Issue additional clarifications for Point Molate housing development proposals

Housing & HomelessnessZoningReport

In Plain English

The city is seeking developers for the Point Molate waterfront site and needs to clarify key requirements. The updated proposal instructions will specify rules for affordable housing, maximum unit counts, and infrastructure financing. Developers must also provide shuttle or bus service to connect residents to transit.

Auto-generated summary. Source: official agenda documents.

Votes

Substitute motion to keep the existing request for proposals and send to the original larger list of companies originally contacted, along with a comprehensive Point Molate vision and include the following provisions: request that the master developers respondents incorporate concepts into the alternative plan by proposing that the development contains no housing on Drum Lot 2; includes a mix of affordable housing with goals of 2/3 to be moderate to low income; includes an evacuation plan and a transportation plan that describes approaches to bringing bus services; insure that infrastructure costs are self-funded with no additional costs to Richmond taxpayers and includes no bonds backed by the City and also includes former Councilmember Recinos stipulations and suggestions regarding the evaluation criteria

Failed

2 to 5

NBTBBCDIEMJMMW

Why This Vote Matters

Richmond's city council rejected a proposal to add stricter requirements to its search for a developer at the Point Molate waterfront site. The failed substitute motion would have banned housing on a specific waterfront lot, required two-thirds of all housing to be affordable, and mandated that developers pay for all infrastructure without city taxpayer support or bonds. In a divided 2-5 vote, only Councilmembers Martinez and Willis supported the additional restrictions, while Councilmembers Bates, Johnson III, Myrick, Vice Mayor Choi, and Mayor Butt opposed them. The council will now proceed with the original, less restrictive proposal requirements for this major development project.

Auto-generated context. Source: official meeting records.

To approve the staff report to extend the filing date to February 4, 2019, with the following additional clarifications: There is no restriction on use of Drum Lot 2, although respondents should explain why they need to propose housing or other uses there. There is no prescriptive requirement for affordable housing other than that under our inclusionary zoning ordinance, although respondents should explain how they determined their proposed affordable housing obligation. There is no upper limit on the number of housing units, although exceeding 1,100 would trigger more intense CEQA scrutiny. The City will support infrastructure financing strategies, such as Mello-Roos, Enhanced Infrastructure Financing Districts and others that do not obligate the general fund. There is no prescriptive requirement for a shuttle; just a discussion of a shuttle or other transportation options that do not involve privately owned vehicles and how that might be handled. Keep the evaluation criteria as is in addendum No. 1 with the addition of the following: Quality and creativeness of the proposed plan and design; proposed sales revenue and subsequent tax revenue accruing to the City; and number and type of jobs to be created

Passed

4 to 3

NBTBBCDIEMJMMW

Why This Vote Matters

The council voted 4-3 to extend the deadline for developers to submit proposals for the Point Molate waterfront development and clarified several key requirements. The updated rules give developers more flexibility by removing caps on housing units (though more than 1,100 would require additional environmental review), allowing any use of a specific lot called Drum Lot 2, and only requiring discussion of transportation options rather than mandating shuttle service. Councilmembers Martinez, Myrick, and Willis voted against the motion, while the mayor and three other members supported it. This marks a notable departure from typical zoning votes, as Martinez, Myrick, and Willis usually support such measures but opposed these particular clarifications for the major waterfront project.

Auto-generated context. Source: official meeting records.