Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Can you guys hear me? Okay. Yes, chair. We can hear you. Okay, we'll just hang out then. Yeah. All right. Sounds good.

Recording in progress. Good evening. Welcome to the uh planning commission meeting of uh March 5th, 2026. Um the U meeting is now in session. Um if you could turn off your cell phones, we'd appreciate it. Uh why don't we do the roll call? Good evening. Uh, Chair Harrison, present. Vice Chair Burbaker here. Secretary Timonss

here. Um, and Commissioner Zahab, here. Okay. Um, uh, planning manager Stark, would you like to introduce staff before we get started? City staff?

Certainly. Good evening, planning commission. Uh this evening we're joined by a number of city staff. Um we have James Atensio, senior assistant city attorney here um over the meeting, joined over here at the dis myself, Avery Stark, planning manager, also joined by Pete Severum, assistant planner, and then joined by Elden PTO, another one of the member of our planning team. Um and tonight's presentations uh will be given by both myself, Pete, and then Allison, who will be given the first presentation on Canal Boulevard. Thank you for that. Um, do we have minutes to approve tonight? Yes, you do have minutes to approve and they should be in your packet in front of you. Is does anyone want to make a motion for approval of minutes

perhaps? Commissioner, I move. Oh, Commissioner uh that we approve the minutes from the previous meeting. Is there a second? You I'll second. Okay. Do we need a a roll call vote? Yes, I'll call roll. Commissioner Chair Harrison, yes. Uh, Vice Chair Burbreaker, yes. Secretary Timmons, yes. And for the record, Golovitz is absent and Shahed, uh, because you weren't here at that meeting, you cannot vote.

Thank you for that. Um, I don't believe there's any consent calendar items tonight. There are no consent calendar items tonight. So, we will move on to the Brown Act public forum, which is an opportunity to address a planning commission on a topic not already on the agenda. Um, if has there been any speaker cards submitted? Yes, we have one speaker card for item uh Bruce Byron. Is this for an item on the agenda or not on the agenda? Is it for an item on the agenda or off the agenda? Okay, fantastic. There we go.

You can't see Please turn on the mic.

Okay. Good evening. My name is Bruce Bart. I'm chair of track trails Richmond action committee. I'd like to give you some good news tonight. Uh the Port Melotti Bay Trail is under construction. It looks beautiful. Go out in Richmond Sanfell Bridge Trail on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. You get a good look at it. It's looking great. It's two and a half miles from the bridge to the northern border of the city's Point Milani property at the B Chev Chevron uh border. Next is another mile and a half to go from the Point Milani around Point San Pablo to the Point San Pablo harbor. So that's in the works now and we're hoping that the city regional park district will work on getting that ready to go as part of the planning for Point Motti Regional Shoreline, including both the Point Milani property and the city's Point San Pablo property, former Terminal 4. You may be aware the city still owns 70% of Point Matti and the park district acquired 30%. Mainly the Win Haven Story District. So the city and the park district have to get together and figure out how to do this process applying a regional shoreline park extending the bay trail to the point siable harbor that'll make four miles. So I just want to share that good news with you. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Uh are there other public comments? If there's anybody online who has a public comment for an item not on tonight's agenda, uh please indicate so by raising your hand. Seeing none, we can continue. Okay. Uh so we'll move on to the bulk of the commission meeting and we'll start with item one which is the 1135 Canal Boulevard quarry residential project. Is there a staff presentation?

Yes. Good evening. We will be uh presentation will be provided by Allison um who sits in front of you this evening with ESA contract planner with the city of Richmond uh to present on the project and it is at this time. Yes. And I have to recuse myself because of the proximity of my home to this project. Correct. Thank you. I'm being sent to the back room.

Good luck. Um sorry, planning manager. Um what is the um requirement for quorum then for the for an approval of an item with the members that remain after the recusal? Three members, minimum of three for quorum. So you you'll successfully have quorum. So we have a quorum. Correct. And it'll be a majority vote to appeal or deny. Correct. Okay. Approve or deny. Approve or deny. Can we proceed? Yes.

Okay. Good evening, commissioners and members of the public. Uh we are here this evening to review a request for a planned area plan major design review density bonus for waiverss and vesting tentative map for the development of 76 new single family lots and dwellings. Uh the project site consists of one parcel totaling approximately 18.4 acres in size located just south of the intersection of Canal Boulevard and Secliffe Drive at 1135 Canal Boulevard. Uh the project site is located approximately uh 0.2 miles north of the San Francisco Bay within the Point Richmond area of the city. Uh the site is vacant um and is bound by Secliffe Drive to the east, vacant property and Seaccliffe Drive to the south and then Miller Knox Regional Shoreline Park um which is an East Bay Regional Park District open space area to the west and to the north. Uh the image here shows the existing site conditions um uh from the right of way. Sorry, next slide here. Uh shows the property looking northeast. And then here we see the property looking north. Um a bit of the project history. So in um 2016, the property owner acquired the property. 193 condo units were approved in 2018. Um, an subsequent application uh was submitted in 2022 for um 76 single family residents uh also detached. Those entitlements expired in 2024. In 2025, the applicant filed a new application on December 17th. Uh we took the application to design review board for uh their review and recommendation. Um and then tonight we're here before you uh for your review and approval as well. Uh, so the city I'm sorry to do next slide and see my notes.

One second. Okay, sorry about that. Um so in 2018 um the city certified an environmental impact report as part of the original project approvals. Um in 2022 when the project uh was resubmitted for 76 or came back for 76 single family residences. Um the city approved an addendum to that EIR that was certified in 2018 for the proposed revised project and that affirmed the analysis contained in the Corey residential project EIR adequately addressed the potential physical impacts associated with the proposed Corey residential project redesign. Since um uh the SQA determination um sorry planning staff has determined that there are no changes to the newly proposed revised project that are relevant to environmental review that would trigger subsequent environmental review as part of this project. Um so a little bit of project overview as you can see here on the site plan. Um, the project proposes to subdivide a portion of the project site, approximately 6.3 acres, into 76 residential par parcels ranging in size from approximately 2,000 ft² to 3,000 ft². Um, in addition, there would be seven additional common interest parcels, 76 detached single family houses. Each of those residential units would have uh private two-car garages for a total of 152 off- streetet parking spaces. 30 guest parking spaces are being provided in designated locations within the development. Two of those spaces would be for um electrical vehicles and two of those spaces would be accessible. 10% of the units or eight units will be deeed restricted to be affordable to moderate income households. Um four new privately maintained and

owned streets uh as well as an emergency vehicle access road connecting a street with Ccliffe Drive is part of the project as well. Um in addition to uh landscaping installations of enhanced lighting, especially at the intersection um of the project driveway, which you may be able to see here in this image, um and then at Secliffe Drive, as well as improvements to the Bay Trail. Uh the proposed site plan improvements include two new drive-through uh queuing lanes, elimination of the eastern right of way of parking, which would allow for proper ingress and egress to the site. Um, additional modifications are proposed uh per the transportation analysis which would provide um sorry controls at the drive-through exit to reduce the potential for pedestrian and vehicle vehicular conflicts. Um let's see here. So the residential uh design uh there are three different styles. I won't get into all of those details. Uh the design review board uh did uh approve the pro or recommend approval unanimously um with a favorable uh recommendation to you all tonight. Uh there are three different design styles each with three different floor plans. Um all of those design themes will be twotory structures for a total of nine uh distinct home styles. Uh there's a bit of variation uh in the floor plans as well um uh which we can get into a little bit later here. Um so this is a uh plan and style plotting uh showing just the layout of where the different um three different design styles would be uh spread out throughout the development. So um the project sorry it's hard to see my notes here. Uh the project requests approval under the RMC of a new planned area plan a new vesting tenative subdivision map and major design review. Um the project substant is substantially consistent

with the vesting tenative map and the planned area plan which was previously approved under PLN 21327. The project also complies with applicable zoning code requirements and general plan policies as well as the planned area findings and applicable design guidelines and criteria outlined in the RMC. Uh in addition to complying with RMC, the project uh is eligible for density bonus and has requested uh five waivers related to lot size and setbacks. So those waivers are for minimum lot size, minimum lot width, minimum front setback, minimum interior sideback, side setback, and minimum rear setback. The proposed project density is 12 units per acre with a total of 76 residential units. Um the revised project does comply with the zoning ordinance and the requirements of state density bonus law. As I mentioned before, uh 10% of the units will be sold at affordable sales price to moderate income households as defined in the zoning ordinance. Um and then prior to issuance of a building permit or approval of the final tentative parcel map, whichever is earliest, the applicant will enter into a written agreement with the city as specified in the municipal code. Uh the city has granted the waiverss to permit the revised project to be built as it is designed. Uh there's no substantial evidence in the record that shows that the revised project proposed tonight before you would violate state or federal laws and would have an in adverse impact on a property listed on the California Historical Register or have a specific adverse health or safety impact that could not otherwise be mitigated. Um, so as summarized in this table here, the project also complies with all applicable development standards of the RMC. I won't go into all of these in detail. Um, if there's questions, we can talk about them, but it complies with density, building height, maximum lot coverage, common and private open space, and then off- streetet parking. And then again, those waiverss requested tonight are for the lot size, and the setback compliance.

Um, as mentioned previously, the city certified the ER in 2018. In 2020, the city subsequently approved the addendum to the 2018 EIR. And then tonight before you, uh, based on our review of the application materials for this, uh, newly proposed revised project, the city has determined, uh, that compared to the previous modified project, there are no changes relevant to SQA environmental review that would trigger subsequent uh, review of the project. Uh the applicant has discussed the project with the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council in 2025 prior to the December 2025 uh DRB hearing and then again in 2026 um I believe towards the end of January. As of publishing of the staff report, the city received one letter from the public and then since publishing the agenda and staff report, the city has received about 10 additional letters that have been provided to you tonight. Uh so for uh next steps um tonight before you you'll be conducting a public hearing to consider the project and make a final decision on entitlement requests including design review besting tenative map planned area plan and sequa determination. Uh the commission's decision is appealable to city council within 10 calendar days. And so tonight, we recommend that you approve the new planned area plan and the project based on the six planned area and four design review findings and statements of fact along with the 58 conditions of approval. Uh you may also request changes and schedule a follow-up meeting or request changes and recommend approval with changes to be made. And with that, I will turn it over to the applicant team. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation?

Yes, the applicant has a presentation.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Todd Floyd. I'm the owner of the project over here. So, Allison did a great job giving you the overview of the project. I'd just like to take a step back. We've been here since 2018, actually 2016 when we bought the project. We're very excited about all the positive things that this project was going to do. Um, we got it approved in 2018. Unfortunately, as we all know, there's been some uh market issues, COVID, some other challenges that we've all had to live through that have delayed this project, unfortunately. Um, and we've had now a different iteration from what got approved in 2018. Um, but what hasn't changed and I'm very proud of is a lot of the positive things that we're doing with this project from we have a signed labor agreement, we have a PLA. Um, we are doing 10% of the units as affordable. So, we see how important that is to try to help bring housing to this community. Um, and we're proud of the fact that we're bring we're also improving the the Bay Trail. Um, maybe Bruce will talk about it. We're working with with track and we're not only improving the bay trails and the frontage of our project, but we're also uh adding uh a trail uh to to help people walk a different way that they can access through this area. We're creating a parking staging area for the for the trail there as well. Um because it's such a beautiful area, um we're going to help improve that and and make it uh m much more functional for people. Um, and I think the other thing I'm probably most uh proud of is the fact that when we came here in 2016 or 2017 and we started first having our neighborhood meetings, um, we didn't see eye to eye and and those can be challenging and tough, but I will tell you that uh, working with the the neighbors in Point Richmond, it was

always in good faith. They they actually helped us improve this. They were always never trying to block our project. Um, and here we are eight years later and I can actually call them friends now. And so I I really am most proud of the benefits this project's going to bring to the community. Um, and the fact that the neighbors have been involved very intimately on this through design and safety. They've added a lot of value and I think this is really just a great community project that u is going to benefit a lot of people. And so I mean that's really all I want to say tonight. Uh hopefully uh three times is a charm because it's our third time through here. Um that we can finally get this built and people can see uh what a great benefit this is going to be.

Thank you. I'm going to have Marca Valier. She's our landscape architect because she's doing some great things uh to also help the area with landscaping. Hi. Um, I'm Marcia Valier with CSWST2 and I'm not sure how to get this to project. Oh, it's project. Oh, it's No, it's not. I'm pretty inept. 12-year-old, anybody? There we go.

Okay. Okay. Very good. Um the the project is again a part of a small a smaller piece of a larger project site as um Allison said and again 76 units 3 to four bedroomedroom homes three architectural four architectural styles and um a couple of things that we really wanted to point out is the Bay Trail along Secliffe Drive. We worked closely with track um along Sea Cliff Drive in front of the project entry. We have the 5 to 7 foot buffer along the frontage, the 10 to 12 foot bay trail with the three-foot shoulder all along the the frontage of the project. Um the interior of the project has a tot lot. Um it has um ADA parking and it also has electric vehicle parking. So there's a very small tot. got lighting that runs throughout the site. It's low-level dark sky lighting. Um the the tot lot itself, we thought this would be kind of a fun thing to make it a little bit more like because it's a quarry site. Um there'll be climbing rocks and a little birdhouse. Um I thought it was cute, a little birdhouse play structure. Um and then gen in general terms, we've got a different fencing. We've got the horizontal board fencing along the p public frontage, the good neighbor fencing between the units, and then around the tot grid uh wood fence. So, it's a very residential character. And the site amenities are wood and metal. And again, the play area is uh sort of has a a nod to the quarry itself. Again, the lighting up in the top corner is um has the the cut off lenses, so it's a dark sky. Um, and then the other thing that we wanted to to highlight again is the staging area for Miller Knox. And we've got we've enlarged that and you can see

it's superimposed on to the site um so that you can see the the trail. It um is improved to Bay Trail standards and it links into the the improved Bay Trail along the frontage. Um the landscape is, you know, I've worked in Richmond since 1990. And so this is a pallet that has been honed uh to work with the um with with the coastal conditions in sun and shade um in and around the homes. Um and then the architecture itself. Um Jill, do you want to say anything about the architecture? it. They've worked Jill worked very closely with the design review board to come up with the the different unit types. And this is the general look of the neighborhood. And with that, this is the street frontage view. And with that, um, I'd like to just say thank you and we'll take your questions.

Thank you for the presentation. Um, do any of the commissioners have questions for staff or the applicant? Bruce, I wanted to say just a maybe a housekeeping thing, but the uh report refers to the meeting the planning commission meeting on February 2nd in the first first page or two. And I wonder if that it may not be relevant, but if that could be updated to March 5th, I think that would be might be appropriate. and I'll hold the rest of my comments for later. Okay. Do you have any questions? No, currently I don't have any.

Um I have a ser, you know, we received um public comments only here at the meeting because they weren't part of the staff report. They came in later. At least most of them did. Um, I'll have questions about that, but perhaps we should have the public hearing and then we could we could still ask staff and and applicant um questions after the public hearing. Is that right? Yes. Postpublic hearing you can have deliberation.

Okay. So, let's go to uh public hearing. Uh let's see. Um the procedure is that we'll open the hearing. Um we will um persons in favor of the project should speak. Persons opposing to the project should speak after. Applicant and proponents may rebut and then um and then we'll close the hearing. So can we start with public comments please? So for um a bit of housekeeping, we'll start with the members uh and guests here in in the city chambers with us and then we'll move online. Uh so members who are online, if you are interested in providing public comment, I can see some of you have already done so by raising your hand. Uh we will go in order but I have you on my screen after we conclude with in-person public comments.

And how much time do people have? Every speaker will have three minutes. Uh first we'll have Jason Lester come up.

Hi, good evening. Um uh commissioners, thanks for letting me speak tonight. Um my name is Jason Lester. I'm the assistant business manager of UA Local 159 Plumbers and Steam Pitters. Um, I'm here tonight representing um over a 100 Richmond households of um electricians, plumbers, um sprinkler fitters, and sheet metal workers here in this area. Um for the last 30 years, we've worked together as a group to support projects that promote sustainability and equity in Richmond through and throughout Contraosta County. Um and with that history, it's no surprise that we're here tonight asking you to support this project. Um the proposed housing will be more affordable by design for working families, which is huge for us workingclass people. Um it will also provide 10% of the units for families earning below the area's median income, which is also a huge plus. Uh the developer is willing to uh improve the trail head area for the um the muchused Crest Trail adjacent to the um project by improving the traffic circulation and parking. Um, right now Ccliff Drive is like a racetrack. Um, the developer is adding a traffic calming measures such as speed feedback signs, lane striping, and guard rails. These are all great things. Um, finally, the developer has made commitments to use local construction workforce and have apprentices on the project, which would be apprentices in all the four four crafts that I just spoke about that I'm here representing tonight. Um, when we have future work locked in, it means that we can offer more slots into our apprentichip programs, which is awesome. It's a great way into the middle class, a great way into um a solid career, and hopefully these young apprentices have a chance to buy a home maybe in this on in this project right here. Um, we also are affiliated with uh other programs like Richmond Build. And a lot of kids coming out of Richmond Build end up in apprentichip programs

just like my the apprentichip program that I went through back in 1999 to 2003. I know I'm aging myself, but hang with me for a second. U this is the right project in the right place. We can only address our housing crisis if we use underperforming sites like this one to create opportunities for home ownership. I think that this is the right place for this project. I think it's a great project uh for Richmond. it's also for uh future apprentices and that the fact that they're going to promise to use the local hire and our apprentices on this project. I think those are huge. So again, thank you um for letting me speak and have a good night.

All right, next we'll have Brian Lewis. Good evening, commission members. I'm Brian Lewis. I am part of the founding board members of the Richmond I'm sorry the Brickyard Cove Alliance for Responsible Development in Point Richmond and the in the Cove area. Uh we've been working uh with Todd for the last uh nine 10 years on this project and we're in favor of the project. What I a couple things that are unique to its location. Canal Boulevard comes down and we have photographs of cars have flipped wiped out the the Bay Trail sign and uh it's a very um dangerous curve right where their entrance is. And so we're advocating for a change in the road material using perhaps um cobblestones or something to show a change of of traffic pattern with a a residential area there. And perhaps there's not it's not very wide, but there might be enough space to put in a sort of kiosk, a small kiosk that maybe would have cameras there. There's a similar change of road over by the Richmond Yach Club and a kiosk and I live one of the closest houses to that area and it marketkedly does slow down the traffic and if it could be a way of uh changing the roads to mark the entrance uh that would be great to help slow down the traffic. The other thing I want to mention, um, developer Todd is and his colleagues have been very supportive of an emergency vehicle access road and they've offered to put up money for it. We realize it can't be part of their

conditions for this project because they had nothing to do with that emergency vehicle access. Their project doesn't, but they're voluntarily willing to put money up and which is to their credit. So, we're asking that um this actually be it's been in front of the city council. I mean, in front of the city for years. Nothing's been done. Uh there is one knockbox and we're suggesting that um it takes five speed bumps to go over to get to that Knox box. There's a photograph um that is in your handout that I took of a fire on the hill and uh the local fire truck got there. I got there before the firetruck. Firet truck showed up. All the other engines were delayed by the train and uh it was August 12th, a hot night and a fire could have spread very quickly. And so it's important to have a way of getting vehicles there without uh this is not meant for uh people to bypass the train. It's for emergency vehicles. And if there is an evacuation need, there is a hillside landslide, and if people have to vacate, this would be a way to get through for emergency exit. So, we're not advocating that this is a bypass for everyone for the train, but just for its emergency. Thank you. Next, we'll have Bruce Bayard. Good evening again. Bruce fire still track. Uh this project really does a good job for improving the Bay Trail. Existing Bay Trail along Canal Boulevard is in bad shape. Going to be repaved, widened. Uh they're putting in a new staging area for the Crest Trail and

Miller Knox Regional Shoreline with a nice connection between it and the Bay Trail along uh Secliffe Drive. They're putting a new interpretive sign. They're updating the existing Bay Trail you are here wayfinding sign. It it really makes some major improvements to existing Bay Trail. It's really a stark contrast to the next project you're going to hear which does nothing for the Bay Trail. So anyway, the pro the developer has done a great job of working to improve the Bay Trail landscaping very nicely along it. So thank you for time. Next we'll have Jeff Vines.

Um thank you to chairman and the commissioners for allowing us to speak. I'm Jeff Vines. I live at Brickyard Cove and also a member of BCARD, the same as Brian. Um I I'll I think I marked I'm against I'm not. We're we've worked with Todd and and we're for the project as it sits. Uh but I wanted to emphasize the importance of this emergency vehicle access. I sent a letter with a picture where we're proposing that the access go cut through the wareh property and this is for emergency access only. Uh and it'll be both gates are to be electrified with coded key pad access. uh developer has uh agreed, committed, recommitted to supply significant funds to help and the city has other funds that they've garnered from Brickyard, the uh dedication of Brickyard Cove Road. And so the this has been in the works for quite some time. Uh and we wanted to I'd like to make it a condition, but I understand that may not be possible. Uh the other is on Ccliffe Drive, the same as Brian said. Um this is a poorly designed road, very unsafe. There have been a number of accidents that have occurred over the last 20 years. The community pushed hard for a mini roundabout or left turn lane and that was not approved in the earlier efforts. Uh but I I support Brian's idea that um we have and would ask that you make it a condition that they put this this change in road surface in both

directions as you get close to that uh entry to the quarry project. Um, and then I ask that in the future, if this proves to be unsafe and there are accidents that occur, uh, that the city agree to step back and once again consider something like a mini roundabout or a left turn lane or some other uh, traffic engineer proposed solution to this. Thanks for your time. We'll move to the online speakers. We will start with uh Katherine.

You go ahead and speak and your time will start. Good evening, commissioners and city officials. Can you hear me? Okay. Yes. Okay.

Yes. My name is Katherine Deans. I live in Secliffe, which is immediately adjacent to the quarry site. Figure 3-3 in your packet on page 113 shows the Seaccliffe Cove, Secliffe, Cove 1, and City of Richmond boundary at the top of the page. It's on the south side. Figure 3-3 also shows a steep pathway which begins at Secliffe Drive, crosses Cove 1's property, not noted as Slope Easement, a terrace property created in 1986, and the pathway ends in East Bay Regional Park where it joins a network of trails. Not mentioned in your current staff report is the January 2023 Richmond ordered evacuation of 15 Sliff homes and police closure of streets for several months. This should be mentioned at is as it is an update to the 2018 uh squa elements. A hillside break was observed south of the pathway on all three lands, Seacliff, Cove 1, and East Bay Regional Park. In the three years that followed this incident, Secliffe has spent half a million dollars on geologic experts monitoring slope stability and modifying drainage. Apparently, historical fill on all three lands, Cove 1, Secliffe, and East Bay Regional Parks was the source of the break one rainy winter. Because three properties contain phil. Secliffe has report repeatedly approached Cove 1 and East Bay Regional Park for discussions and for permission to cross their properties to resolve it. There have been zero meetings and zero cooperation. Even Richmond City has been asked for help in encouraging cooperation. Because this has dragged on for three years unresolved, I would like to request that condition of approval number 59 be added for this project,

saying something like Cove 1/quarry development will work with adjacent properties, East Bay Regional Park, and the city of Richmond to resolve any current or future geologic issues. This is common sense. I also want to note that your staff report refers to the 2018 EIR which discussed geological challenges of this site in detail including 11 historical landslides on the cove one property. I'm not sure how many of you have read the EIR. Despite having the document number listed in this staff report, I was unable to locate it at the Richmond website in two hours of searching, but I had read it in detail years ago. The proposal has changed a lot and probably for the better, but not the challenging geology of the site. Years ago, the northeastern border of the Cove One property, which is now labeled conservation area in figure 33 was reinforced with pins. While this appears to have settled the historic landslide problem on the quarry site, a debris fence showed the figures. That is your time. Okay. Next we have Lisa. When you're ready, go ahead.

Good evening, commissioners. You know, Brickyard Cove, the port and nearby businesses have only two access routes, one of which is frequently blocked by trains in violation of city resolution 12908 squa and federal law. In 2008, the city approved the Honda port of entry project and it was commenced and the project commenced operations without fully implementing required MMRP mitigation measures as stated in that resolution. It has been operating non-compliantly for 18 years. It is my understanding that when Wearham Business Park was approved, no box access was required. That happened at the Northwest electrified gate. It is not present at either of the other two gates. The current functional route through the Wearham Business Park goes from the northwest gate off Wine Street all the way through to the east gate on Canal. You have to go over five plus speed bumps. It's completely impractical for fire trucks, police, or ambulances trying to get to an emergency in a timely manner. The community has advocated, and I in particular since 2013 when the Ferry Point tunnel was closed for over 7 months. This left the community with only one ingress and egress route out. That includes the port, all of the businesses along Canal Boulevard, of which there's over 400 tanks filled with potentially flammable material. One route. We have been begging, begging for access and we have been blocked every year. It is unacceptable. I negotiated a deal with Lena Velasco, former fire chief Mononttoya, and former police chiefs Bisa French and Tyrrona. We had an agreement.

That agreement cut through from the southwest corner to Canal Boulevard. We were getting we everything was agreed to. Rich Robbins came to the table. He's so upset with the city of Richmond. I got him back. That relationship is damaged again because the city sat for three years on an agreement and did nothing. We had full funding. $50,000 from the residents of Brickyard Cove was approved by the city council and allocated. Terry Manley agreed to fund part of this gate. We had more than the funding. The gate quote came in at $25,000 and you guys have over $65,000 committed and you did nothing. It's not right. And the our safety depends on this. And now you want to put more residents out there and the developer has agreed. Please listen. Thank you. There are no other public's comments online. So, we will close the public comment part of the hearing and return it to the commission for questions or comments. Who would like to start? I'll ask a couple questions, Bruce, if you don't mind.

Sure, go ahead. I was I was unclear on condition 55. Is it maybe that's what all this discussion is about? It says evaluate routes route research and and it and I wonder why what does it mean to re researching an evacuation route is is there there's no action to actually create an evacuation route. Is that related to what the most recent comments were about? Would it be helpful to read the condition out loud for folks?

Yeah, it'd be great. I don't have it right in front of me at the moment. Yeah. So, condition of approval 55 states, "Staff shall make best efforts to research and discuss with fire an emergency route as illustrated by Miss Johnson. Summary shall be noticed and introduced to city council." So, what does that condition actually obligate the a project to do?

So, it doesn't technically obligate this project to do anything under law, but um I can update the the planning commission and members of the public. I spoke to Chief Arsario um at 4:00 this afternoon and that knockbox is in place and is functioning and the gate um on the opposite side part of that drive aisle is in place and the date three threepart daisy chain lock um and the automatic opening function which is a remote from the key of the truck um is in place. Um, fire inspectors will be out one more time next week for a final inspection, but that uh component of the off-site, although not related to this project, but it safety is in place um and does meet the standards of our fire marshall and our fire department in terms of their ability to provide service in the event of emergency um in conjunction with work with our EOC again in the event of evacuation in tandem with the police department. So just to clarify, it sounds like the issue from the city's side is getting resolved. At least that knockbox issue is getting resolved.

Correct. The question of access has been resolved. We currently have keys and have access in the event of an emergency. Jonathan, do you have other followup uh on that one? I guess we will have to uh see if that that improvement begins to resolve the concern of the neighborhoods. I live in that area. I live at Brickyard Landing. Uh so I acutely aware of the issue as well. Uh I had a question before you move on.

Sorry. Before you move on, is is there is there some way that what you you said that this is close to being done and that it's anticipated to be done in a couple weeks. Is there some way to communicate back to the community when it is actually done?

So, it is done. It is in place. If a fire operator approached the gate, they would have a Noxbox key to enter the property after the gate closes during closing hours and then another key to open up the gate on the opposite side. It also has a daisy chain on the other side to allow for utility access PG& in the city of Richmond in the event of an emergency. So, it's currently in place and functional and already would be able to serve in the event of an emergency. The final inspection is still due. We do a rough and we do a final. So, the final is still outstanding. Um the majority of our fire um inspectors have been at a training this week and so they have not been able to conduct that inspection this week, but they will do so the beginning of next. As far as communicating um the work that is done, I can work with um Chief Osario um and staff regarding like the EOC department to see if there's a way we can put out a formal um update once that work is completed. I will

Okay. Thank you. Sorry, Jonathan. Go ahead. No problem. Uh, I had a question about uh off-site parking. I miss what was stated by uh staff report. Is parking going to be allowed on Ccliffe Drive? Uh, no. That there will not be off-site parking on Secliffe.

Okay. And it'll be signed. I can't remember. There's signs there now. Will there be there'll be signs to that effect? No parking signs. If there are not currently signs or if new signs need to be provided, I will coordinate with public works to evaluate with our public engineering and traffic engineering team the necess necessities of that.

Okay. Um, one of the questions that's uh issues that has been address that's suggested that there's a maybe a problem is the risk of a wildfire. It seems like this site is not immediately adjacent to an area that could be um engulfed in in wildfire given the steep manufactured slope behind it, but is there any do my fellow commissioners or the staff feel there might be a need to do any kind of vegetation modification around that side of this project to make sure that there's in effect a fire break of 10 or 15 feet wide. I don't know what they have to be in that on that slope area not within the uh not within the pro project proper but immediately next to it on that side to basically provide pro provide one more additional way of of providing fire safety can lightly comment on that. I do know that this portion of point Richmond has been uh recently removed by Calire from the extremely high fire severity zones. I know that Chief Osario and the fire department will be returning to the community with updates to those maps and to their plans regarding wildlife or wildfire management. Um I think that would be the best and most prudent time to have the conversation around ground zero um and the requirements of minimum landscape buffering um uh in the you know in those areas. Could could I um just follow on that which is I don't have in front of me the conditions of approval. Um but the fire department generally sets many conditions as part of the of their conditions. Right. So the fire department must have understood this

fire issue and addressed it in their conditions. I would expect. Correct. All city departments and divisions have reviewed um and issued comments conditions of approval. In many cases, particularly to the fire department, the condition um is broad in nature and simply states that upon submittal of a building permit that the application will be designed in compliance with fire code at that time. Again, given the the length of time between when an application starts and when it submits a building permit and the building code cycle could change some of those standards, but the project before it be able to be issued, a building permit would be required to conform to current fire sto fire standards and codes.

I have one one last question, Bruce, if I may. Um, this this is I'm assuming the roads and common areas are going to be maintained by the homeowners association or some is that correct? I didn't see anything to that effect in the staff report or conditions of approval or anything like that. I'm it seem logical that there has to be some maintenance mechanism and if that usually is handled through CCNRs and this particular project doesn't have a requirement for CCNRs yet one we're talking about later similar type of situation does require CCNRs to and will be taking care of all the private private improvements. So, uh, do we need to add a condition of some sort requiring CCNRs and the and the maintenance of all the private fac uh in in in uh improvements in within the project?

Yeah, I can uh start responding to that. The revised project will include um, as Marcia mentioned, landscape common areas and those will be maintained by the homeowners association. I don't know if that's approval. Um the city's RMC code does require that CCNRs um be provided to us for review prior to the establishment of this community. So um although I will double check the resolution, if needed, we can certainly have the commission add that. Um but as codified, the applicant as a part of the subdivision is required to provide us a copy of their CCNRs for review

and that includes maintenance of lands common landscape. In this case, it also includes maintenance of the Bay Trail. Is that right? There is a condition for that as well. Yes.

So, that would be covered by the HOA. I would I would uh like to see an additional condition maybe just simple one that says as Avery pointed out these the CCNRs will be required per section XYZ of the of the city's ordinances and that that these specifically these things like the Bay Trail, the landscaped areas, the the private roads will be maintained. something that this was written down in the conditions of approval uh and doesn't slip by the slip by. I'm sure it wouldn't since it's such a important requirement, but nonetheless, it really makes sense to me to have it in there as a uh condition of approval. I think that's a reasonable condition um that you can formulate when you make a motion at the end and staff can work with the applicant to ensure that it is um worded correctly and again with our city attorney to make sure it meets all of our requirements from the municipal code standard.

Okay, that's it for me. Um Commissioner Shaw, do you have questions? Um no, I feel like you guys summed up pretty much everything. Okay. I have some questions. Um question I think for the applicant uh is I was on the commission in 2022 when the planning commission reviewed and approved the project. I'm wondering if there's been any changes to the project since that approval in 2022. I'm not talking about the first one in 2018, but the one that came before the commission two three or four years ago

from the most recent one in 2023 or 2022 2022 I think it came to the commission. Yeah, there were some we did make some minor changes uh working with the DRB uh when it comes to the architecture. We did some some slight modifications that were all recommended by the DRB that we implemented. Uh and then per the DRB, Marsha worked with them to try to create some more parking which we did on the site um and and created some crosswalks uh for for traffic flow within the project. But the tweaks all came from working with the DRB and their recommendations. Okay. And if you want to see what those are, we can we can walk you through those.

No, that's that's fine. I it's it's interesting to hear that there was some work done on parking and getting additional parking spaces done. Uh thank you for that. So um kind of my point is that we have seen a project almost identical to this and approved it. Um that's just the start of my comments and questions. We do have a lot of correspondence though 10 letters. Many of the points have been brought up by the public speakers um already. Let me just ask a few more things to the applicant or to the staff. Um the letters uh included concerns about the layout being tight, there being little space for landscape. Um, that's kind of the general general question about that. So, is there a comment about that, the layout being as tight as it is and the fact that there isn't really a lot of landscaped areas?

I think Marcia did a pretty great job of of landscaping the best she could, you know, and remember, we're trying to balance um bringing as much affordable housing as we can to the to the site. Um, so it is it is tight. Um, but it it it's a it's a layout that helps us yield as as many affordable housing as we could possibly get on the site and and maintain um landscaping and and connectivity with the trails.

Thank you. Um, the commenters mentioned noise from industrial. Is that going to be an issue? And I don't know if the the SQL I haven't had a chance to look. There's a comment came in recently, but is noise an issue from the the neighboring industrial Yeah. sites? I mean, I Yeah, I think we're trying to help with with vegetation to try to drown some of that out. Um, but we, you know, I think Marsha's is working and has worked to try to do to help with the noise mitigation.

Okay. Um several of the commenters seem to uh um make a comment about existing street light lighting and saying that some street lights are out. I didn't fully absorb these, but is anyone familiar with those comments? I am

um I do know that this has come up before um also at city council. Um, I believe through the public works director I can confirm whether the lights are are there. I know that they had done a work order to put in new lights along Ccliff Drive, but I work with Daniel um to affirm that and then uh communicate that back out. Okay, so that's underway. Um, one of the commenters tonight said something about geology and landslides. Uh I presume that was uh the project has been engineered but do you have uh any comments about landslide?

No I mean that was all thoroughly studied uh initially.

Yeah and I can add to that. Um so the incident was not a change in the conditions or the circumstances uh that would change the impact of the project. Um and that was studied in the e and the addendum as well. Okay. Um, sounds like many of the comments regarding EVA could hopefully be getting resolved by city, which is great news. Um, I guess the last thing I'm wondering is, um, somebody was asking for this traffic calming to be done. And so question to the applicant, is that part of the project to do some kind of new paving at the foot of Secliffe to slow down traffic there?

Yeah. So um obviously safety is a is a major concern for us with the residents of this community. Um and and we have an extensive and you can it's a it's been a condition of approval since 2018 that we are committing to traffic calming measures um that we think and we know will help uh slow traffic down on Ccliffe, make it safer. Allison, do you have that exhibit that we can at least you can kind of see some of the exhibits of what the traffic calming measures are? Yeah, let me try to plug while you get that up. I just a question. Is that a condition of approval or? Yes. Okay. Yep.

Yeah. And there are three conditions of approval related to traffic coming. Okay.

Bruce, while she's looking for that, I a question. You talked about the uh tightness of the site and I gather everyone is going to put their trash out in wheelie bins. And I'm just looking at the roads and and at some of the corners. Has anybody studied to make sure a solid waste truck can get around in there? And especially when you've got cans out in front of houses that you know the driveways are unlikely to be a place where you can put your trash can. You're probably going to have to put your trash can out in the street. So, has uh this been run by the solid waste group to make sure their trucks are going to be able to navigate this site? Yes. Uh a driving template for the maneuverability maneuver operability maneuverability of uh solid waste trucks has been studied. Um and our solid waste team along with our environmental science team is confirmed that the proposed project and its design um complies with city ordinances related to trash recycling and compost for a private subdivision.

Great. Thanks. Okay. Can I I have the traffic caling measure slide. I don't know how to change the screen. Oh, perfect. And I believe yeah, you can see we've got feedback signs. I mean, you can see it for yourself. I don't need to explain it, but the this is these are exhibits of what is in the conditions of approval. And there are conditions of approval 28, 29, and 30.

Okay, great. Thanks for that. Um, so those were my questions. Uh, any other comments, follow-ups from commission? Does anyone want to make a motion? Um, you know, I I the only comment I would have and then I'll make a motion is that I think this is the first project we're seeing in which the housing is responding to the uh affordability issue that has been plaguing California for a decade. And we're just gonna I think it's the one of our first experiments in Richmond on will small houses on small lots uh work as a effective building an effective community. And so, you know, we all have I have reservations about these this, but you know, we need to do it and the the applicant has definitely made effort to make this as uh agreeable a loc project as possible and we'll just have to see how it works out, how the community receives site houses on this tied together. Hopefully, it'll work out. So I would move to uh approve the project. I'm not sure which resolution number it is. I don't have that in front of me.

Uh 2206. So move to approve resolution 2206 and the uh associated conditions of approval adding a condition that the project shall uh provide CCNRs per the city's uh standards and those CCNRs among other topics shall address the maintenance of the bay trail, the maintenance of the common open space areas and maintenance of the private roads. And for point of just for the record, that will be section 159479130.

Thank you. Uh, is there a second? Um, I'm coming in last minute, so I'm reviewing everything and it seems to me like everyone put in a lot of effort for this project to go through from the beginning to now. Um, I definitely will pass this uh motion on as well. So, you second the motion? Yes. Okay. Uh, could we take a vote? Yes. Uh, Chair Harrison? Yes. Vice Chair Burbaker? Yes. For the record, Secretary Timmans is abstained. Golovitz is abstained and absent. And, uh, Commissioner Shade,

yes. Thank you all. Item passes. Thank you. Okay. So, we'll move on to the next item. We need to get the other commissioner out of the back room and we can put all this paperwork away.

Okay. Good.

Hi. I think I can tell that So we'll just probably Okay, I think we'll get going with the next item. Um, we are skipping to number two and we're going to item three, which is PLN23117 Marina Point Residential Project. Public

hearing to consider design review of 70 single family units and 30 junior accessory dwelling units on a 4.2 acre site. Do we have a presentation?

Yes. Good evening, uh, planning commission chair, members of the planning commission. Uh, Avery Stark, planning manager. I'll be presenting tonight on the Marina Point residential project, as you noted, PLN 23117. Here we have an aerial photo of the site on the left hand side. U, this was an aerial drone uh, footage that was provided to us by the applicant. On the right hand side here, I'll just briefly outline what we have. We have the project site. Um highlighted in red to the right of the project site we have the RCA Edwards Shoreline Park. Adjacent to the project site you also have Rosie the Riveter. You have the Ford Assembly plant. Um and then you have the Richmond Ferry Terminal. Um the project site also uh for for context is at the terminus of Marina Way um within the city of Richmond. And just a a way of background, um this application was filed um preliminarily as a SP330 application in February of 2023 and submitted their formal application in April of of that year. The city's response and deadlines under SP 330 were not met, which impacts how we've processed this project. Under SP 330, the city must issue a written determination of consistency within 30 days of the application being deemed complete. Because that did not occur, the project is deemed consistent as a matter of law, even though it does not meet the city's density or land use standards. This does limit the planning commission's authority um and review subject only to objective standards. And I will go through more about um the legal framework um throughout this presentation. Uh so here again we have the site highlighted in in red. Under the general plan, the site is designated as highintensity mixeduse CM5 zoning which

requires a minimum of 40 dwelling units to the acre. The project as currently proposed um is 16.1 dwelling units per acre um which is substantially below the minimum. However, uh due to the SB 330 procedural issue, we must treat the project as procedurally consistent for the entitlement processing. Um and by staff documenting the substantive inconsistencies in the record. So, it's noted that it is inconsistent, but under a matter of um practice and law, we do have to deem it to be considered consistent. Uh going to talk briefly here about the purpose of the shoreline overlay district um which is part of our general plan which is to implement policies related to shoreline protection, water quality, wildlife and habitat conservation and public access to the San Francisco Bay. The overlay district is a geographical boundary which is intended to ensure the development occurring within um 100 ft of the shoreline or within the designated public access zones extending from the ordinary high water mark to the nearest arterial public roadway is designed and constructed in a manner that protects natural resources, provides appropriate shoreline access opportunities consistent with the general plan. uh the city determines that these standards remain in enforceable and in effect um as they are objective and independent. This the uh conditions of approval attached um do provide uh that the approval of this project and the condition applies as the area of the shoreline is a geographical area and the project site is within 100 ft of the shoreline. going to speak briefly about the site and the architecture. As you see here on the screen, um this is a vantage point from the end of the terminus of the of the culde-sac looking from Laquishia Edwards Park. Uh your foreground you have the first set of homes and then in the for the the rear you begin to see Rosie the Riveter on your left and then behind that to the left again is the

Ford assembly plant. Um the homes will be three-story homes generally at 35 ft in in max height. There is a mix of different siding, stucco, and masonary veneers. Um, and I will let the applicant team speak more specifically about the design. Here is a uh rendering of the Marina Way entry um which is the second entry closer to away from the bay. Um, as you can see, there's been uh great work and extensive uh communication between the design review board and the applicant to increase the landscaping plan um and the uh the design of of these homes um was was great care was taken and a lot of consideration by two meetings at the design review board uh to get us to today's product. Just a little bit here of an overview. Um there are multiple different types of color palettes and styles of the home. Um again this is not meant to be a conversation about design but just to illustrate the the mix and the style of the homes throughout the site um is varied isn't intended uh to create a harmonious look. And again while I'll let the applicant speak to the design elements of this project. Um, this is a small insert of the project plans that just illustrates and shows the separation and the current proposed location of the last house closest to Rosie the Riveter. Um, this has come up as a question as far as how close it is to the property line and then just understanding that it is a tight site and Rosie the Riveter is uh built right up to its property line. And so this is just to help understand and frame that that last house will have a small retaining wall and then a a seven foot privacy fence that will run along the property line. It is again in compliance with the objective standards around fencing and and we just wanted to highlight that um this was a topic of

question and so I just wanted to point it out to the commission this evening briefly about circulation and access. Um so they'll be accessed through two private streets A and C as you see on your screen and then a number four alleyways um within the subdivision. Uh the drive aisles are 24 ft wide uh internal drive aisles and again satisfy both the turning radius of um both the fire department's uh vehicles and waste uh management vehicles. Um, the project provides 154 parking spaces, two enclosed garage spaces per home, plus 14 guest parking spaces. In the proposed plans, the applicant has 13 additional on street spaces on Marina Way South. Um, but in coordination with public works, we've indicated um that the city cannot accept or accommodate those 13 additional on- street parking spaces as they interfere directly with the Richmond Wellness Trail phase 2. Just a little bit of our landscaping plan here and I know the applicants will talk more about this in detail um but it does propose um just over 25% of the site is landscaped area exceeding the minim min minimum standards as required by our municipal code. It includes native coastal shrubs, um a bio retention basin, a private community park, um with play and seating amenities, um and again multiple tree species that have been selected from the city's approved tree list. And I'm sure um the applicant will speak more to that. And just to highlight here, this is that um community park within the development um fixed with benches, grills, bike racks um and small play areas uh for residents and children of this community. In terms of lighting compliance, all

lighting is downward and directed and shielded. It does comply with RMC section regarding shielding of light and downward illumination and the allowable uh candle width of amount of light that can extend up to the property boundary. Um the lights are also wildlife sensitive and required in the shoreline area. So again you see these lower to the ground lights here on the right hand side. Um and again the lights that are in the uh upper photo um are also um again compliant with city ordinance downward lit. Um and again I can let the applicant speak more to the design. The main portion of this application this evening is the vesting tenative map which is to vest the rights of 70 for the development of 70 residential lots um five common area parcels which would become a part of the HOA and as conditioned in this project the responsibility of those of the HOA and the CCNRs is outlined um to meet the standards of the city's municipal code and investing tenative map has been reviewed under RMC section uh 1504704 for um which primarily is again that the project is consistent with the general plan policies zoning regulations to the extent permitted by state law. Um staff has made the uh findings and provisions that the site um has adequate and sufficient infrastructure including streets, utilities, drainage and public services to provide these homes. and that the design of the site has also been uh vetted by our transportation department for providing safe and orderly circulation including emergency vehicle access within and around the site. It complies with all lot design, access and easement requirements as established by the code. Speak briefly about the inclusionary housing. Um this project um will provide 10% moderate income

units. Um three affordable units will include junior accessory dwelling units. And then the for the purposes of compliance with our ordinance, the exteriors of these uh units and the um amenities of these units um between those that are market rate and those that are not market rate will be indistinguishable from each other and and effectively be virtually the same. going to speak briefly um here about housing element. Um so this project is a housing element site. It was designated in our housing element as being um an assumption of holding 197 moderate income units. Um the proposed project um at 70 and moderate income units at 7. Um so there is a capacity difference that the city is um facing which is 190 moderate units. Um so under a number of different sections of government code related to the no net loss um when a project provides fewer units by income category than assumed in the housing element the city must uh determine whether the remaining sites can still be met through its reena obligations which will be something we'll we working with um post entitlement. Um, we will have 180 days uh to return uh to this board and as part of a public memo updating our site inventory list and and the analysis around how uh we continue to meet our housing goals and as a part of the condition uh for this project tonight um as added recently that was not included in your packet this evening um to approve the project with a condition um that the applicant um supports and funds the housing element no net loss compliance analysis to the city so that we and evaluate whether the approval of the project affects its ability, the city's ability to meet its reena housing obligations. Um, a key component of that analysis, it would give us the opportunity to evaluate whether the JAD use associated with the project could be reasonably counted towards our housing capacity through a

market analysis and if so could help offset the reduction of the moderate income units assumed to be on this site. A little bit about the environmental review. Um the project has tiered off the general plan EIR and has qualified for a SQA class 32 infill exemption. Um this was prepared um by first carbon solutions and then peer-reviewed by two um subsequent um SQA consultants hired by the city of Richmond um to pre-review that uh class 32 exemption to determine that it does conform and that the new project does not present any new significant impacts and that no additional environmental review is required. And again this was in the form of an initial study and a consistency checklist. um that again both the applicant had provided and then the city had gone through our uh on call consultants to do a peer review of their work. There are a few rounds of discussion to ensure that they aligned at the same answers and um they they have um staff's review and the design review again was limited to objective design criteria. This include um facade articulation, window patterns, material transitions, lighting and things of that nature. Um the applicant has worked very closely with the design review board to uh make modifications and adjustments um to bring this project forward to you this evening that represents the two meetings of the design review board on their input in terms of of how this project um will will reflect um the city of Richmond. Just a little bit of an over here for planning commission. Again, uh your review is and the findings to be made are based solely on objective standards. The commission may offer comments on design but cannot require changes based on subjective preferences or land use policies.

Um the conditions of approval include compliance with project plans, water efficient landscaping standards, lighting requirements, public art obligations, and CCNR elements related to maintenance and access. The project is also conditioned um must protect the habitat as a part of the shoreline overlay and maintain public access provided within that shoreline area within 100 ft of the shoreline. um and would coordinate with BCDC um if applicable to avoid any erosion or so shoreline alterations um and would work closely with the city in the future to to come back as a part of this project requires a conditional use permit for any work that is done within the shoreline ban and for this project having um project site located within that 100 foot would be a conditional use permit to return to discuss that our engineering department has reviewed um key engineering conditions that are in your packet are included to uh cover storm storm water C3 compliance. So your bio retention swells emergency access denying design for um emergency vehicles and pavement restoration on the pavement condition index survey. So again, our engineering team has reviewed both the vesting tenative map and the site's improvements for compliance with Richmond municipal code standards. In addition, the fire department is also um required that they include the hydrant spacing um is accurate and that the fireflow apparatus access roads are are accessible and adequate and that there is a condition regarding um uh the NFPA 13R sprinkler system for all structures which is a very technical term for sprinklered homes. Um, in conclusion, um, the project is procedurally consistent, um, and deemed consistent under SP330. Um, I will note

that it is not actually consistent with the general plan or the CM5 zoning as I've uh, illustrated and you'll find in your packet. Uh but your authority tonight um is limited to objective standards as defined by the municipal code and the staff's uh recommendation as outlined in the uh resolution. Again, staff provides no recommendation for approval or denial due to procedural limitations under SB 330. Um but as outlined, the planning commission should provide comments and determine whether it wishes to recommend approval or denial of the project. Option A is approval. that language is found in your resolution and option B is denial and that language is also found in your resolution. Staff also asks and the commission upon its motion at an additional uh condition of approval regarding the applicant must fund a housing element no net loss compliance analysis in order for us to move forward with identifying um alternative sites andor potentially utilizing the existing proposed junior ADUs as being something we can count towards um the moderate or low potentially based on a market analysis which would help reduce the burden of um the housing element in our responsibility under Reena. And at this point, I will move to if you have any questions or if you'd like to have a presentation from the applicant, they do have a presentation that um they'd like to run through as well.

Are there questions from the commissioners of staff? Go for it. This is just a technical technical question. Um I have no idea what the deal is. When you have an affordable house, those seven homes, does that move forward if the initial buyers sell it, what's the category? Does the category remain or Yeah, so the category will remain in effect. It'll be deed restricted for 55 years against the property title. So those units would be um below market rate units for sale. Okay. Thank you. Question. Um, currently I have no questions.

Commissioner Harrison, I'm ready for the applicant's presentation.

Okay. I I have one question for staff. Um, appeals. I know there's a limit on the number of meetings. As far as appeals, so because of SP330, this project is limited to five public hearings. This will be its third public hearing. Um so if the project is uh approved this evening um there is still if it was to be appealed it would go to planning commission. If it was denied it would sorry it would go to city council. If it was appealed it would also um on denial it would also go to city council and that would be the fourth meeting.

Thank you. Okay, I'll let you guys take over.

Yeah, but it's not on the screen. No, KCRT, if you could please put the slide deck up. Thank you. Thanks.

Um, my name is Marcia Valier. I work with CSWST2 and uh the team will introduce themselves as they go. Um, the the project again is a infill project. It's a reuse of the Kaiser shipyards and it's uh Marina Point project. It's 4.92 acres and it's in the Marina Bay neighborhood. The plan again um envisions 70 market rate housings um small single lot single family housing. 10% again are offered at the affordable sales price to moderate income households. And there are 30 market rate ADUs. There's a tot lot shared open space and landscape frontage area and pathways that we'll talk more about. The the location of course is right now near the Ford building. It's in the Marina Bay neighborhood next to Lacricia Edward Shoreline Park. The uh Marina Bay neighborhood is a mix of housing types. As you look at the um picture in the top right corner, you can see there's single family um detached two-story homes at Sunset Point Bayfront and then it begins to swing around to condominiums, two-story condominiums. When you get to the center of the picture, there are three condominiums. Um, and then as you continue to go around, three-story uh town homes and then you get to the point and it is uh three-story single family detached homes. And so the um texture of what we're putting in does fit within the overall texture of the existing community, Marina Bay community. The aesthetic that we're looking at is to really um take um a nod to the historic shipyards. There is a remnant concrete wall. And so the walls that we're proposing are the board form concrete

that are very much they're sort of that brutal concrete look that um is part of many of the buildings. um the Kaiser shipyard buildings, the coastal planting, we are looking to do some really nice native plants mixed with some of the ornamental plants as they get closer to the homes. Um the the homes are all outside of the 100 foot BCDC um area and we have two entry roads um A Street and C Street and then we have a number of different driveways um within and and a central spine roadway within and um the sidewalks within are at least five feet in all locations. We have a tot lot in the center. We have little mailbox areas and there is some parking on the interior of the project. The frontage along Marino Way south is um kind of a fun combination. You can see up in the top corner um the picture um of these the bio retention basins will be used to create this really nice naturalistic edge and um you know with boulders and different um types of of landscape to really buffer and begin to integrate the housing into that coastal environment. The streetscape itself will have uh street street trees and very regular spacing and those are all um species that would be part and and compatible with the urban greening master plan for the city of Richmond. At the entry road on a street, the homes are pulled back a little bit so that there's a little bit more of a gracious entry. And then along the the that spine there's the um the tot. The interior will have crosswalks, different uh different materials and colors that will be compatible with the colors of the homes. And there will be some fencing and the fencing will be the

good neighbor fencing. It's a wood fencing in between units. The tot lot itself is um we we've tried to create a tot stainless steel kind of ship building kind of look with with the play equipment. The um site furnishings also has that stainless steel look with a little bit of wood to do the the native and the natural textures with the um with the sort of the stainless steel um and uh metal look of the shipyard. The site amenities again, we've got the the lighting that um Avery talked so eloquently about. Um, we've got the low-level ballards, we've got the the um dark sky compliant lights, and then we also have a grouped mailbox that's in the corner, the bottom corner.

Um, with that, I'd like to turn it over to the architect to start to talk a little bit about the design of the homes. That's David.

Thank you, Marcia. Um, my name is David Burton. I'm an associate principal with KTGY the architects for the project. Uh happy to be here with you this evening. Um a um key thing to know it's through the design review process that uh as Avery talked about we coordinated very closely with the design review board on this. We had a very different looking design initially and after our first meeting, we got a lot of feedback from the design review uh commission and uh and we really appreciated that and took to heart uh their their desire to create something that as they said was more kind of iconic uh in design and uh was really kind of more specific to the place, not just a community that can be anywhere. And so we've really redesigned all of the architecture uh with that in mind and got a good response from the design review board when we came back to them the second time. Uh so what you're seeing here is the the the homes that face out directly towards the bay and uh overlook the the waterfront. And what we're uh trying to do here is we really looked at the the Ford assembly plant near next door. How could we because that's such an iconic structure and how could we how could we relate to that? And so there are these sawtooth roof skylights uh as an element of of that building and these kind of strong corner elements and the brick in the in the in the in the architecture. And so looked at these homes as they because they'll be kind of seen as a a pair with that Ford assembly plant. uh when you're looking at this from the water. Uh and so we picked up on that sawtooth roof skylight element with the shed this repetition of these shed roof forms. Uh

and then these end elements that act uh as these kind of bookends and the way that you get kind of the bookends on the ends of the Ford assembly plant. Um uh the pavilion at the the crane pavilion at the end. Uh and then uh this is a view from from the street. We worked on getting these enhanced bays on the sides of the buildings to really take away just it's not just a flat surface. So we get some kind of play of light and shadow and and and sculpturing sculpting of the form. Uh as you move along the street, this is a view as you're coming in the main entrance uh into the neighborhood. Um, uh, it was talked about before a little bit, the interface with the Rosie the Riveter, uh, museum that we had really pulled these buildings back to get them out of the 100t shoreline. And one great thing that that does is that this house that's uh, closest to the museum is back at least 4 like 42 feet from the from the front edge of the Rosie the River building. And then we're somewhere between 10 and 13 feet away from it uh as we run parallel to it. And an important part of that, the upper photo, uh you can see that there's the big logo for uh on the on the on the gable end of of the museum. And you can see in our um the kind of inset of our our rendering there on the on the left, we didn't get the logo into the into the rendering, but you can see that that gable end is fully visible uh from the from the shoreline.

Yes. Um and uh and then we've also pulled back the sideyard fence of that unit so that it's uh away from the corn the the the back corner of the building to really let the the the the museum kind of still stand as a as a freestanding building as much as we possibly can. Uh this is just a quick overview of we have three styles to the to the to the architecture and three different you know so three different roof forms of really very and this was again worked through with the design review board so that there's all these buildings kind of work together as an ensemble but you still get a good variety of window forms, roof forms, uh light and dark color palettes and things like that so that we get good variety as you move through the neighborhood. And here's uh just a quick example of a couple of street fronts. The upper one being the that main street is uh a street as you as you drive into the into the neighborhood and then the second one being uh the street the the row of houses at the most inland uh row of houses. Uh so so you can see how that variety runs um down the street. Uh so that's uh my presentation. Uh we wanted to have uh Brian Wentner come up Winter come up and speak to you guys very briefly. Uh we're available to answer any questions and thanks for your time.

Uh good evening chair and commissioners. Uh Brian Winterland use council. Uh one moment Brian the 10 minutes has expired. So, I want to ask the the commission um the 10 minutes of aotted time for the applicant to uh speak has has passed and so I would ask you if you'd like to all lot any further time um for the the What's your preference? You have any do you want to hear from the applicant? Five minutes. Okay, I'll try to be faster than that.

I just wanted to briefly uh again Brian Winter from HSW. I'm the land use attorney on behalf of the applicant. uh been working on this project for several years. Um want to thank Avery and city staff for all their good work and connection um with this project. And I just wanted to highlight three quick points um that were touched on already, but I wanted to emphasize them a little bit more maybe a little bit differently. But the first one was the the fact that the project application was deemed complete and thereafter deemed and that's deemed complete under the permit streamlining act and it was thereafter deemed consistent um with all of the city's land use regulations in the general plan and the zoning ordinance wherever they reside um under the housing accountability act. Uh that that deemed consistent um status applies also to the shoreline overlay district. I want to emphasize that that that's not excluded from uh the consistency um status of the project as a result of um what happened under the HAA. I'm happy to address that further, but I want to emphasize that that is that is part of this. Um I also wanted to um emphasize that the the uh the project as proposed and as deemed complete and deemed consistent was for 70 um 70 single family homes uh with seven of which were affordable and 30 market rate ADUs. Um none of the ADUs in the deemed consistent project were proposed to be uh affordable. Those are all proposed to be market rate ADUs. Uh in in addition, I wanted to emphasize u under the five hearing rule that that Avery correctly highlighted and this is the third hearing. Um we would hope you would make a decision on the project tonight. Uh if you do, that would leave the possibility of uh the council having two uh two opportunities to hear this project um should it go there. Um if you if you if you do don't act on the project tonight then your next hearing would be the fourth hearing and that would leave one hearing for the council. Uh but we would hope you would act on the project tonight. Um and I wanted to finally emphasize um that as you know this is a project protected by various um

provisions of state uh housing law uh the permit streamlining act SP 330 and the housing accountability act as well as the density bonus law for that matter. Um and the options that were presented to approve or deny I would say as a as a as a legal matter the project can only cannot lawfully be denied under the housing accountability act. That statute uh provides the only circumstance under which a an HA protected project can be disapproved and that is um if there is a prepoundonderance of the evidence in the record that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. In this case, there's no ev preponderance of the evidence is more than substantial evidence. It means it's more likely than not that the project would have such impacts. Um, and as you may know, the the legislature included a provision in the HA that specifies that the circumstances under which a project would be considered to have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety uh, quote, arise infrequently, i.e., it's incredibly rare. Certainly not for a small housing project like this. Um, and again, there's no there's no evidence in the record, much less a prepoundonderance of the evidence that the project would have a specific adverse impact on public health and safety. Um, so I would suggest that the the the option to disapprove this project um is is is not is not present um legally. Uh I wanted to emphasize also and I'm blanking on the point that Glenn made uh uh with respect to the no net loss study um that is is is proposed as a condition on this project. Um I would suggest that that's not a proper condition. uh the applicant cannot be saddled with the burden of paying for that sort of study. We we we we've offered to uh provide a little bit of our assistance informally and helping to identify other sites. Uh but it is the it is the city's burden to um satisfy the no net loss requirements um not the applicants. Um with that I think I will I will finish. If you have any questions I'm happy to elaborate.

Thank you. Let's see. Do we have any of the commissioners um ask wanting a question of the applicant? I do. Okay. Commissioner Tims, I'm just curious because you know I'm coming into this tonight basically, right? No previous. Um, so why did you settle on the number you settled on? David Glenn, I'm going to let the the owner answer that.

Good evening. My name is Glenn. I want to talk into the microphone over there.

Thank you. Good evening. My name is Glenn Pal from Guardian Capital. Um, we are apartment builders and everything we build we keep. So we really pay a lot of attention to what we do and working with the tenant and tenant experience. So we have a lot of experience in building apartments. We spent quite a bit of time and design and money trying to design and meet a higher density on this site. But because this site has young bay mud, it doesn't lend itself to doing anything much higher than what we have there. uh the if you go anything into podium exponentially the costs rise tremendously and what we ended up doing the only thing that would work financially on this project was the 70 homes.

Thank you. Could I just follow on with a question before you leave? Um I don't know if you're the right one to answer a question about the Jadus. Well, first of all, the ADUs in general, they go ahead with the question. They're junior ADUs, I presume. In other words, they're part of the unit, correct?

Um, and I was wondering what the size of the JD ADUs are and where they're located in the unit. I can't remember off the top of my head exactly what the square footage is on them. They're they're basically a one-bedroom uh unit. There's a bedroom with a small kitchenette, bathroom, uh and closet. Um I would guess it's somewhere around 200 250 ft maybe. Um and they're all located on the ground floor uh at the front of the front of the unit. Um,

so the plan shows a garage and it shows another space next to the garage on the ground floor of every unit. So it would be that other space, not the garage and it would be the space only on the ground floor. Yes. Yeah. Um, and by including that in the count, that indicates to me that they would be built out as fully functional units. Yeah. would be opt optional for the homeowner as whether they wanted optional. So you're counting it as a housing unit, but it's optional for the homeowner to rent it out or not. Okay.

They are separate units. They are. Yes. Okay. I misspoke, I suppose. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. So they can't sell. Can you sell? Yeah. No, this wouldn't be con. Well, that's a question. Could they be sold? I'm slightly rusty on that because we haven't talked about it for a while in any of our projects. There was a change in state law at sometime in the last year or two that deals with that. Maybe Brian would.

I would add that the review of the ADUs is subject to ministerial staff review and would be reviewed during the building permit or a separate uh zoning compliance. And so although included as a part of the application, aren't technically a part of the reviewing approval this evening, but would be done administratively by staff once we see final building permit uh designs. And that that includes ownership issues.

Uh currently under state law and as adopted by the city of Richmond, we do not allow for the separate sale or conveyance of junior accessory dwelling units or for the separate sale and conveyance of accessory dwelling units attached or detached. um it is an allowable option under state law, but the city has not taken that option uh to make the sale of them uh available to residents of the city of Richmond at this time.

And I have a followup which is regarding well oh maybe there was a clarification that the none of the affordable units are actually the ADU units. Is that correct? the the affordable units in the project as as proposed are are are se seven of the seven sorry seven of the 70 single family homes. So there will be 63 market rate single family homes and seven affordable. So that's 10% like the project before uh uh earlier this evening there were 10% of this project will be affordable plus there will be 30 market rate adus. But just to clarify, crystal clear, it's the entire building that will be the the affordable unit.

Correct. And that building may include an ADU in it or not. Those those units are not includable units. Yeah. Of the there be 30 of the 63 market rate units that would have an ADU. Okay. Thank you. Uh other questions from commissioners of the applicant? No. Okay. Why don't we go to public hearing? Are there uh any speakers who wish to speak for or against this project? Please come forward. We have one speaker uh Bruce Bayard.

So a question I'm the only before you start the clock. I'm the only speaker. Do I get 10 minutes?

No. Okay. Okay. Planning commissioners, my chair brewer. My name is Bruce Ber, chair of track trails Richmond action committee. The striking thing about this project is there's a 50 to 60 foot wide open space between the houses and the bay trail with no landscaping. Natada. This is extraordinary. For the last 40 years, every residential project on Richmond shoreline has provided generous landscaping and amenities along the Bay Trail. Starting from Marina Bay in the 1980s to the waterline project between Brickyard Cove Road and Canal Boulevard. Track asks that you require the project to include landscaping and amenities such as benches, tables, water fountains between the Bay Trail and the houses as is done every time previously in Richmond. There's none there in this 50 to 60 foot wide open space because the applicant wishes to evade going to BCDC for a permit and evade going to the city of Richmond for a cup under 100 foot band of shoreline overlay district. The applicant complained at the last DRB meeting that they received an unfriendly reception from BCDC. Don't let that distract you. BCDC will not accept an act on an application until the city of Richmond has approved the project. So, it's up to you, as it always has been all their projects, to require landscaping amenities between the project and the shoreline. The last DRB meeting, they suggested maybe the city of Richmond could design, build, and maintain this 50 60 foot wide stretch of land. That should be a non-starter. So the other issue of track I like to bring up is the lack of guest housing guest parking uh parking for guests trades people in home services. They're

only 14 for 100 res dwelling units. That's woefully inadequate as outlined in our written comments to you. There should be at least 35 to 40. Otherwise there's going to be spillover parking onto public streets on Renoaway South. People who currently like to park there to visit Lucricia Edwards Park, the Rosie National Visi National Historic Park Visitor Center, etc. will not be able to park there. So, please provide additional parking. So, what track suggests tonight is you ask the applicant to come back to you the next meeting to correct these deficiencies to provide you for review with landscaping and amenities in this 50 60 foot wide open space. You should review it, I hope, and and approve it before it goes to BCDC. So BCDC will have something to look at. Also, we suggest that you ensure that ask the project to come back with sufficient guest parking on site so you don't have people driving around trying to find parking on public streets, trades people, uh, guest and inhome services. So, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Are there any other

are there any other public comments?

No other public comments in person. If there's anybody online who wishes to speak, um please indicate by raising your hand and we will go in order of raised hands. Uh the first speaker I have is a right tech and your time will begin uh when you begin. I I have a question. Um I know that the soil in this area has been very toxic and that's why a lot of the building has not been done, you know, for so many years because of that toxicity. I'm wondering if there was any kind of a testing that was done to the soil. um any kind of kicking up of that soil um could create um toxic pollution in the air for the neighboring uh communities. So I'm just wondering if that's been addressed um and how you're going to go about remediating that if it is a problem. Thank you. So a question for planning manager is there's a question for as a public comment. Is that something that we can ask the applicant to address?

You're welcome to ask the applicant or I can simply address it if you'd prefer and if the applicant disagrees with my response.

Go ahead and respond. So that the site itself um is not identified as being on the Corteasy list or being identified by DTSC as being a site that has or potentially has any chemical or toxic known chemicals within the soil or within the subgrade terraneian grade of their site. um the conditions of approval around the SQL class 32 exemption um which although doesn't have an MMRP which is the mitigating monitoring in the event although unlikely based on our understanding and the knowledge about the geological components of the site um if it was to be discovered during their um excavation um and land building that they were to uncover something there are proper protocols and procedures for how to go about testing that soil. Um, but currently as it stands, the site is not identified um on the Department of Toxic Waste and Substances list as being a even potentially toxic site. And it's a fair question given um Richmond Shoreline, a number of other sites that that do have um that characteristic.

And especially I I will just add that I I understand that Marina Way South is or at least some portions of it have a cap for hazardous reasons. uh that's come up during the design of the wellness trail.

Yes, there are known portions of this area that do have a cap um that have been in place as a part of remediation. Um but this this site itself is not that site. Um but again I believe um fully that the sequent evaluation that was done and the provisions of state law that are in place if it was to be discovered as they they begin excavation um there are there are processes in place to remediate or or stop construction if testing needed to be done. Thank you. Other comments? No other comments online.

Okay. So, we will close the public hearing and return it to commissioners for questions or comments. Bruce, I have a question for staff. I'm really unclear what if action, if any, we are taking tonight relative to this shoreline overlay. Is are is it something will come to us later? Is it are the conditions for it included now? I just confused by that.

The conditions for the requirement of uh work to be done within the shoreline band are included as conditions of approval as the project as it currently stands. So as a conditional use permit, it would be required to come back to the city um planning commission for review and approval at that time um that that that area of within the 100 foot shoreline ban um is developed. So does that pertain to that?

Uh go ahead, Bruce. Well, I I was just going to follow up. What if they don't develop it? This is a strange situation that we have here where they don't touch that soil. Uh is it's doesn't come back. It does. They need they have to anyways. It's just something I'm trying to process.

Uh thank you. Uh reasonable question at this point. No, they do not have to make modifications to that area which is within the 100 foot shoreline band. Um, as it was noted at the design review board, um, the applicant has indicated that there were some challenges with BCDC. I have personally connected with BCDC staff. U, um, and the applicant and and post this entitlement, um, they've agreed to sit down and talk to us about improvements that could be made within that 100 foot shoreline ban. Did you say they they could or they did or

they they did and I'll I'll look to Gan who sent me an email who agreed to sit down for a meeting uh to discuss um and at which point you know if we were to be able to come up with a collaborative effort between the applicant, the city and BCDC where it would become a part of a public process to to see the improvements that would return. Okay. Thank you. Other questions, Jonathan? I I have

Oh, follow up. I mean it just a reflection I guess more than anything because I live in an HOA. I live in the Ccliff HOA and the HOA pays to maintain that. It's not an extraordinary cost. You know, it's not um egregious. Uh and it given the you the profound use. I mean that trail is used all day every single day and um it seems silly to sort of just leave it even for the homeowners who's who are going to buy a rather expensive home to look out on something that is unmaintained. That just seems odd to me.

I would defer to the applicant if they have a response to that statement. Hi, Brian Winter again. Um, I wanted to clarify that we originally did propose to develop in the 100 foot shoreline band and did did propose to provide improvements in that area. It is incorrect to say that we tried to avoid that. We literally did try to do that. Um, and I believe staff wanted us to meet with BCDC before we got into any of the public hearing process uh at the design review planning commission and possibly city council level. And I also recall that the expectation was that we um if we were able to be successful with BCDC that we would get their approval first as well. But it is not true to say that we avoided that. We tried to do it. We had two public meetings with BCDC in San Francisco and we had multiple conversations and meetings with BCDC staff and we were eventually uh told in no uncertain terms, pull your project out of the 100 ft shoreline band and so that is what we did at significant expense modifying the site plan uh to do so. Uh Avery is correct that we did offer post entitlement uh to meet with the city and meet with Mr. Bayer and and his and his colleagues to discuss the possibility of doing things in that area. Uh but that that that came out of the project as a result of the feedback we got from BCDC.

So you just leave it at this at this point. At this point uh at this point we don't have any authority to touch it. Yes. Okay. Um let's see. Commissioner Harrison, do you have other uh questions? Um the staff had indicated that they would like that the spaces parking spaces on out on Marina way or in this wellness trail are a problem for completing the trail and they need to be removed. Is that something we need to put in as a condition?

I believe it's identified as a condition. It's considered technically an off-site improvement to the site, part of the subdivision of the of the actual plan itself. So, the on street proposed parking on that roadway would be subject to encroachment permits as a part of the subdivision agreement. Um, and currently city engineers and staff um do not agree that that parking can be produced as it would conflict directly with the wellness trail um and the TCC staff that are working on that. So in other words, it's in in in effect it's addressed obliquely by that condition that condition for the U public works. Correct. Am I understanding that correctly?

Yes. Excuse me. I would Avery, but I would like to introduce our civil engineer of record who's been working with the Wilderness Trail. I believe his firm uh is working with the wellness trail and would like to address this. Would the commission like to hear from the engineer regarding Marine Way South?

Yeah. So, um working with Marine Way South and working with the city of Richmond and the Richmond Wellness Trail. So we've been taking plans from the master the bicycle master plan from the city of Richmond which they're prepared from by a fair peers in 2011 and then it shows a extension down Marinaway south and then it actually cuts across on hall. So there wasn't an extension at that point. And then when place works came in in 2020, then there was an extension for having a class three uh cycle track down the between Hall and the Bay Trail, which is a sherrow basically. So there's you share the bikes share with the with the vehicles and then which also then showed uh perpendicular parking on Marinaway South which is also reflected in our plan. And so the Richmond Wellness Trail phase 2, which is under design right now, is being met by this project. And one thing that this project is doing is it's actually moving the public sidewalk onto their property to keep the the lanes as wide as possible to provide more safety for the bikes as opposed to what was shown in the 2020 uh bicycle master plan. Marca, do you think you could bring up the the drawing of Marina Way South?

This is the uh document from 2011. Uh so it just I zoomed in on it in large. So the bicycle master plan from 2011 actually didn't show it going down into past our neighborhood uh where it cut across on hall which is that purple line but then in 2020 this was produced by place works which shows so Hall Avenue is on the top left those two the green striping so that's Hall Avenue going down and then there's the perpendicular parking along Rainaway South and the red dashed line is the project site so you can see it's got the perpendicular parking all the way down But it's really narrow lanes. So with our development, we've kept the lanes wider to give more access and safety for the bikes and also still including the perpendicular parking as well as uh maintaining the sidewalk.

Could you could you go to your site plan? It's hard to read. These are upside down. Could you go to the site plan that shows the Yeah, the new proposal. Yeah, this um Yeah, the bottom. Can I zoom in? Well, I don't know. Maybe, maybe. Let me try. Oh, sweet. Okay.

Okay. So, this is you can the property line is through the perpendicular stalls. So, we pushing those back to keep the lanes as wide as possible for safety for the bicycles. And then it also provides as much flexibility in the future if the perpendicular parking was ever to be placed on the east side of the street as well. So you sorry you are aware the best practice for bicycle connectivity is to not have perpendicular parking backing into bicycle facilities. Yeah, absolutely.

So this does not follow best practice. So regardless of a previous plan from 2011, if we're looking at this plan right now, and I will say that the wellness trail extends from the BART station to the bay, it needs to be and it's intended to be a worldclass facility. And I'll leave it there. So we'll have more comments about it. That's fair. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments from the commissioners? Um, Commissioner Harrison, other comments?

Well, I would ask uh Avery, the applicant has indicated that their position is that uh that they have no responsibility to play pay for the uh study of of the housing. No, no, no. Net net loss study is is what is what is the city's position? because we really need to reflect that in in how we proceed on this.

So, as a part of staff's formal recommendation in the application, we do under our understanding and determination under no net loss rules um have found that that is a reasonable condition that shall be can be applied to the project. Um the matter of whether or not that violates AHA or any other rules would be subject to, you know, further legal proceedings. um which would be again as this project hasn't exhausted its u administrative procedural process and still has the potential for appeal or more hearings um the discussion around uh the condition uh would be you know kind of separate from this entitlement as this is the city's determination um and interpretation of that section of code. So, um,

can you go ahead only to summarize that the city is willing to move forward with that condition and we'll see what happens. It sounds like So, did you But I interrupted you. Did you have a comment? Well, it's going to suggest that if find out if staff could write a condition since it's I'm not I'm not sure I know enough about it to properly word it or but I'm happy to introduce that as a condition. Yes, I can word the condition for you if you'd like when we get to that point of the meeting.

So, I think there's a little more conversation. Um, Commissioner Harrison, uh, it I I would like to take a bit of a straw poll to see where uh where we're leaning. We we've heard from the applicant. Uh, there's been more or less a threat that that we can't uh deny the project. Um, that it should pass now and that it's likely to be appealed. One way or the other, it'll go to council likely. Um, where where do you lean? Uh, or do you feel comfortable in saying where you lean? Not without hearing conditions.

Same here. I would like to hear the conditions.

And Commissioner Harrison, it sounds like you're thinking of conditions as well. So that maybe leaning towards approval of project with conditions. Yeah, it's I think where our hands are somewhat tied by uh the events at the beginning of this that uh where the different approvals were administratively applied. And it's unfortunate that we're in this position, but uh if it meets the legally defined, you know, requirements through I should say through legal desript description that it meets it meets the general plan and zoning even though in reality it doesn't. I don't think we have personally I don't think we have flexibility to deny it.

So I've been thinking about this a lot. It's a very discouraging project in my mind. There's a vision for this site. It's one of the most prominent sites in the entire city of Richmond. It has 12 single family detached houses along a incredibly important piece of the shoreline of Richmond. The vision of the general plan was of a a significant project with lots of housing in a mixeduse environment that would create vitality on the waterfront. We don't have any of that here, but it looks like we need to approve it. Um, I have been thinking about conditions and Commissioner Harrison, I don't know, maybe you could let me suggest some some conditions to you for your consideration if you're kind of building a motion. Um, one condition I was thinking is that the applicant needs to shall design, build and maintain the entire open space between the houses and the bay trail. And as an aside, I feel that this should be considered an expansion of Lucricia Edwards Park. The park is just to the east of the roundabout. This is an equivalent space to the west. It's it's related and it should be designed as a single public space. Um it should be open to the public to use and enjoy the space. Um I would also, and this is just me being suspicious, but I I can't help it. the applicant was extremely

aggressive in his comments, but I I don't know if it's I I think it's worthwhile including a third party review of the location of the setback line mean high tide line to confirm the accuracy of the setback line to ensure that uh it conforms to BCDC's requirements. I don't know if BC did DC does that on a routine basis but um that could be considered as part of the condition. So that's one condition. Another condition I thought of was the going back to the vision of something that really contributes to the public use of the bay is that the building should really face and connect to the bay. And currently there's a there's a low wall. I'm glad it's not a high fence, but there's a low wall and a a narrow walk. So I if if the if the area if the shoreline bant is developed then there's an opportunity to develop it in a way that the houses do connect down to the Bay Trail and especially there's a public pathway from the street behind to the front and that pathway should definitely connect to the Bay Trail because all the houses behind would use that to connect to the Bay Trail and that should be a comfortable and hopefully attractive connection. Um, and then my third condition would be to remove all the parking spaces along Marina Way South. I understand that there's a condition about encroachment which is likely to lead to that anyways, but I would strengthen it with an

additional condition that says that there should not be any parking spaces along Marina Way South in order to give the wellness trail the capacity to do really safe and convenient connections um to the bay. So, those are my uh conditions and I'm happy to consider more if if you guys have any comments.

I'm supportive of your conditions relative to eliminating parking on South on Marino Bay and and enabling the wellness trail to fulfill its uh vision. Um, so I I would certainly support that condition. I wasn't quite clear, uh, Bruce, where what the, uh, trail you talked about connecting to the bay the Bay Trail. Was that within the property that you're suggesting a trail be added?

It's within the property. There's a there's a kind of Yes. There's a sidewalk connected with a crosswalk to the to the back end of the project that comes between two houses. and then stops and it should continue all the way down to the Bay Trail. And it should be I mean it's set up to do that. This is if you look at the site plan there's just no reason for it not to continue and connect. So that would be part of the development of this as part of the park.

It it would be in the shoreline band. Yes. So that's between between lots four and five.

Yeah. I would just advise the planning commission um in terms of the conditions that you are discussing this evening, the condition around requiring with a shall that the applicant um improve the area although within their paral boundary and within the 100t shoreline ban um has the potential to lead to uh future litigation regarding whether or not it would or could violate AJA. Um and so I just place caution that that condition um may be unreasonable as it could place a burden on the application um and make it infeasible for the development as a shall. I think that the uh staff myself and BCDC are continuing to work with the applicant uh to to come to an agreement of of some kind. I think you know this is a in in the works process. Um but I would just advise that for the purposes of this meeting and as a part of your recommendation again just my guidance that you would not include a condition uh requiring with a shall that work to be done uh by the applicant at this point in time.

Who what kind of park is is Lucricia Edwards city city park? So they couldn't contribute that to the city. In theory, yes. Uh we haven't had discussions or negotiated any kind of land sale or transfer or dedication of the area in front of the homes to the city. It's a it's a question,

but yes, a reasonable question. Um that I think um as the applicants had indicated in our our believe it was our second designer review board that there was openness to the potential. Um, again, I think that's a negotiation that city staff will have directly with the applicant. Um, and again, something we could bring back as an update to this board um, if needed. Comments?

Um, actually, I was kind of curious about the geotech um, regarding the soil. Is there any way or do we know when was the soil previously tested or last tested? As I don't have that in front of me, I don't know if the applicant team is able to answer to when your geotechnical report. One moment.

We have uh the let me start with there was a phase one done that cleared the site for residential building. It had previously been remediated and don't quote me over quite a long period prior to us. I think maybe 10 15 years is how long they took. So at this point uh there's the site is clear. We'll be required at some point to update the phase one as well. Okay. Thank you. Uh let's see. Uh Commissioner Harrison, do you want to make a motion?

I'm not sure. again. Uh, can we uh I guess question for staff. Well, we your your recom you're identification that we really aren't in a position to uh require the applicant to do something with that land in the within the shore line area. Is it of any value to you and BCDC? If we have some kind of a statement in there that we the applicant is encouraged to work with uh the city and the BCDC to come up with a a workable solution for the use and landscaping of that area. Is it I mean it has no teeth but maybe at least in getting it out there

the attorney is about to talk. What we could do is put language in that the applicant will endeavor or use best efforts or some sort of provide some sort of obligation that they have to meet with BCDC and staff members to actually engage into these discussions post entitlement. Yeah, we can again I think uh chair Harrison the comment of again a condition that just outlines that a reasonable effort be made between the applicant team um to come back to the table to sit and meet with planning staff and BCDC staff around potential future designs and things of that nature in the form of a a recommendation um is reasonable. C can you confirm that that would that that is a productive that that there will be a productive outcome?

I can't make any guarantees in this universe, but I can say that it is of course of my utmost interest along with the interest of the city of Richmond to ensure to the best of our ability that we can improve the public trail and public access anywhere and everywhere within the city of Richmond. I believe that um the applicant in their good faith initially when there was a design for improvements within that area although not successful with BCDC had illustrated a potential um you know very well improved area and that there is at least some currently good effort and faith to come back and discuss options about how they could potentially you know improve that area where there would be alignment between city staff BCDC staff regarding potential regulatory permits if needed or if administrative versus needing design review by BCDC and any, you know, future community outreach or programmatic uh approach to how that would get um activated. I think I'm going to look back to the applicant that there's agreement for a meeting. I'm not saying that there's agreement to do anything at this moment, but to sit and discuss.

So, so that's currently this is private property, right? Correct.

Okay. Just so I was clear. I I I'm sorry. I I just it I'm I'm trying to understand the rationale of not putting a condition on a project to develop a part of their land which directly abuts the Bay Trail. How is it how is it going to be how how is that going to run a foul of housing accountability act?

I mean there is a potential for u I guess I would say a strong potential for the developer to argue that it puts an undue burden on on it makes the the project unfeasible. It's one of the it would be one aspect that would make it unfeasible. All right. Maybe the developer would say that, but I I don't know. I mean, we have to vote as a commission, but I would strongly support a condition to be put in there and let's see what happens.

I'm just going to go back and make the point that if I bought an expensive home and there was a big strip of land that nobody took accountability for, it would just piss me off. So I think it would be in I mean I I I it just seems silly because it doesn't seem like in the long run you're not paying for it to maintain it. It's a probably not that expensive of a development situation. I suspect the big deal is this the commission deciding that they will support whatever it is is that is proposed and they're probably going to want I don't know what I I don't know that BCDC people I don't know how what they do but

I can't speak to BCDC officially um but I do know that we have I have a quarterly meeting with them this project has come up in the discussion around sitting down to find a to come to agreement on a potential design and activation of this area is within their interests um and something they'd like to achieve. I think again it's a matter of procedurally how that happens in terms of the permits necessary at BCDC and for the applicant as well. Okay. So what's the preference? Do we have a motion?

John. Well, Bruce, I'm gonna make the motion with the best efforts version of it. I I don't see uh value in trying to force an issue where we have a reasonable chance of that messing up any opportunity at all to do something. I think the applicant hopefully they have a bit bit of empathy for the city of Redland and its residents and they recognize that this is something that is that piece of property and its improvement is fundamentally vital to this community and that they should make their best efforts to get past any differences they may have with BCDC and BCDC like way likewise get get over its differences with its developer and not put the city of Richmond in in a just you know an untenable position. So I'm going to put the I'm going to move it with the best efforts version of that motion and see where it goes. So if you'd like I can make a motion

please to approve uh what's that? Please do. Is that what you said to approve resolution? What's the number on this one? Got to get up to the top. PLN23117.

Yeah. I move to that planning commission approve PLN23-17 uh with with all the conditions contained in the staff report with the addition of three addition three more conditions of approval. one that the developer use its best efforts to collaborate with the city of Richmond and the BCDC on the design and development of a p practicable solution and use of the strip of land between the Bay Trail and the and the residential development property. Number two, that uh the the on street parking be removed from Marina Bay uh Drive. And three, that uh the applicant be it request of the applicant that they put forward the funding or fund the study of the no net loss effect of their project on the city's housing. And I don't know how you want word that uh Avery if you have different wording. I'm all ears. But anyway, that's my motion. That's That's good. Thank you.

Just need a second. Second. I second it. I will call. Can we do a vote? I will call roll. So, we have a motion by Chair Harrison, a second by Secretary Timmons. And Chair Harrison, yes. Vice Chair Burbaker, no. Secretary Timmans. Yes. Golovitz is absent. And Commissioner Shahed.

Um I'm going to also take a a page out of Commissioner John's and assume that the applicant will put best effort the community of Richmond. Um so it's a pass for me. Thank you. The item passes as approved. Okay. So, that concludes that item. Thank you all. Um, what's our preference? Can we move straight forward? Oh, yeah. I think because I don't think it's Yeah, these these items are not as major. Thank you, General.

Okay. Uh, is that okay with staff? We'll move forward. Yes. The the next presentations will be provided by Pete Zum. Okay. Um, two projects. Let me just say that this is item four, PLN250392 ME Pueblo Latino Market.

I will turn the presentation over to Pete Zebram to provide a presentation on this uh new convenience store and market. Right. Thank you. Give me one moment while the presentation loads for a little bit less challenging of a project tonight. Uh this is the mebo latino market. This is a conditional use permit to allow the operation of a neighborhood convenience market offering groceries and fresh meat products which within a residentially zoned area. This site is a 6,987 ft site with an existing um 2367 ft building. Uh the structure is currently vacant. It was configured for commercial uses. Uh as you can see on the image on top, this is the screenshot uh from uh Google Street View from 2016. Uh this is when it was last inhabited by uh commercial uses. Uh as you can see, it was uh hosted a hair salon, legacy hair salon, and a restaurant, Lily's New Orleans Cafe. Uh since then, the site has sat vacant. Um it's surrounded by single and multifamily uses and it is zoned as RL2 as is other parcels in the area. Uh the intent to RL2 zoning for single family low density is to primarily uh develop single family homes with some compatible supportive uses

such as park and community centers. Uh there are mixed use developments are allowed at neighborhood nodes and you can see here uh all of the surrounding areas are also zone RL2. In the general plan uh the parcel is also designated as low density residential as is the whole area. The intent and desired form of the uh parcel is for single family residential development and same as a zoning uh for neighborhood mixeduse development at uh neighborhood nodes. What the applicant is proposing here is to operate a convenience market which is the only type of food and beverage sales that are permitted in the RL2 uh single family zoning. uh and this type of use requires a conditional use permit. So this market would provide primarily Latin American products uh fresh meats, produce, snacks, uh they would provide cans and prepackaged food items such as beans and tortillas. Uh various household goods and a limited number of prepared foods such as salsa. There would be no alcohol or tobacco sold at on the premises. The hours proposed are seven days a week from 9:00 am to 900 pm. The number of employees uh working at this site would be six and there would be five vehicle parking spaces and three spaces for bicycle parking. There are various site improvements and building improvements uh proposed by the applicant. Uh they would install an attached outdoor cooler uh which would

provide um storage uh for meats and produce. Uh there would be new striping for a loading area. There will be a dedicated loading area in front of the building or within the parking lot. Uh there would be a new trash enclosure in conformance with the Richmond Municipal Code requirements and the non-conforming uh fence would be removed. It's um it's made of chain link which is no longer permitted in Richmond. The applicant is proposing a new uh sixoot wooden fence which is uh permitted in this zone. And also as you see pictured here um the bicycle rack providing parking for three bikes. Uh on the outside of the building uh there would be one uh sign which is 16 square feet. They would be non-illuminated. On the inside of the building uh the building would be reconfigured to provide for a sales floor, a section for produce display, uh a meat counter and also a separate freezer cooler for meats. And also the bathroom will be upgraded to be ADA compliant. The definition of a convenience market in the municipal code is a retail store that sells a limited line of groceries, prepackaged food items, other household items primarily for off- premises consumption which in the opinion of staff it meets this definition. Uh the pri the primary uh products that are sold here are um prepackaged food items, household goods and only um small percentage of the floor areas is uh dedicated to groceries. And it also meets the uh maximum building size. Uh the proposed building size 2367 uh which would make it fall under a relatively small building under this

definition. The maximum hours permitted for convenience markets is 7 am to 11 pm. The proposed hours are within this time limit. It is uh 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 7 days a week. For signage and residential zone, uh the maximum size for all signs on one building is 16 square feet. Uh they're proposing 16 square feet. Elimination for signage is also prohibited. And there is no illumination proposed as of this presentation. No public comments have been received and no comments have also uh been given from the Southwest Annex uh neighborhood council. The as for the findings of this application, uh this is consistent with the low density residential land use. This uh would fall under a compatible accessory use um provided at the neighborhood node. This is located at um on Carlson Boulevard and intersection of Carlson and the U 680 freeway. Uh this would meet the economic development policies ED2.3 and ED2.5. Uh it would assist in reducing long-distance trip, encouraging um walkability and bikeability in the neighborhood by um providing a uh amenity for fresh produce and meats and food uh within the neighborhood. There's uh the standard condition approvals that have been added to ensure that any nuisance with noise, odors and lighting uh would not be created by the

approval of this permit. Uh the as for the zoning ordinance um this application meets all of the criteria requirements and conforms to all the provisions and there will be no adverse impact on traffic in the surrounding neighborhood. Thus staff is recommending approval of PLN25-0397 and adoption of resolution 2603. Great. Thank you for that report, Pete. Um, are there any comments or questions, Commissioner Harrison? Well, I'm good with this one.

Yeah, I was going to say unlike the last project, I really like this project. I I hope it moves forward. Uh, I will just say, but um, are there any public comments? Uh, we do have one speaker. Um, Adele, sorry. Um, also to clarify, he's the applicant for this project. Yeah, I just want to introduce myself. Oh, good. Please do you.

Thank you. Good evening to all. Uh my name is Adele Mosen and I am uh a resident also a business owner in Richmond for the last 20 plus years and uh we have been operating this uh kind of business where you know providing uh fresh food, fresh meat and milk and breads and all the necessity for uh um uh neighbors. We don't sell any liquors or cigarettes or such things that uh you know are uh not good for your health. In other words, I just want to present myself and I'm the owner for that the project also the landlord and I thank you for very much for your time.

Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? I I can also just say I work near there and I drive by that empty building all the time and I would love to see this kind of a project there. So, okay. Do we have a motion? Oh, wait. Close the hearing. Is there any other comments? Public comments. Uh there are no other public comments in person and there's no other public comments online. Okay. So, close the hearing. Uh they put the number up. I can mo make a motion if you want. Can you put if you could case if you could put the presentation back up?

So I can just um I propose for PLN25-0392 that the um commission approve it. Uh adopt resolution 2603 approving PLN250392. Do we have a second? I second that motion. Okay. Motion second. I'll call roll. Uh, vice or chair Harrison? Yes. Vice Chair Burbaker. Yes. Secretary Timonss. Yes. Golovitz is absent. Commissioner Shahid. Yes.

Passes. Thank you. Good luck. Congratulations. Good luck. We'll be over. We'll buy things. We right around the corner. Yes. Planning Commission will keep you in business. Great. Moving on. Yes, last item. We have a last item. Um, I'll let you. PLN250415, a used car study session. Uh, again, Pete Sever will be presenting um this evening on the uh application that is in front of the planning department currently.

Hi, thank you. Um, this will be the last item of the night, uh, study session, uh, to reestablish a used car dealership. Uh, just to clarify, in the Richmond Municipal Code, uh, it allows for the reestablishment, sorry, reestablishment of a abandoned non-conforming use with a conditional use permit. Uh, this site is located, uh, on two lots. Uh, each 5,000 square feet. um combined would be 10,000 square feet. Uh this uh was formerly home to uh Bay Area's finest auto uh which is a used car dealership. Uh it is an empty parking lot uh with a 261qt building. Uh it's currently vacant. Uh it was operated as a car dealership until 2020. Uh based on the Sanborn fire insurance maps um in the planning division record, it indicates that this has been a car dealership since at least um the 1960s. Uh the car dealership used uh last in 2020 and uh in 2022 there was a food truck permit. Uh there was a food truck that uh had an administrative use permit operated on site uh which ended in 2024. uh surrounding to the site. Um you see in the picture on the bottom uh right behind that is a uh duplex. There are single multifamily residences uh in the area and along 23rd Street there are um there's a retail store to the right of that uh image. Um there are numerous um auto shops surrounding the site as well as a gas station on the other side of the street. The zoning for this parcel is T5MS which

is in the new uh formbbased code adopted in 2023. Uh this is the transict 5 main street. Uh the intent of the zoning is to create vibrant walkable urban main street uh with commercial uses. Uh this would host locally and regionally serving commercial uses and variety of um urban housing choices such as apartments. And right adjacent to the site is a T4N which is a residential zoning within the formbbased code. In the general plan, it designates this site as CMU, which is medium intensity mix use with an emphasis on commercial uses. The desired form of this area is to create mixeduse development uh with commercial uses on the street um encouraging street activation along a major corridor uh 23rd Street and new development must have pedestrian oriented building design with minimal setback. um just further hammering in that street activation intent and parking should be located in the sides or rear. The vision for the 23rd Street corridor uh specifically in the general plan uh sees it as a community activity street that provides an attractive environment for shoppers, residents, visitor, pedestrians. You can see here these are uh some concepts for the 23rd Street. while uh the formbbased code was being developed. Uh it imagines 23rd Street as this as this main bustling commercial street withdraw an engaging building edge um further enclosing the street and uh moving away from its uh legacy auto uses. The applicant is proposing to

reestablish the uh previously operating um used car dealership. Uh the hours uh would be the same from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 pm, seven days a week. Uh there would be two employees and four dedicated parking spaces for customers. Uh the existing site improvements uh or a small office. There was a recent upgrade in 2022 for an uh ADA compliant restroom as well as an upgraded fence. Um this was done in 2022 with the intention of resuming the um the use uh which the applicant later found out has been considered uh non-conforming and abandoned. And another point of clarification in the code uh it considers a non-conforming use abandoned uh when uh either business license has lapsed or um a use has stopped for more than a year. Uh in this case um it has been more than a year. So now in this current zoning uh any kind of auto uses and uh used car dealerships included are prohibited in the zoning district. Um the this description use is not consistent with the description of the general plan's intent designation or the uh pedestrianoriented desired form. However, um this may meet policy um for land use three for um expanded economic opportunities. Uh the planning division has reached out to numerous uh groups and departments as a part of this process. However, we have not received comments. We've reached out to both the building woods and north and east neighborhood councils because this is located on the border. Uh we didn't

receive comments from either. We also reached out to 23rd Street Merchants Association. Um there was no comments there or from the public and the Richmond Police Department uh has responded and there are no opposition to this project. The required findings that staff and the planning commission would have to meet are um that this structure cannot practically or economically be used for any kind of conforming use. I have attached the land use table in exhibit C uh for you to review uh different types of conforming uses uh in the T5MS zoning. And second uh that this structure can reason reasonably expected to remain in active use for 20 years without needing major repairs. And finally that it will not be compatible or detrimental the to the surrounding uh conforming uses. And one other important thing is that the planning commission may impose a time limit on its duration to make the required findings. For examples, uh if the planning commission were to approve uh this reestablishment, they can um add a condition to uh allow the business to be reestablished for 10 years as an example. The recommendation from staff is to provide sorry is for the planning commission to provide comments. Uh we have 10 questions here for um the commission. Um I'm happy to uh go back to these comments or to any other slides. Uh but first uh we have uh whether the required findings and realistic be made with these facts presented today and we also have I believe we have the uh

applicant here as well. Um he also has a presentation prepared. Um, I'm happy to help answer any of these um clarify any of these questions uh before we um uh allow the applicant to present as well. Thank you. Um this is a steady session item. Yes. So there's no action we're taking tonight.

Right. So what staff is recommending is for the uh commission to uh keep in mind the 10 questions that we have today and we will follow the commissioner's direction. Uh we will come back to the planning commission uh based on your directions tonight. Okay. Agenda that we have. Those questions are on the agenda that we have. Uh yes, they are on the agenda. Uh they're on the agenda. Let's see. They are they're maybe all the way at the end five and six of the agenda report. Okay, they are okay. Great. Thank you. Wait, where is

Well, it's the one you have to link to. Page five and six of the agenda report, the staff report. Yeah, I don't It's It's the email that you link to. Okay. So you have to it's in the conclusion section. So it's in the in the staff report card. So we have 10 questions, right? In the staff report. So on your email here? Yeah. Staff report. So did you print it all out? It's it's in your considerations. Consider the considerations, right? But it's this, right? Correct. Yeah. Okay. So there's bullets there and that's the time. Okay. Uh thank you.

All right. Um, let's see. So, could you just clarify in a since it's a study session, do we ask for public comment or it's not necessary to do that? It's not necessary to ask for public comment. It was publicly noticed as a part of this meeting as being a study session. Um, it does not hurt for you to open for public comment. There's no members of the public here or online. So, it would be moot. Uh, yeah. Okay. So, we can just go look at the site. Um, questions. I have looked at the site. Is Is there any questions for staff or comments before we get going?

Uh, Commissioner Harrison. No. No. I I would like perhaps to hear from the applicant before we uh deliberate on these questions to provide staff some direction, but he he may have a perspective that none of us has thought of that might be might influence how we feel about these questions.

Is would the applicant like to say a few words? Hi. Hello to everybody. My name is uh No Miguel Ramirez. I'm the owner of uh 2235 Rosevelt Avenue. the property. I've been running a small business there since 2007 and it stopped in 2020. The business stopped not due to abandonment but to health issues and I was uh forced at that time to lease it out to another dealer and keep it leased until my uh health got better. So I'm here today to ask to have opportunity again to uh run a business. That's pretty much it. Any questions of the applicant?

Okay. Uh thank you. Um so the first bullet is whether the required findings under the RMC section can realistically be made based on the facts presented. Can you go back to the findings you had those listed right? Yes. Here are the required findings for reestablishment.

The what's interesting about these findings is more about a structure. This is a kind of an open parking lot. So, the findings don't really relate in in my mind, but it says the structure cannot practically or economically be used for any conforming use. Certainly, the lot could be used for a conforming use if somebody chose to do it, it seems to me. So, I don't know if I could make that finding, but um looking at the other findings here, reasonably expected to remain in active use for a period of 20 years. I I don't maybe I guess um if anybody has any thoughts about any of these, let me know. The continuation of the user structure will not be incompatible with or detrimental to surrounding conforming uses. And I have been by the site. There's a lot of autooriented uses in this immediate neighborhood here. Um, another so it probably would not be incompatible with existing uses, but this says surrounding conforming uses. And so that indicates the kind of conforming uses are ones that would be more like stores or residences which are allowed under the existing new zoning. So I don't know that's a little hard to say also. So I I don't know. It's for me it's hard to say that we can make these findings especially number one and maybe number three. So now the last bullet is not a finding but it does say that we can impose a time limit. So um any thoughts about any of these? Anybody?

I need to look at the site. I have it. I'd like to Okay. Uh yeah there's some pictures. Yeah.

Yeah. Bruce, I I think you've analyzed it well and I agree with what you're suggesting about whether we could or could not make findings. I think it would be pretty hard, very hard to to make those findings, especially, but it comes down to for me, and it's maybe getting off the track, whether or not how aggressive the city wants to be in trying to get uh motive motion going on implementing the, you know, the specific plan or the trans the zoning changes there. it whether you give this person 10 years, 20 years, it potentially doesn't make any difference because unless there's economic uh motivation going on in that area to actually transition, I don't know that what that what we do on this one will make anything happen. I guess if we don't if we say no this shouldn't be developed that way will that motivate area that area to start transitioning you know I kind of doubt it but it might

yeah great point any thoughts about that um planning staff is it are there any programs or initiatives to try and jumpstart development on 23rd in this area.

So the formbbased code which was adopted in 2023 um which was the primary impetus for the redevelopment of the main corridors of the city of Richmond um is still very much a top priority of the planning department and our economic development division within economic development. Um I would note that right now we've got through the Y plan working with public works there is a a current study of of the corridors and addressing potential uses. um and potential improvements that could be done to these major corridors. And so um Pete, I believe at some point will be presenting to that uh student lead group to kind of get their feedback and get their opinions on what they would like to see um for this portion of Richmond, a portion that they may frequent. Um it is, you know, from a land use perspective, it is a a reasonably challenging finding set of findings to make. Um, you know, this is where we have to balance current economic needs and desires with the future. Does the site have the potential to be something else? Yes. Is now the time? That is a very great question. Um, and you know, so we're we're at this point really looking to have, you know, the 23rd Street merchants re-engage with them to try to get better feedback in terms of where they sit and where they'd like to go in terms of their own organization. and then the the studentled current plan and project with public works to really get a better sense of on the ground what are people interested in seeing and and does this site sit as being a a catalystic site for our project, right? Is if if it's this site plus the the building to in front of it if that was to be demolished and redeveloped as a a sixstory residential apartment building with commercial groundf flooror uses, is is that the catalyst we need? Um I don't have a magic eightball, but it is uh certainly something that staff has grappled with

um as a part of the application, which is why we chose to bring it to you as a study session. And we'll continue to uh evaluate and work with our other departments and the public to figure out what is a direction and and if it's that the current economic and you know, stability of our universe isn't ready for it. a a a 10-year uh time cap could be reasonable. Um the thing that, you know, planning staff is most um kind of keyed into is that there are a number of non-conforming um automobile uses up and down uh this corridor. And so the the future of the corridor could be started, jumpst started or held um because of this type of project. So again, we are also weighing and trying to identify how many potential future lots would choose to seek this conditional use permit to reinstate a use that was previously permitted. Um, again, a use that generates tax and and is a viable business and balancing that with the future goals of the city of Richmond's residents. So certainly not an easy task.

I have a question. Yeah. So, does the city have alternative places that some of these people could move to? So, there is zoning. Yes. currently that would allow for an automo automobile sales used or new um within the city of Richmond that would I mean the other ones around there that are also that you can you just alluded maybe

there are a number of other lots that are non there are currently all auto related uses are legal non-conforming uses the vacant lots that you see today are the result of those lots ending their use which was why they will sit vacant and often temporarily become uh wonderful places for food trucks and little food truck parks and and things of that nature. Um they're challenging sites because they're relatively small and it would likely take the assemblage of an adjacent parcel to make something happen. Um but it is certainly a pattern that we see along that corridor is the vacant lots and then the lots that currently still have used automobiles, new automobiles and then auto related repair and work of that nature.

Well, I think I think you bring up a great point which is we're we could be setting a precedent here. If we allow for an existing non no, if we allow for a non-conforming use to move forward, then others could come forward and say, "Well, you did it for them, so why wouldn't you do it for us?" And then we lose all the momentum on getting any kind of change in the in the corridor. And I will say I I walked it. It's not a very comfortable place to walk there. There's just a lot of chainlink fences and a lot of these kind of open parking areas that are that are not so attractive. other parts of 23rd are much more interesting or vibrant than this particular area. And yet this area is quite close to downtown. It's only two or three blocks from McDonald. So you'd you'd imagine that you this kind of use you would want to see closer to downtown and then spreading over time. um to kind of lock this into place as being autooriented uses feels like yeah it's a little antithetical to the vision in in my mind still we have a viable use and the income for the city is probably pretty good on auto sales so I don't know about used auto sales but um this is 23 acres, 10,000 square feet. It's surrounded by housing. So, the housing is not going to go away. It's It would be hard to aggregate the site into a larger site. I mean, there is a com commercial building to the north. So may maybe that maybe

Yeah, it's I Bruce I think it's going to take as uh Avery was saying years to for someone to assemble properties that are needed. If those properties have functioning businesses on them, it makes it that much more difficult I think to assemble them for a price that would make that would enable that person to then develop a project housing commercial whatever that feasibly. So my my sense is if we allow the uh non-conforming youth to reestablish itself that we're we really are uh slowing down if or halting the whole concept of transitioning this area. So I I'm I don't think the findings can be made and I think somehow this this I think is if the city really wants to make this transition happen, they have to uh we really have to take the steps necessary. Some of them very painful like this might be if this develop this uh use was was not reestablished.

Yeah, I think that's well said. Yeah, thank you. Uh question for Avery. Uh we aren't if if the commission or the city, you know, finds a way find decides uh that this is not a viable use can't find make those findings. Are we at risk of uh uh being subject to a taking challenge by the owner that we're taking away his rights to develop to use his property or is his ability to use it for something else sort of protect us from that challenge?

It's a reasonable question. Thank you, chair. As far as a takings, um, you know, that would come into play if, for example, we were to deny a use that's currently permitted by Wright, um, and not allow that to occur or to exact some portion of this land to be used as some other use part of public right away. um you know in terms of you know takings and takings cases and again I would really defer to the city attorney on this more particularly but those are um you know generally found if we were to consider the the current you know the current zoning uh doesn't allow for something and so if we're going to pro to proceed with not allowing something that's currently allowed that's where we step in and are starting to you know create the essence of a taking Or if the development standards were so strict and so complex and so hard to meet that nothing is feasible. For example, if you couldn't build a box, a 10x10 box because the development standards were so constraining that could be perceived as a taking that our rules are making it infeasible for any kind of development to occur. Um I don't know that this site necessarily would lead to that path. Um I think ultimately right as a part of the reasonzoning and the revisioning of Richmond that the formbbased code did over the course of a decade um and it's also a part of our current charge to see that forward. I think where you know I I look forward in turning to working with Pete and the applicant is understanding um you know what are other opportunities that exist. I understand this is his current business model and I'm not here to take away someone's business um but to try to understand how it can fit within the fabric of Richmond um where there may be opportunities to partner with economic development around a different location if it is another

parcel within the city of Richmond are there other business opportunities that could present themselves at this parcel um and again you know as not as the operator I can't decide that for someone but it is uh also within our responsibility to the best of our ability to adhere to that vision uh which is for the transformation of the corridors of Richmond. Okay. Thank you for that. Do you have a followup, Commissioner Harrison?

No, I I think you know I I sort of feel going trying to stick to the vision of creating these corridors is what we need need to be doing. And so if if that to me then a lot of the other questions that staff has posed kind of are moot if that is the direction taken. Yeah. Uh okay. Thank you for that. Um any other thoughts on this item? No, I don't have any. Does that give you kind of the direction you need?

So as I understand it, you you know there are concerns over making the findings. Um, I would ask, is it your intention that we continue to work with the applicant to, you know, one, it sounds like you'd like to have an opportunity to view the site, um, but that we continue to evaluate alternatives to the current use and or, you know, investigate other options that might be feasible. Yeah, certainly continue to evaluate that with the applicant, please. Okay. Mhm.

I think Pete, did you have any other follow-up questions to that that were specific um within the 10 questions you had provided that would help in terms of next steps for us?

Yes. Um so there are a few other staff considerations as well. if uh there are other um upgrades that may be necessary for this site um such as limiting vehicle display to a certain uh portions of the lot um to encourage the pedestrianoriented front hitch or to add um buffering landscaping. That is one requirement in the um in the Richmond municipal code is to provide for buffer landscaping. Um, I know since this is a non-conforming site, it wasn't subject to that requirement, but um, considering this as a a quoteunquote new development, uh, maybe subject to that rule. Um, I would appreciate your guidance in um any potential upgrades you see that um can meet uh that can help uh this business meet um halfway with the regulations.

Well, we kind of went away. We're kind of going in a different direction than uh trying to make this use more compatible. or rather we're saying the use is incompatible. Um, so I guess we could entertain that, but I don't know that that's the the best idea to to do. No,

I think that based on the feedback you've provided this evening that, you know, I'll continue to work with Pete, I think through our public works department and the efforts that they have in place around the, you know, public infrastructure updates and upgrades to the city where the site falls in that plan. Also then to sit down with our economic development team to understand alternative options and it gives us a chance to go back. Um, and I know this isn't, you know, necessarily ideal news to hear, um, but again, it's not a no. This is a us looking to understand are there alternatives that would allow us to either say yes or would say that there you know sometimes the use itself is a is a good use just not in this particular location giving future design needs. So, we can take this back um and evaluate it internally, look at potential economic drivers that would allow for an alternative use um and look at other sites within the city of Richmond um that may be suitable for um this proposed use that might still be along the same quarter, but it might be in a different location. And we can begin

um you know, connecting the owner of this property, the applicant here with with other owners and other properties um that may also be suitable or more suitable uh for that use. Um but again it sounds like there's general uh concern about making the findings um but that you'd like for us to continue to explore other options but again without forgetting that this is still the request in front of us. Yeah.

Okay. Uh, one thing I would just say um about the question you asked is in general the autooriented uses create issues when they have like chain link fencing around the site when they have a lack of landscaping and when there's curb cuts uh interrupting the sidewalk. So those are some of the features that make autooriented uses not fit in with the vision here. So those are those are things that in my mind rise to the top. Um but with that we can conclude the study session. Um yes

and we can conclude the meeting. I believe there is another commission business reports of officers, commissions and staff. No reports at this time and I don't have any either. So I will adjourn the meeting tonight. Thank you all. Thank you all. Thank you. Thanks.