery, BNSF Railroad, Port of Richmond, and Richmond Parkway – and ranks in the top 1% of the most environmentally degraded census tracts in California.
One-third of Iron Triangle families live in poverty and suffer from food insecurity. Local schools are underfunded and beleagured – and perennially rank as some of the poorest performing schools in the state. Residents suffer from trauma caused by high levels of gun violence over decades. Because of the tough neighborhood conditions, children and families are often trapped inside their homes.
NOWHERE
TO PLAY: Children of the Iron Triangle live in a “park poor” neighborhood that lacks safe, and green, outdoor spaces for them to play. This robs children of the opportunity to play outside and develop the skills they need to grow and thrive. So critical is the role of play to healthy child development that the United Nations High Commission for Human Rights named the ability “to engage in play and recreational opportunities appropriate to the age of the child” as a universal right of every child.
TOXIC STRESS: Residents suffer from a barrage of “toxic stressors” that go hand in hand with living in an underserved urban neighborhood: fear of gun violence, lack of safe, green, outdoor play spaces, housing instability and threats of displacement, inadequate social services, environmental pollution, the constant threat of racial profiling, and lack of affordable and accessible healthcare.
Research shows that toxic stress is more harmful to a person’s health than smoking, eating unhealthy food, and a lack of exercise combined.
MARGINALIZED COMMUNITY: 90% of Iron Triangle residents are Black or Brown. 25% of adults have a limited proficiency in English - triple the 8% national average. 60% of children speak English as a second language. Many of the 15,000 local residents are disengaged from mainstream social, cultural, educational, and economic life.
City parks are a powerful – and underused – antidote to the multiple challenges that affect the health and well-being of people living in Richmond’s Iron Triangle.
Over the past 15 years, Pogo Park has developed a proven, scalable model for exactly how other cities can bring their dispirited parks to life. The five essential elements to transform a poor-performing park into a “Pogo Park” are:
1) Staff
A Pogo Park has staff who care for and watch over the park like a parent watches over a child. Pogo Park’s “Park Host” is responsible for keeping the park clean and making it safe and welcoming for all.
2) Office
A Pogo Park has some sort of an office that stands as a visual symbol that the park has been claimed and is being supervised. The office can be as simple as a folding table and chair, umbrella, and a sign – or a portable shipping container.
3) Basic Amenities
A Pogo Park has a clean bathroom, drinking fountain, and comfortable place to sit in the shade.
4) Rich Play Opportunities
A Pogo Park provides children with meaningful, enriching play opportunities that are designed to spark and foster their healthy cognitive, physical, social, imaginative and linguistic development.
5) Community Hub
A Pogo Park is a vibrant neighborhood hub that provides a public space for residents to access programs and services such as a bookmobile, farmers’ market, performing arts, and community health vans.
Current Projects
Project 1
Elm Playlot
Project 2 Yellow Brick Road
Project 3 Harbour-8 Park
Project 4 Local Jobs, Training & Opportunity
Project 5 Land Acquisition & Development
Elm Playlot (Pogo Park #1) is a .5-acre pocket park in the heart of the Iron Triangle neighborhood – and the founding Pogo Park model. Over 15 years, a core team of community residents worked together to reimagine, redesign, and rebuild Elm Playlot from the ground up. Once blighted and abandoned, parks practitioners often hail Elm Playlot as one of the best urban parks in America.
Elm Playlot provides high-quality enrichment programs for local families and children including: art, playwork, nature education, gardening, hip-hop dance, chess, and a petting zoo. Elm Playlot is also one of Richmond’s largest distribution points for the local schools’ free meal program, serving 10,000 meals annually to low-income children. Pogo Park partners with service providers such as Vision to Learn to offer free eye exams and glasses to hundreds of children each year through their mobile clinic at our park.
Pogo Park provides summer jobs and job training to youth at Elm Playlot as part of our popular “Pogo All-Star” program. Many of the same children who have grown up in Elm Playlot have become All-Stars themselves and work to continue to improve the park and provide dynamic enrichment programs for children.
“Before Pogo Park I used to stay home. My mom used to say ‘no’ because there was a lot of stuff happening over there. I used to be scared to go over there, but once Pogo Park opened, I went over there every single day.”
– Markeith Anderson, age 15, Iron Triangle resident
The Yellow Brick Road® is a safe walking and biking path through Richmond’s Iron Triangle neighborhood that connects important community assets such as churches, schools, public transportation, and parks. The Yellow Brick Road® directly links our two Pogo Parks (Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park) together.
The original idea for the Yellow Brick Road® was born in 2009 when youth from the Iron Triangle participated in a summer program that challenged them to dream up solutions to problems that plagued their community. As an answer to high levels of gun violence, blight, dangerous streets and speeding cars, the youth proposed stenciling yellow bricks across roads and on sidewalks to designate a safe route for bicyclists and pedestrians.
Over 14 days, the youth joined with a team of other community residents to walk every street in the Iron Triangle and identify the desired route for the Yellow Brick Road®. Over several months, they went door-to-door to conduct surveys with hundreds of residents. They worked shoulder-to-shoulder with a talented team of urban designers and traffic engineers to rethink and redesign streets, sidewalks, and intersections along the route.
Now under construction, the Yellow Brick Road® project will transform 27 intersections to make them safer for pedestrians and bicyclists, plant 93 trees and 11,000 square feet of plants, and install 144 human-scale street lights and original public art by local artists.
The Yellow Brick Road® offers a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the very heart of this neighborhood.
Harbour-8 Park (2.0 acres) is located on a 2-block section of the Richmond Greenway, a three-mile linear walking and biking trail that runs through Richmond’s most disadvantaged neighborhoods.
Harbour-8 Park is well situated: this park is located at the beginning of the Yellow Brick Road® and also within two short blocks of five local schools that serve 2,500 school-age children and youth.
To develop a vision for Harbour-8 Park, Pogo Park’s Community Development Team (CDT) worked together to design and build a life-sized, three-dimensional Mock-Up model onsite of their proposed vision for Harbour-8 Park.
Diverse in age, race, and gender, Pogo Park’s 12-member CDT partnered with a licensed team of architects, engineers, and designers who translated the CDT’s vision for Harbour-8 Park into a permitted set of construction documents.
Pogo Park partnered with the City of Richmond to secure a highly competitive $8.5 million “Prop 68” grant from the State of California Parks and Recreation Department to build Harbour-8 Park in the community’s vision.
The State supports the City and Pogo Park’s unique process of: a) directing grant funds down, into the community, to hire, train, and empower local residents to do a significant portion of the work themselves; and b) awarding contracts and procuring materials locally from Richmond businesses so that grant monies are recycled back into the neighborhood.
Directing grant funds into local jobs and local businesses is catalytic economic development in one of America’s most underserved communities.
To design, build, and maintain our parks, Pogo Park has established long-term, committed partnerships with two Iron Triangle businesses: Scientific Art Studio (SAS) and Lawrence Construction Inc. (LCI).
Scientific Art Studio is a custom fabrication and art studio renowned in the San Francisco Bay Area for building the giant mitt at the San Francisco Giants ballpark. SAS’s talented team of artists, designers, and builders work from a sprawling, two-acre studio in the Iron Triangle and are responsible for creating thrilling, cutting-edge children’s play spaces at The San Francisco Zoo, Oakland Zoo, The Oshman Family Jewish Community Center in Palo Alto, Bay Area Discovery Museum and more.
Lawrence Construction is a licensed general contractor with 50 years of building experience. LCI is located in an historic Iron Triangle building that lies adjacent to Harbour-8 Park.
Both SAS and LCI are deeply committed to and have supported Pogo Park’s Build From the Inside/Out process for years. SAS and LCI provide a sheltered and supportive environment for members of Pogo Park’s Community Development Team (CDT) to develop critical work skills and experience designing and building city parks in their own neighborhood.
Pogo Park, SAS, and LCI employ the proven, old-world “Apprentice/Master Builder” model to train Pogo Park’s CDT. Members of the CDT (Apprentices) work shoulder-to-shoulder with skilled and experienced artisans (Master Builders from SAS and LCI) to “learn by doing” in real-life, real-time projects to rebuild Elm Playlot, Yellow Brick Road®, and Harbour-8 Park – with their own hands.
In the process of working at a local job and earning a living wage, CDT members discover their own inherent talents while learning a diverse set of transferable skills: woodworking, metalworking, sculpting, reading blueprints, casting, modeling, and much more.
(from left) Journeyman welder Billy Gibson works with Stacey Marshall Jr., Tobin Mayell, and James Anderson from Pogo Park to construct a metal archway for Harbour-8 Park.
Xiluo Wang and Rosa Guitierrez build the scale model of Harbour-8 Park.
Markel Anderson works as a Pogo All-Star designing and building a clubhouse at Harbour-8 Park.
Pogo Park’s Daniela Guadalupe cuts rebar.
When Pogo Park transformed Elm Playlot, we quickly realized the inevitable and unintended consequence of creating a world-class park and playground in a low-income neighborhood: rent and property values of the homes surrounding the park went up.
Pogo Park’s Community Development Team worried aloud that, by improving Elm Playlot, they were “digging their own grave” by creating a park so beautiful that rents would increase, outsiders would move in and ultimately displace the very residents that emerging park equity programs are designed to serve.
To prevent displacement, Pogo Park adopted three best practices: 1) acquire key parcels of land around a park before investors realize the potential of new park projects; 2) engage residents to develop their own, community-driven vision and goals for the desired uses of those parcels; and 3) create better-paying local jobs to make it possible for residents to rent or purchase their own homes in their own neighborhood.
In 2016, Pogo Park partnered with The Conservation Fund (TCF) to acquire three key land parcels around Harbour-8 Park, and the acquisition of those three parcels was remarkably successful. We integrated two of those parcels into Harbour-8 Park to expand the Park’s footprint. Next, we plan to purchase and develop the third parcel into a series of small shops and microbusinesses to service Harbour-8 Park.
Now – before prices increase – we intend to raise a $5 million “Rapid Response” fund to acquire and to develop a Master Plan for key parcels of land around Harbour-8 Park.
As park developments increase the value of surrounding lands, Pogo Park can capture a portion of that value and use the land to generate income. Pogo Park views the project to acquire and develop properties – whether for parks, affordable housing, or small businesses – as a key to our long-term sustainability.
“It has become clear that it is everyone’s job to worry about ensuring that parks are part of equitable community development, so that the people who most need the benefits of parks are able to stay in their communities and enjoy those benefits.”
– Dr. Alessandro Rigolon, University of Utah and Dr. Jon Christensen, UCLA
“For neighborhoods characterized by vacant and abandoned properties and disinvestment, the ‘first movers’ are the ones in the strongest position to guide the transformation of the community.”
– Dr. Frank Alexander, co-founder, Center for Community Progress
“What struck me the most is that the development of this park is a form of community healing, of empowering individuals in the community, of changing the reputation of that space so that members of the community who had no involvement in the process still felt like they could come here and belong.”
– Dr. Joe Griffin PhD, UC Berkeley School of Public HealthPogo Park’s Elm Playlot has become a visible symbol of hope and change in a neighborhood where literally every other public works project has failed. The renovation of Elm Playlot has energized and electrified the neighborhood, and a wave of positive energy and impact is rippling out into the surrounding community, transforming both the people and their public spaces.
A highly anticipated two-year study, funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and performed by Pogo Park’s research partners at UC Berkeley, has measured Elm Playlot’s transformative impact on community health and well-being. To follow are the four major findings of this study:
1. Increased Public Safety: The number of residents who felt that crime made it dangerous to walk the neighborhood streets during the day dropped by 36%.
2. Increased Jobs: Pogo Park is an engine for economic development. We have created 94 living-wage jobs, provided 150,000 hours of employment for local residents, and raised $50 million in public and private funds to benefit the local community. From 2009-2019, local unemployment declined from 18% to 9.5% and the median household income increased from $35,000 to $50,000. The end result of Pogo Park’s first decade of service in the Iron Triangle was a decrease in residents living below the federal poverty line from 30% to 19%.
3. Increased Social Connectivity: Since Pogo Park began to work in the Iron Triangle, residents reported a significant increase in several measures of social connection and community feeling. For instance, the number of residents who borrowed items from their neighbors or exchanged favors more than doubled, increasing 102%.
4. The Importance of Green Space: Local residents report that a clean, safe, green space is crucial for their mental health. Access to Elm Playlot provides a public space for residents to connect with the natural world and a place to relieve stress. In the words of UC Berkeley’s Dr. Jason Corburn, Elm Playlot is “a place where people can exhale.”
Pogo Park is a proven, evidence-based organization that has been hailed as a model for how to engage and empower local residents to transform their neighborhood parks and public spaces.
Child Development
Workforce
Development
Communi ty
Empowerment
Economic Development
Social Connectio n
Environmental
Justice
“After your parks are built and the Yellow Brick Road® is complete, how will you pay for your programs?”
– A commonly asked question from potential donors
For over a decade, Pogo Park staff, board, and advisors have worked to address the question of financial sustainability. Our Financial Sustainability Plan is simple: to diversify Pogo Park’s revenue stream equally from three unique sources: ⅓ from Earned Income, ⅓ from Grants, and ⅓ from Donations.
Many nonprofits rely solely on income from donations and grants, but Pogo Park has a promising third revenue stream: earned income.
To generate earned income, we launched Pogo Park Products (PPP), a social enterprise. PPP contracts with the government and the private sector to plan, design, and build bespoke parks and children’s play environments. PPP also sells a branded line of park products such as benches, tables, chairs, and trash cans.
We also have other promising sources of earned income from: a) park facility rentals, b) land development, and c) a parcel tax.
Pogo Park has successfully secured and administered hundreds of grants –from the smallest family foundation to complex, multimillion-dollar grants from government. With billions of federal dollars for public infrastructure projects being targeted to underserved communities, Pogo Park is in a unique position to secure significant, game-changing government grants in the near future.
Located in one of the largest philanthropic markets in the United States, Pogo Park has tremendous, untapped opportunity to expand our existing base of individual and business donors. The tech and broader Bay Area business communities are investing locally in transformational, forward-thinking ways –and we are confident that they will embrace and support Pogo Park’s vision.
With your support, we can implement our Financial Sustainability Plan to create a lasting future for Pogo Park.
Pogo Park is establishing four funds to raise $25 million in philanthropic investments over the next three years:
– $12 million
Harbour-8 Park ($10 million)
Constr uction has started on Pogo Park’s game-changing vision for Harbour-8 Park. When complete, Harbour-8 Park will have hand-crafted children’s play areas; a beautiful, one-room social hall; and an adjacent commercial kitchen. Harbour-8 Park is destined to become a go-to public square in Richmond, an engine of economic growth, and a model of excellence for urban parks across America. The budget to build Harbour-8 Park is $21 million. To date, Pogo Park has raised $11 million. We seek to raise the remaining $10 million to bring Pogo Park’s full vision for Harbour-8 Park to life.
Harbour Hall – $6 million
A stunning, hand-crafted, 3,500-square-foot community hall, Harbour Hall is an architectural jewel and a centerpiece of Harbour-8 Park. Inspired by architect Julia Morgan’s famed design for Merrill Hall in Pacific Grove, California, Harbour Hall will become a landmark in Richmond – a beautiful, world-class, multi-purpose space for classes, meetings, voting, performing arts, weddings, memorials, and quinceañeras for decades to come.
Commercial Kitchen – $3 million
1. NEIGHBORHOOD TRANSFORMATION FUND ($12 million)
2. COMMUNITY EMPOWERMENT FUND ($2.5 million)
3. LAND ACQUISITION & DEVELOPMENT FUND ($5 million)
4. ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY & SUSTAINABILITY FUND ($5.5 million)
The commercial kitchen has two functions: 1) to prepare food for events at Harbour Hall; and 2) to provide a space for local entrepreneurs to prepare food for sale at the microbusinesses that are planned to surround Harbour-8 Park in the future.
Fun Zone – $1 million
A children’s play area with a thrilling, 25-foot, see-through climbing structure at the center.
Tot-Lot – $400,000
A protected play space for toddlers.
Zip Line Area – $250,000
One large and one smaller, ADA-compliant zipline.
BBQ/Picnic Area – $100,000 each ($300,000 total)
Total: $25 million
BBQ / Picnic Area – $100,000 each ($300,000 total)
Three private areas for groups to reserve for parties.
Trees – $10,000 each ($50,000)
A special stand of gingko trees planted in and around the Fun Zone.
Yellow Brick Road® is a safe biking and walking path that runs through the heart of the Iron Triangle neighborhood and connects our two parks (Elm Playlot and Harbour-8 Park). A continuous pathway of yellow bricks stenciled on sidewalks and across city streets, 140 pedestrian-friendly lights, 93 spectacular trees, hundreds of native plants, and public art will transform the Yellow Brick Road® into the “Lombard Street of Richmond.”
To date, Pogo Park has raised $15 million in capital funds from the State of California Parks Department, Caltrans, and the City of Richmond to design, build, and green the Yellow Brick Road®. We seek $1 million in additional philanthropic investment to support the programmatic component needed to complete the project.
A $1 million philanthropic gift to name the project.
Elm Playlot ($1 million)
Additional philanthropic investment will enable Pogo Park to complete the transformation of Elm Playlot, the original model and proof of concept for Harbour-8 Park. The hallmarks of this effort will be expanded social services and free play programs; additional support for local families; capital improvements to Elm Playlot; and an increased capacity to research, evaluate, and document impact.
We seek an additional $1 million in philanthropic capital to name Elm Playlot.
– $2.5 million
This fund supports the creation of jobs, training, and opportunity for residents who live in Richmond’s most underserved neighborhoods.
Jobs: Pogo Park creates stable, local jobs for local residents that pay a living wage.
Training: Pogo Park offers thoughtful, hands-on training for residents to grow and develop the skills they need to advance and thrive in the workplace.
Opportunity: Pogo Park provides a supportive learning environment for residents to discover and develop their own inherent skills and talents and to build financial strength. Investments in the Community Empowerment Fund will enable Pogo Park to develop two key capacities:
1) Leadership Development. We aim to continue and deepen our efforts to develop the leadership capacity of Pogo Park’s CDT to have a voice, a “say so,” in how public spaces in their own neighborhood are planned, designed, and built.
2) Support Services. We aim to build Pogo Park’s organizational capacity to provide critical support services to members of the CDT to ensure they thrive on the job mentally, physically, and economically.
We seek an additional $2.5 million in philanthropic capital to establish and name The Pogo Park Leadership Academy, a unique professional development program to provide community residents with the skills, business acumen, and capabilities required to work at Pogo Park. The Pogo Park Leadership Academy will employ and empower local residents now and build a pipeline of future Pogo Park leaders for generations to come.
– $5 million
We seek to raise a $5 million “Rapid Response” Fund to immediately purchase and land bank key properties adjacent to Pogo Park’s project sites.
Acquiring key properties now is critical for two reasons:
1. Acquiring and land banking properties – before investors realize the potential impact of new parks and street developments on prices – gives Pogo Park control over how to develop that land equitably, in ways that benefit local people.
2. Purchasing key parcels now will also provide Pogo Park with a foundational financial asset that is likely to dramatically increase in value over time. Additionally, owning and developing the land can provide Pogo Park with another revenue source to help pay for ongoing program costs.
This Fund will also support local residents to play a leading role in visioning, planning, and ultimately benefiting from how their neighborhood is developed.
– $5.5 million
Now is the time to build our organizational capacity, scale our impact, and execute our financial pathways to sustainability for generations to come.
Since 2007, Pogo Park has brought $50 million in investments into the Iron Triangle: $10 million from philanthropy and $40 million in public funds. That means for every $1 raised in philanthropy, Pogo Park has secured $4 in public support. It is likely that securing $25 million from this campaign alone will result in leveraging $100 million into Richmond – a potential 400% return on investment.
W hile the first three funds are focused on scaled impact, The Organizational Capacity and Sustainability Fund will build Pogo Park’s capability in the following strategic areas:
To support the maintenance and expansion of our parks and programs over the long term, Pogo Park will hire more program staff, build human resources and administrative systems, invest in Pogo Park Products, and expand our development team.
These investments in staffing will empower Pogo Park to invest in our fundraising capacity across all revenue streams; deepen our research and evaluation work in partnership with Professor Jason Corburn and The University of California Berkeley’s Department of City and Regional Planning; and ensure that each functional area of the organization is led by a subject matter expert.
An endowment would be a boon to Pogo Park’s financial sustainability efforts. While we plan to build our endowment over time, raising an initial $2.5 million will enable us to continue to invest long-term in the people and systems that fuel Pogo Park.
Total $25,000,000+
Number of Gifts
352
“Pogo Park is the new Richmond – the Richmond that doesn’t wait for someone else to come and do something for us. This is the Richmond that rolls up our sleeves and we do it for ourselves. I’ll look for this to be replicated all over town.
– Tom Butt, Richmond Mayor“
You feel the aura of the park once you walk in. It brings light to you, and you know it’s safe, you know it’s love, you know it’s people that care.
“– James Anderson, Pogo Park Community Development Team
“The jobs help us. It’s helping the children, it’s helping the neighborhood. When you have something to do, when you know that you’ve got to get up and you’ve got to go to work and you know you can make an honest dollar, it gives you less time to focus on other things like going out in the streets.
– Brandon Harris, Pogo Park Community Development Team“ “
The Pogo Park model really stands out. This is a unique form of community involvement and local economic stimulus.
– Viktor Patiño, Manager of California State Parks
Harbour-8 Park The original, community-driven vision for Harbour-8 Park. Pogo Park’s Community Development Team worked shoulder-to-shoulder with key partner Scientific Art Studio to translate this vision into a permitted set of construction drawings. We have the green light to build!
Fun Zone A thrilling, dynamic play area at the heart of Harbour-8 Park. The Fun Zone features: a 25-foot see-through climbing structure; disc swings; an old-school merry-go-round; a tetherball; five in-ground trampolines; a natural sand and water play area; and seating for 300 people to sit comfortably around the Fun Zone perimeter and watch their children play.
This hand-crafted, 3,500-square-foot community hall will become a go-to place for community events –and an iconic Richmond landmark. Harbour Hall’s one-of-a-kind exterior includes: windows everywhere to let in light; architectural details mounted on the walls; an expansive veranda with seating; and a private patio.
Inspired by famed Bay Area architect Julia Morgan’s designs for the interiors of churches and meeting halls, Harbour Hall – completely hand-crafted – features one large room with hand-painted illustrations on the wooden walls and ceiling; stained glass windows; towering pendulum lights; and exposed magnificent exposed trusses.
Zip Line Harbour-8 Park features two zip lines: one small zip line that is ADA compliant; and a second, 100-foot long, zip line with a soft rubber base made to look like a volcano.
Tot-Lot A dedicated, protected, ADA-compliant play area for babies and toddlers. The Tot-Lot features: animal sculptures; a mulit-colored soft rubber path; a climbable hill made of artificial grass with a slide, tunnel, cave, monkey bars, and water play; and a child-sized play kitchen built right into the perimeter fence.
Administrative Office
2604 Roosevelt Avenue Richmond, CA 94804 (510) 215-5500
toody@pogopark.org
Elm Playlot (Pogo Park #1)
720 Elm Avenue Richmond, CA 94801
Harbour-8 Park (Pogo Park #2)
909 Ohio Avenue Richmond, Ca 94804
Pogo Park Products
500 B Street Richmond, CA 94801
pogopark.org
Pogo Park is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization based in Richmond, California
All donations are 100% tax deductible
IRS Tax ID# 32-0318691
© 2022 Pogo Park