Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat.

Heat. Heat. Hey, hey, hey. Good evening, planning commission. Um, we are joined by Richmond side uh for a little bit of press op for some of the articles that we're going to be in in the upcoming weeks. And so they want to take a photo of our newly continually minted edition of comm planning commissioners. So go ahead. I'm going to stand right there.

Okay. I don't have the TV, guys. This is a lot. A lot. Quite a lot. Yeah. Okay. Uh let me call to order the planning commission meeting of April 2nd. I guess this is uh begin with the roll call, please. Chair Harrison, present. Vice Chair Bert Baker here. Secretary Tibbons here. Commissioner Golivitz is absent. Commissioner Shahid here. And Commissioner Bonitez

here. Next we have introductions. I think we've got a couple of fairly new commissioners and it' be good for everyone to get to know who they are. So, uh, should we go left? We'll start with Gay and go this way. Just say my name. Yeah, just say your name, I guess. Yeah. Your name and, you know, one fun fact maybe.

Yeah. Little icebreaker. Why not? My name is Gay Timonss and uh I own a business here in Richmond and I sell organic oils. And this week I learned that argan trees have roots that go 150 feet into the soil to get water and that blew me away.

I am Bruce Brewaker. I'm a longtime uh planning commission member. I think I started before the pandemic and um I'm also a longtime Richmond resident. I've been here for over 30 years. John Harrison. I'm currently the chair of the commission. Uh been here about eight years and been on the commission for about four years. And hello everyone. I'm Diana Venites, the new commissioner. I um have been living in the Bay Area for seven years now and moved to Richmond last year and I'm super excited to be involved in this work with you all. We're really glad to have you. Thanks for joining.

You've got one more. Yeah. Oh yeah, that's right. Thank you. Yeah. Um hello everyone. I hope you can hear me. Okay. My name is Shazib Shahid. Uh I've been here since 2008, so a long time. Uh an icebreaker. I tried a fish eye before which was pretty interesting. Wouldn't recommend it. Okay. And we have one commissioner didn't make it this evening. All right. I guess the next item is the approval of minutes. We have minutes from the March 5th meeting. Uh is there a motion to approve or any corrections required?

I I have a question or a clarification on the minutes if I may. um ask planning manager Stark. Um one of the items in uh during discussion was that the EVA in Point Richmond was about to be completed. there was going to be a final inspection and following the inspection there would be a formal update from the city and I'm wondering if that if it was completed and if an update has been given.

Um the final inspection has been completed. I've been waiting for the chief to send me an official memo so that I can provide it to the commission and to the community. Um but they did do their final inspection and it did pass. So there is um the appropriate emergency uh vehicle access in the event hopefully unlikely of an emergency that they would need to open that gate uh to you know maneuver in and out firet trucks or people. Um but I will get a official memo uh sent out to the community as soon as I get one from the chief. Okay. Thank you. So um if nobody has anything else I'll move uh to approve the minutes. Okay. Do we have a second? I second it. And since we have someone remote, I think we have to do a a roll call vote. Correct. We'll do a roll call. Um, Chair Harrison,

yes. Vice Chair Burbicker, yes. Secretary Timmons, yes. Commissioner Kovitz is absent. Commissioner Shahid, yes. And Commissioner Bonitez, you were uh abate. Thank you. All right, moving right along. Approval of agenda. This is sort of new. Is that do we need are you looking to see if we need to add anything or We're just you know we've been making some updates to our agendas for all of our bodies just to be a little bit more in alignment. Um technically under your bylaws there is an opportunity for you to rearrange the agenda if you chose. It just wasn't clearly articulated in the agenda itself.

So we've added it in there as a great a matter going forward. Yes. Does that doesn't take a motion or anything? is just opportunity to rem amend it. If somebody doesn't want to amend it, we just go forward. Correct. If you don't want to amend it, you could motion to approve the agenda as is. If you wanted to amend the agenda, you someone would motion to change items or the order of the items on the agenda and then you would vote. Is there a motion to approve then or does someone request a modification? My motion to approve the agenda. Second. And Commissioner uh Chair Harrison, yes. Vice Chair Burbaker, yes. Secretary Timonss, yes.

Commissioner Golovitz is absent. Commissioner Shahed, yes. And Commissioner Bonitez, yes. Okay. Next is consent calendar. I don't believe we have any consent items tonight. So, we'll go to the Brown Act. This is an opportunity for anybody in the public wishing to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda to do so. Uh I don't believe we have any Oh, we do have our our good. We have one speaker right here. Let's go forward. So yeah, got to turn it.

Good evening, uh Chair Harrison, commissioners. For the record, I am Codel Hendler and I'm a Richmond resident. So, I do want to welcome Diana and Shazada uh online. So, it's nice to meet you both. Uh so, I do apologize for not coming to last month's meeting because I had a conflict in Hercules, the mayor's conference. So, it was a good turnout for me. So, while I was there, I I thought about what I was going to pres tell you bring up forward. though. If you recall at the January meeting when the Hilltop district and myself, we came before you all to uh to express our opposition regarding the Chevron to sell alcohol. One of the things that I have noticed is like it's the thought that had occurred to me. They said that the idea of Chevron to sell alcohol, it affects the community because I have talked to some of the schools adjacent to it and they had concerns, you know, like all it tastes is like two beers for some for somebody to buy two beers and it crashes because I read an I was written an article recently about the effects about alcohol and teenage and drunk driving. It concerns me because as someone who h who has nieces and nephews that are like in the teenage range, I am concerned about their safety and I do not feel obligated to feel that the idea of get them in a backseat of somebody who's been drinking it scares me. So, I'm thinking to myself, maybe Chevron as a gas station, that's fine. But selling alcohol, that's a big concern to me because I and I understand where Mr. Singh is coming from. He wants he's he has to pay bills for his family. I understand. But you also got to understand the Hilltop district and our concerns because it's something that really um is is shown me

the light of like how serious this matter is. So, I'm thinking to myself, how can we make sure that that people that do buy alcohol at Chevron? You have to think about it though. It takes is like a crash in a blink. So I'm saying to myself, we have to be we have to be mindful because I'm I have I have think I think about children every time and it's like and it's scary to see that somebody would in a blink of an eye a die of a drunk driving. So I let that thought let it thought marinate. But the last thing is like I will say once again for for the newer commissioners that that the neighborhood councils are aware that anytime when projects come before this body or anybody the neighborhood council has to weigh in on this. So I let that thought let it marinate. So that's it. I'll try to be here more often.

Thank you. Uh I don't see anyone else here in the chambers. Uh, do we have anybody online that wishes to speak to the commission on an item not on the agenda? No, we do not, chair. Okay. So, then we can move on to uh that's public forum. Is that the same as the Brown Act now? Are they different? What is That's what we just did. Public forum. So, Brown I think they're a little redundant, aren't they? My apologies. That should be one. F and G should be one. Okay, I will adjust. Thank you. Yeah, I didn't blow it then. Good.

Okay. Uh we're next to we'll go to the public hearings. Uh first we held over items. There's an item one for the Cascade Town Homes which is going to be postponed until our next meeting on April 16th. So we'll go to item two which PLN26-071 housing element implementation phase one. I'll take take to staff to give us a presentation. Yes. Good evening planning commission Avery Stark, planning manager. Um the majority of this presentation will be provided to you by Kylie of EMC who will um introduce herself. Um this is again um a long awaited update to the zoning code and a general plan amendment to continue to bring our housing element into substantial compliance with the goals the city had established with its 8-year housing element. Um this is what we've considered phase one which has been focused on primarily just the code codified updates that would need to be able to set us forward on a good foundation and a good footing for the remainder of the six years um for the progress of further implementation. So I will go ahead and turn it over to Kylie um for her introduction and her presentation this evening.

Yes. Thanks Avery. Um again my name is Kylie Pope. Um, I'm with EMC Planning Group and I've been working on phase one implementation for the city. So, you want to go ahead and put the presentation up? Okay. Um, so tonight, like Avery said, I'll be walking you through a set of proposed municipal code and general plan amendments that implement the city's adopted six six cycle housing element. But before I get into the presentation, I want to take a moment to recognize the city and the community. Um, getting to this point, having an adopted and state certified housing element is a significant accomplishment. Many jurisdictions across California are still out of compliance or have not yet moved into implementation. So, the fact that Richmond has a compliant housing element and is now actively moving forward with implementation that will facilitate housing production really puts the city ahead of the curve. So, um, give yourselves a pat on the back. Um, and then just a little bit of, uh, a reminder or maybe if you didn't know, um, just some education. Currently the city uh or I'm sorry the state through housing and community development department known as HCD um they're actively monitoring jurisdictions and in some cases taking enforcement actions where cities are not making progress to toward their housing obligations. So, a reminder that tonight's actions reflect not just compliance, but a proactive effort to implement the housing element and support housing development in the community. Next slide. So, as a quick refresher, the city adopted its housing element in early 2023 and received certification from the

state later that year. Uh with that adoption, the city also committed to the timely and effective implementation of all housing element program programs. Uh so nothing you're seeing tonight should come as a surprise. The proposed amendments are not introducing any new policy direction. They're simply carrying out those adopted commitments. Next slide. So the first group of amendments focuses on uh development standards primarily related to density, height and parking. So at a high level, the goal here is to allow more housing in appropriate areas by increasing minimum densities, modestly increasing building heights, and removing parking requirements near transit. So, beginning with the proposed parking amendments, AB 2097 requires jurisdictions to eliminate parking minimums within a half mile of major transit, which helps reduce development costs and constraints and would apply to new development and changes of use. Additionally, proposed amendments update the definition of major transit stops to be consistent with state law, which now includes bus rapid transit stations in addition to rail transit stations, uh ferry terminals, and also the intersection of two major bus routes. Uh the state also updated the definition to increase the frequency of service intervals from 15 to 20 minutes. Next slide. So, here's a closer look at the proposed density and height amendments. Uh, we'll start with density. The amendments establish a minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre and residential zones, which is your RM1 and your RM2. And you can see that the existing

minimum density for RM1 is 10 dwelling units per acre. And what's proposed again is the 20 dwelling units per acre. and RM2, you have an existing density of minimum density of 15 dwelling units per acre. Um, and then for your mixed use zones, that's your CM1 through your CM5. And you can see that amendments to the minimum minimum density are only proposed for CM 1, 2, and three. And again, it's that proposed 20 dwelling units per acre. Uh this is to help ensure that sites are developed at a level that can uh realistically support housing production including affordable housing. Uh and this is consistent with HCD's uh guidance. So as for the proposed height amendments, they allow for modest increases in building height primarily to better accommodate three to four story construction. I want to point out that there are no amendments to the permitted number of stories for these zoning districts. We're only talking about the maximum height. Um, and so for RM1 and RM2, the existing maximum height is 35 ft. What's proposed uh is an increase of 3 feet. So 38 feet for the maximum height. And then for uh the mixed use, I want to point out that um the proposed heights here uh and it's not in this slide. I apologize. I should have made this distinction, but the proposed maximum heights for mixed use zones are only in relation to the proximity to residential zoning districts. So the overall district maximum heights for CM1 through CM5 are not being amendment amended.

There's no proposed amendments. Um those will remain at 45 ft for CM 1 and 2, 55 ft for CM 3 and 5 and 135 ft for CM5. We are only talking about proposed amendments for um these zones in relation to proximity to residential zones. Now you might ask why increase height if the change is relatively modest and in this case very modest. Um and the reason is just to better accommodate real world development needs. Uh for example um higher floor to ceiling heights are increasingly expected in residential construction. Um and in mixeduse buildings additional height is especially important. It helps provide adequate ground floor commercial space while still accommodating those residential units above. So ultimately, these amendments are providing modest but meaningful increase in flexibility while also bringing better alignment between the city's formbbased code and zoning code. Next slide. The next set of amendments focuses on the development review process itself. Specifically, the city would be shifting from subjective design standards to objective standards. So in practical terms, that means projects are evaluated based on clear measurable criteria rather than discretionary findings about aesthetics or compatibility. Next slide. So, here's how that would look in the code in regards to the design review criteria. The city would remove subjective language like um sense of place, design integrity,

uh aesthetic compatibility and instead focus on whether a project meets adopted standards in the general plan and the zoning code. What remains are the core considerations like circulation, safety, infrastructure, but they're evaluated in a more objective and consistent manner. And the overall outcome of this shift is greater clarity and predictability. So that way applicants know what's required, staff can apply consistent standards, and decision makers like yourself have a clear basis for approvals. Next slide. Now in the same vein, the city would remove subjective language from its required findings as well. Uh so this would be particularly around findings of um impacts to livability, appropriate development or impacts to neighborhood character and instead focus findings on consistency with the general plan or other objective criteria. Um again the city would maintain important protections related to nuisances infrastructure and public services. Again so the overall goal here is to make findings clear, consistent and more defensible. Uh and I want to point out that the proposed amendments for design review criteria and required findings align with state requirements that housing development be reviewed using objective standards wherever possible. Next slide. So the next section uh focuses on expanding housing types allowed in the city consistent with state law. Overall, these uh changes uh ensure that broader ranges of housing such as residential care facilities, low barrier navigation centers, supportive housing and emergency shelters can be developed in

appropriate zones and with clear standards consistent with state law. Uh so for residential care facilities under the proposed amendment the city would allow them in residential zones and treat them the same as other residential uses of the same type. So for example in a single family zone a residential care facility would be subject to the same standards as a single family home. In a multifamily zone it would be treated like a multif family use. So the goal here is to ensure that these types of facilities are permitted objectively again it's that objective um permitting and then also consistently without additional or unique requirements for supportive housing. The amendments allow it by right in all zones where multifamily and mixed use developments permitted. This means so no discretionary review, no cup, no um planned unit development permit required. Um and the existing code almost meets this requirement but there was a required amendment to permit them in the regional commercial uh the CR zoning district. Uh the amendments also expand how emergency shelters are defined under state law to include navigation centers, bridge housing and respite or rec recuperative care and also reduce parking requirements for emergency shelters. Now finally the proposed uh amendments update um employee housing standards to align with state requirements. So housing for six or fewer employees is treated as a single family use. So definitions of single unit detached and attached dwellings in the code were

updated to reflect that. Now for larger configurations up to 36 beds or 12 units, uh employee housings deemed as an agricultural use consistent with state law. Um, so in regard to employee housing, these were just clarifications needed in the code and um, they didn't require broader changes to the zoning code beyond updating definitions. Next slide. For general plan alignment, the proposed amendments are really about making sure the general plan uh, and zoning code are consistent with each other, uh, which currently they are not. Um so this includes amending permitted densities and heights for the medium density residential designation and also amending densities for mixed use designations. Um next slide so this slide shows how the general plan and zoning designations are being aligned uh to ensure consistency. So on the far left side u medium intensity mixed use commercial emphasis um you can see here we kind of have a pattern going. So we have to the far left column this is a land use designation to the right of it we have the um corresponding zoning district and so on and so forth. So, I do want to note for the commission, I think that the packet that was printed and that you have includes a clerical error, unless staff was able to get you the updated one. Um, but so I put it in red here. I want to clarify that in this far left column for commercial emphasis mixeduse uh designation. Um, the proposed amendments propose a

minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre. Um, in a previous iteration it said 30 dwelling units per acre, but the amendment in fact is 20 a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre to correspond with the CM3 um, uh, density increase. So, uh, moving on from there, um, the community nodes and gateways mixeduse designation, uh, the proposed amendments are establishing a minimum density, which, uh, it currently does not have, um, of 30 dwelling units per acre and also increasing the maximum density from, uh, 75 dwelling units per acre up to 82.5. And if you look to the column to the right of it for CM4, you'll notice that the increase in the maximum density is to uh bring consistency um with the zoning code which is currently permitting a greater maximum density than what is allowed under the general plan. And then moving on to the high-intensity mixed use. Um similarly, we're establishing uh we're proposing to establish a minimum density of 40 dwelling 40 dwelling units per acre. Um and increasing the maximum from 125 to 135 to align with what zoning is currently permitting. Uh again, which is greater than what's currently permitted in the uh general plan. Saying dwelling units per acre so many times is hard. Thanks for bearing with me everyone. Uh so overall these changes don't introduce any new development capacity beyond what zoning already allows with the exception of the proposed minimum increases in zoning density which I previously presented. It's that um increased

minimum density of 20 dwelling units per acre for RM12 and CM 1 through 3. Um so again these amendments are ensuring general plan uh is consistent with the zoning code and the housing element. Next slide. We're almost through it. Um so the housing element also includes an implementation action to update the city's density bonus ordinance to be consistent with state law. The main changes here was to streamline the ordinance and directly reference state law so that it remains compliant even as state requirements evolve over time which we know they do. We've seen that in the last few years. Um so you'll notice in your packet throughout this ordinance there's quite a bit of strikethrough and that's just part of the overall streamlining effort. Um rather than reiterating state law directly into the city's code, the ordinance is proposed to be revised to reference applicable statutes. And this approach just reduces the need for updates uh as state law changes and also helps avoid inconsistencies or errors between the m municipal code and state requirements. So overall, this is really about making the ordinance efficient, easy to maintain, and consistently aligned with state law. Next slide. So since staff's already proposing amendments to the key terms and definition section of the code, uh city staff's proposing some cleanup, including removing the key term section, which is uh very redundant. You'll see in the packet it's several pages of key terms and then following it are again the key terms and but then they're defined. So proposing to remove the list of key terms and then also updating um

definitions including the ADUs, JADUs and efficiency units to ensure consistency with state law but also to ensure consistency with the city's updated ADU ordinance which is being discussed later this evening. Uh so these changes will just help the code u be more clear and internally consistent. Next slide. We made it. Okay. So, stepping back, these amendments collectively do a few things. So, they're ensuring compliance with state housing law, aligning the city's plans and regulations, removing barriers to housing development, establishing more predictable and objective standards, and most importantly, they're expanding opportunities to develop uh different types of housing across the city. Next slide. So based on all of this, staff's recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution recommending city council approval of these amendments. Uh this action would implement the city's housing element programs and assure ensure the city maintains compliance with state housing law. Next slide. Okay, so that concludes my presentation. Again, um kudos to the city for getting to this point. give yourselves a pat on the back. Um, it's no small feat. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Does anyone have questions for the consultant? Okay. I don't see anyone with a question at the moment. Uh, so I'm sure you'll be around in case something comes up. I have one question for staff. Um just can you clarify for me how if all this affects that formbbased code that we adopted a few months ago for for parts of the city? Yes. The formbbased code um was adopted in 2023 so a few years ago.

Um these impacts um are consistent to the changes that are proposed this evening are in alignment with the farm-based code. A lot of this alignment was to ensure that heights um and minimum and maximum densities further are consistent with the formbbased code. So none of these amendments will change the formbbased code because the formbbased code is already in good standings. This is to change um like the traditional zoning code that the city has in conjunction with the formbbased code. Thank you. U Gay, this is for staff also. Where is the agricultural land that was referenced?

So the agricultural land is a reference to um a type of housing product. No, no, I understand that. Where is the land in Richmond? North portions of North Richmond as you make your way up to the hilltop and into Elserto um and Elsa Bronte. We do have agricultural lands that abut the bay. Do you have a an approximate acreage? I do not have an approximate acreage off the top of my head. Um, but I can certainly get back to you with the exact acreage. I just having come from an agricultural background. Yeah. I read I I listened to her and I I thought

the city of Richmond has we have a smaller amount of aggre of agricultural land. Uh but the important part is this is consistency with state law around ensuring that we can accommodate housing types that would suit and be suitable for agricultural types of housing in the you know we have you know wine country is not that far away and so in the event that someone wanted to produce housing in Richmond that would allow for access to farming of of anything or agriculturally within our vicinity um will now have alignment with state law. But I will get you the precise acreage of agriculturally zoned land in the city of Richmond because I do have the information. I I am very curious. Thank you. Yes, I have some questions. Sure.

Um thank you for the uh report. Uh I did have some things that came up in our my previous review and also during that presentation. Uh one is regarding height. So, we're making a change to the maximum height in RM1, RM2, but not in this the commercial mixeduse districts. So, the the height the maximum height remains 35 in those districts even though there's a there's a sense that a height of 38 will make it easier to develop housing. So, why wouldn't we make that change also in the commercial mixeduse zones?

Kylie, I'll let you answer that one if you would, uh, want to give that one a shot.

Yeah. Um, sorry, I'm just going back to my notes. Uh so um and apologies uh because in my in the table I noticed this afterward and so I I made an edit but then there were um technical difficulties and I wasn't able to share my screen so my updated slide didn't make it on there but uh to re reiterate we're not proposing changes to the maximum heights for mixed use zones CM1 through CM5. You're correct. However, the slide and I don't know Avery if you want to put it back on the screen so everyone can see uh it's slide four in the present. Yeah. So, it says maximum height 35 for all of those uh mixed use districts CM 1 through 5. However, that is the existing maximum height in relation to proximity to residential zones. That's not the overall district maximum height for those mixeduse zones. Um what it is is actually uh like the overall district maximum height for CM one and two is 45 feet actually and for CM 3 and four it's 55 and for CM5 it's 135 but that's not what we're proposing amendments to. So those will remain in place and you can they're much higher. So amendments to them are not necessarily needed. What we're discussing amendments to is the allowed height for a mixeduse zone that is adjacent to a residential zone.

Does that answer your question? Yeah. Yes. Although it doesn't say give a reason why it wasn't changed. Uh the overall district maximum. No, the the proximity um the the height in mixed use approximate to residential zones remains at 35.

The amendments proposed are to modestly increase it. So for CM1 and two that proximity uh height would be 38 rather than 35. And for CM3, four and five, it increases to 45 feet. So it is being changed even in areas that are next to residential zones. Proposed to be changed. Yes.

I I think when I read through the fat packet, I found a reference. You could check this later. um height on San Pablo in for this I think it was CM3 zone was 35 and it's listed in the packet as such. So it it wasn't listed as being a a strikeout change. So you maybe maybe there's just I will double check that. Okay. Uh we are proposing those changes. So I will double check that. Thank you.

Okay. Um Okay. Then I have questions about waiverss. So we're we're making a higher density requirement, minimum density um in certain zones. And I'm wondering if that requirement would be eligible for a developer to choose as a concession or a waiver to avoid that minimum density. Do we know that? It's not listed in the list that's in the packet of allowable waiverss.

Are you talking about for the density bonus ordinance? I'm not sure. Well, where do you have concessions or waiverss? Is it only density bonus? That would be for density bonus30. SP330, right? It would be density bonus. That would be state density bonus. So SP330 is the application type that would um lock into place fees and regulations for an entitlement which would then be required to submit a formal application within 180 days.

That application could still seek density bonus waiverss and concessions. Um, in many cases, what we're seeing currently is projects aren't even meeting the minimum density um of the zoning districts that they're in. And under state law, for state density bonus, you don't actually have to be producing the minimum density to be eligible for density bonus waiverss. That's recently changed within the last two or three years. Welcome to our our lives. They It's a moving target. Um so I I suppose in theory if a developer wanted to propose an application um in RM1 um where the density was only going to be say 10 units per acre. Theoretically, I suppose that's a reasonable concession in the sense that if it would otherwise preclude them from being able to build housing and particularly affordable housing, if they were providing affordable housing on that site, which they would have to through state density bonus, um it it's feasible, I suppose. I don't think I've seen a case where that's come up. And the majority of the developments we see for affordable housing, they're seeking to develop 100% affordable housing and get all of the waiverss and concessions. And at that point, the goal is to produce and build as many units as possible um at those lower market rate values and then potentially have some market rate component to their building to help offset some of those costs. Um, so I think it's a test that could certainly be applied and we would review a developers, you know, waiverss and concessions for state density bonus. Um, I think we received it.

If I may, I I think it's happening in many places in the Bay Area where developers are are kind of leaning towards developing uh, you know, lower density residential. They find its penciling better. It means in some cases violating or or ignoring the the required minimum density. Um and I I guess I it seems counter to you know the housing well it's a state the goals for the state and you know we've had two projects terminal one is coming up Marina Point. Um, I just I just wonder how how much power we have even after these updates are made to require developers to produce the minimum density required in our objective municipal code. I mean, no one can say that's subjective. So, anyways, that's a that's my point about density. Um let's see transit corridor. So there's a redefinition of the trans major transit stop um which is in the packet. I saw no mention of the of a transit corridor which is also allowed. It provides for lower parking or zero parking requirement within a half mile of major transit corridor, but it's only mentioned as being a half mile to major transit stop. And so I I just want to confirm I don't know if it's possible to look into this

or maybe I'll just suggest that you ensure that that requirement also pertains or that allowance for zero parking also pertains to transit corridors.

Yeah, we can certainly confirm. Um it is my understanding that with the update to major transit stops. So the city of Richmond has three um major being the BART being the BART that is in Elserto and our ferry terminal. We have a major stops also along San Pablo where there are those intersections of two stops of now frequencies of 15 minutes or greater or now 20 minutes. The reference to corridor is generally used when we're talking about accessory dwelling units and additional height allowances. And so state law does this fun thing where they like to mince the word corridor and highquality transit stop and then sometimes they use high quality transit corridor. Um, but I can we will be sure to review our our proposed language with legal and ensure that the where we're using a major transit stop um is accurate for the reduction of parking and where the term major transit corridor um if needs to be added as a definition to help ensure consistency where we're talking about height allowances for accessory dwelling units or in some instances where commercial space can be converted into residential units. Now under SP 6, SP Thank you for that clarification. Yeah, that's right. Um I I would also add I I believe the route 72 which ends at Point Richmond is also a high qual is high quality transit. So that's part of a corridor.

Yes, that would be part of the corridor. So like on our zoning map today, that shows up as um half a mile buffer distance from that corridor where homes can have higher ADU sizes and heights.

Okay, great. Thank you. Um so then a couple other things. So, that was my pre-review. And then a couple things tonight. Uh, emergency shelters are being streamlined or at least the residential care is being streamlined. Are emergency shelters being streamlined as part of this update? Emergency shelters are being um clarified in terms of their definition and we've provided um objective standards for measuring the ways in which a an emergency shelter can be operated within the city of Richmond whereas prior we did not have as rigorous objective standards and in some places um you know the goal was to create alignment with the state to ensure that the the regs that we were applying were within the boundaries of allowance.

Okay. uh do they require a commercial use permit if they're in a residential area in most instances now? No. A emer a com emergency shelter becomes a permitted by right use a by right land use with a series of objective standards that still need to be met. So they would be submitting for like a zoning compliance review and so then we would review compliance but that would be in-house and would not come to commission. Correct.

Okay. Um uh last question. Does the state need to does ACD need to review these implementation changes or are they they let cities go ahead and do it? They don't care. So when the state um certified our housing element and all of these changes were outlined as being our implementation to the sixth cycle, they've effectively green lit the city to go forward with all of these updates and changes for codified code language and then all the programmatic upgrades as well. And so what will happen is every year as a part of the annual housing progress report, which I just finished, we report back on all of the objectives and all the goals and the progress that we've made towards them. And so these for this last year are indicated as being in progress and will be adopted as of this meeting effectively through council or later this year. So next year we'll report back that they're done. And I would provide links to the zoning code where they can review it. And a lot of this code does still get sent to HCD for review and certification to make sure that we're still, you know, airtight on our our findings and legal words.

Great. Thank you. Any other questions? Yes. I have a comment. Comment. Excellent.

Yeah. um just want to say thank you for all of this work. And I didn't give a fun fact when I introduced myself, but a few years ago I had the opportunity to help write a section of the housing element, but it was the affirmatively furthering fair housing section. I had not read the whole the whole shebang and so I got to read a lot of it in detail and I just also wanted to thank staff for taking the time to answer some of my questions ahead of time that I believe was shared with the rest of the group. Okay, there's no other questions from the commission. Suppose I should need to open this as a public hearing to see if anybody in the listening public has a question or comment. I don't think Cordell is here any longer. So, we won't have anyone here. Is there anyone online who has raised their hand? No.

Uh, no one is online. Okay, then I will close the public hearing and what's the wish of the commission relative to moving forward on this? Anybody want to make a motion? Somebody's got to this the number two down there. There was a slide that had Yes. Same language. Yeah. KCRT could just put up the slide I have on my screen for the commission. Thank you.

Um I motion that we adopt resolution number 26-06 recommending approval of the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance as provided in exhibit A to implement the city's adopted housing element and comply with state housing element law. Is there a second? I second. All right. And uh we could have a roll call vote, please. Chair Harrison, yes. Vice Chair Burbaker, yes. Secretary Timonss, yes. Commissioner Golovves is absent. Commissioner Shahid, yes. And Commissioner Bonitez,

yes. Thank you all very much. Okay, on to it. We're on to items uh three, PLN25-019, the ADU code update. And if we could have the staff presentation, do I need to announce the app? Somebody wants to appeal that they have until our decision they have until such and such a day. you just did.

It's like 10 10 calendar days from today. So that'd be like the 12th of April.

Yeah. In this case, um because you're making a recommendation to council, it's not an appealable decision. It's just that council will take further action as it's legislative. And then I will go ahead and introduce Michelle Morris, senior planner within our long range planning unit um with the city of Richmond, who will be presenting this evening um on our update to ADU ordinance. Um this was previously brought to you um middle of last year and then the state did a fun thing and changed the law again and so we made sure to bring it back to you for updates to be compliant with that and so Michelle will give her presentation um on that. Go ahead. Good evening, Chair Harrison and planning commissioners. As Avery said, I'm Michelle Morris, uh senior planner concentrating on long range planning for Richmond, and I'm presenting an overview of the amendments uh proposed to the uh to the city's accessory dwelling unit ordinance. Uh we're returning to the planning commission due to the very recent and numerous updates to accessory dwelling uh unit laws by the state legislature. So today the overview for the presentation um has to do with the purpose to review the recommended amendments to the city's accessory dwelling unit ordinance uh Richmond's uh Richmond municipal code sections 15.04.610.020 and related changes to sections 15.04.104 15.04.201.03 03 and 15.04.201.050.

I promise I won't read them all the time though. Um so the recommended actions um is to hold this public hearing and adopt a resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the sections I just re uh read out to you that you can see there on the screen of the Richmond Municipal Code related to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Um to set a baseline um I have the definitions for an accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling units. Um they do mesh with the previous presentations of the definitions of the same. Um a pro the proposed amendment has to do with attached and detached ADU definitions include an attached or detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on the same lot as a proposed or existing single family or multif family dwelling. Um, it includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel that the single family or multif family dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit may be within the same structure as the primary dwelling in an attached structure or in a separate detached structure on the same lot. So, it gives examples there and you can see how these all differ with the yellow um areas on each uh image there. Uh to give a background, in October 2024, the state department of housing and community development, HCD, completed a review of the city's accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling unit ordinance adopted in November 2020. Um then on July 17th, this body, the planning commission, recommended a draft

ordinance to be presented to the city council for their approval. There were numerous changes to the ADU code. Um I'm sure you guys are aware of that. And um additional changes to the ADU ordinance, excuse me, ADU and JDU state law were enacted on October 10th, 2025 and on January 1st, 2026. So we're we're playing catch-up here. Uh the proposed ordinance brings the city's municipal code into compliance with recent changes. As I said, some examples, just a few of the examples are JDUs can be in attached garages. Uh the major transit stop and highquality transit corridor are defined in the public resources code section and we'll come up to compliance with those requirements as well. The rules for height have been updated. And just as an example, um an additional 2 feet in height is allowed to accommodate a roof pitch on the ADU that's aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. And sorry for the typo there. It says no replacement parking is required when covered parking is demolished or converted in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. Other amendments include ADU and JADUs may not be rented for fewer than 30 days. Properties containing a JADU must be owner occupied unless the owner is another governmental agency, land, trust, or housing organization. and an attached ADU to be constructed on a lot that's listed in the California Register of Historic Resources must comply with all applicable objective standards imposed by the Secretary of Interior. And these standards shall not include requirements on minimum lot size.

And so the legal framework work um there are many amendments as I said before that just became um effective. Um, so for the last three years running, we've had numerous amendments. Um, and this hopefully this ordinance will give us a little bit more time before they change it again. Um, for instance, um, the amendments that this ordinance in um, encompasses, talks about how the ADU state law was reumbered and relocated within the government code section. Um and then other legal changes or excuse me legislation made changes to state ADU law to define livable space as a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation including living, sleeping, eating, cooking or sanitation. It also clarified the law on uncovered parking so that uncovered off- streetet parking can be demolished as I said below um us demolished in conjunction with the construction of an ADU. There's also byite combinations. Um this is a very general overview of this these four different categories of byite meaning they can come to the counter and get a building permit for these um but there are some rules. So I'll give you a general explanation. Um this has to do with Senate Bill 543. Government code section um states that there are four categories. Numbers one and two that you see in front of you means that one internal or converted ADU can be proposed on a single pro family property. Also, one newly constructed detached ADU and one JADU can be proposed. Uh category 3 means that converted non-livable space of an existing multif family dwelling can be converted up to 25% of the existing

primary units and detached ADUs are allowed but there is a maximum of eight detached ADUs. So there are numerous combinations that can um bring the number of ADUs up on a lot. It's um kind of encouraging to get more housing. um the number of ad for example the number of ADUs allowed on a multif family dwelling lot cannot exceed cannot exceed the number of existing units on the lot. So if you have four multif family units existing you can conceivably have four detached ADUs but keep in mind you can't exceed eight ADUs. Um also a proposed multif family dwelling is limited to two detached ADUs. So, if you're starting fresh, you're stuck with two detached ADUs. There's also been changes to how we process ADU applications. Um, the proposed amendments, changes to the application processing here, um, is for standard ADU applications. Um, the city has 60-day period to approve or deny an application. After we receive it within 15 days, we have to tell the applicant whether or not their application is complete. And then we have to notice them in writing what are the deficiencies to their application. Once they resubmit, we only have 15 days to respond as well. And the whole process is limited to 60 days. But however, we do have pre-approved plans. You may, some of you may remember that the city has pre-approved plans. That gives us an even shorter timeline. Now, um, so let me just go through a little bit of this. The city has 30 days to process an ADU application that used

a pre preapproved detached ADU plan set. So, our plans are for detached ADUs. Um, and then we have to deem the application complete and we only have 30 days to get through the whole process. So the whole process meaning we either approve or deny. And here I have a snapshot of the first page of our handbook that's on our website. You'll see that our website is here on the slide, but if anybody's wants to know the the uh URL, I'll let them know. um it has not been updated with the most recent changes, but it is, I'd say, 90% helpful still without an addendum with changes. That being said, the state ADU guide book has been updated with an addendum. So, um there's lots of resources here for the public to come to our door with an ADU application. And here are some examples of the architectural styles that we have here for detached ADUs. Um they do look a lot similar, but they are different. Um so um for an example, the roof lines are similar in the way they're shaped, but the materials are different. Um and the floor plans are pretty similar as well. But the main thing is that that gets people to our counter and we have 30 days to get them an approval or a denial. So today uh to conclude, we're asking the planning commission at this public hearing to adopt the resolution which recommends approval of the amendments to the Richmond Municipal Code pertaining to ADU, excuse me, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units. Thank you. and I'm available for any questions you may have.

Thank you very much for the presentation. Does anyone uh have a question for staff at this time? Yes.

Um thank you so much and thank you for all the work you all do to keep up with the state multiple times a year. I see. um wanted to share another fun fact that I lived in a Jedu in Berkeley for six years and so always appreciate that opportunity to have more type of affordable housing. And I also wanted to say thank you for answering my questions via email and I did want to follow up. I know you all recently presented your a the annual progress reports to city council and I was just wondering um if you've seen an increase in the number of ADUs and JADUs that have come up and then also in relation to that I know one of my questions via email had been a little bit about the conversions so those that were um had previously been considered technically illegal and uh folks getting uh converted uh and going through the whole process because I know I've seen up and down the state. There are still a lot of what you would call ADUs, but they're technically not uh legal or going through the whole process. And so, I just wanted to get a sense of what's going on here in Richmond. Thank you.

Thank you. I can answer that question. So, in terms of the annual progress report, that presentation has not been made to city council yet. Actually, that will be made um on May 5th. And so I will certainly be able to provide this group with a copy of that agenda report um as it becomes available. Uh generally speaking, we do see an uptick in accessory dwelling units. We received over 120 applications last year alone for accessory dwelling units. We approved 54 of them. Of that in the last calendar year, uh 48 were issued certificate of occupancies, which is slightly higher than our year prior. Um so we do see them as being a valuable source of of housing and affordable housing within the city of Richmond. Um and because of the general nature and size of ADUs within Contraosta County, we are able to count um ADUs towards uh low very low moderate and above moderate income units um to count towards our regional housing allocation. um which is uh substantially helpful considering the challenge that the city of Richmond faces in in providing moderate um rental units. And so um that ability to you know see further development has been quite helpful. And so the pre-approved plans we've approved I think last time I checked three or four sets and there's one or two that have now submitted for building permit and so they're almost done. Um and we're again in the process we'll as we bring this forward to council we'll be updating the ADU toolkit to be very much again in sync with the recommended or and ordinance changes this this evening and then continuing to make sure that our plan sets are continued update with the building code to continue to be available to members of the public.

Yeah. Um, and just following up, um, of those units that you just mentioned, do you know offhand if a lot of them are new construction or if it's 25% 50% that are converted?

I would say that a third, maybe twothirds of our ADUs are converted ADUs. Again, we're talking about someone who's had a garage or a room that has been previously converted it or was previously created into an ADU without the benefit of a permit. And so the process of legalizing is just simply coming in and getting a planning application for a new ADU. We treat it like a brand new one. Planning review is relatively simple and straightforward. I think Nino and Pete probably process the majority of those 130 we get a year. Um, we get a few fun ones that are always pushing the boundaries of state law, but the majority are people who've, you know, been informed that, you know, the best way to maybe potentially see value added to their home or property or under the process of selling would be to legalize their um, ADU. And then when it was built prior to 2020, of course, there's a a different set of rules around the habitability standards that the building department would look at. And so our building department's very familiar with um the standards and regs that go into how we review for limited amounts of habitability for units that were developed prior to 2020.

Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Uh I have a I have a couple. Um the there was a slide that had a a reference to livable space and then I see that there's a definition on livable space, but is that something that the state is that part of the new state uh ordinance or I and I wonder kind of what it means? Uh yeah. So they did actually kind of narrow down the livable space definition. So it's basically um storage rooms, things that you actually can't live in, like lots of things and things like that can be converted into ADUs as long as it meets building code standards for being livable. Um so they have a specific definition and apparently was actually needed.

I see. And other codes. Say again. I'm sorry. the those those other requirements are in other code like building code. Yes. Yeah. Okay. U the states finally caught up to building code so to speak. So there's an actual definition. Okay. Yeah. Uh thank you. Um the other question was about a 30-day requirement. It must be rented for more than 30 days. Yes.

How does that get tracked or does it I mean it's it's hard to know, right? So, the city of Richmond um through our municipal code does not allow for the rental of accessory dwelling units for less than a period of 30 days. At that point, it would be considered a short-term rental. And because all property owners of the city of Richmond are required to have a rental license to rent a property, it is then their responsibility to inform the city if they have an accessory dwelling unit or a junior ADU um that that unit is not being rented for a period of less than 30 days. Now, that being said, that does not mean that if you went on Airbnb or VBO or one of the other many sites that offer short-term rentals that you wouldn't possibly find units within the city of Richmond that are being rented for less than 30 days. And so, when those do come up through code compliant cases um through code enforcement, um the city staff is then reviewing um and then issuing notices of violation where corrections needed to remove those units from those short-term rental listing sites. Um,

I see. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Uh, no other questions. Okay, let me open up for the public hearing. Again, there doesn't seem to be anybody here in the chambers. Is there anyone online wishing to comment? There is no one online currently. Then I we'll go ahead and close the public healing hearing. We further discussion or move ahead to a to a motion. It's going to take a long time to read this one. So, whoever gets a short straw, the new person,

it's my turn. U motion to adopt resolution number 26-07 recommending approval of zoning text amendments to sections 15.04.104.020 15.04.20 20201.030 and 15.04.201.050 and 15.04610.020 of the Richmond Municipal Code related to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units as shown in attachment two. Is there a second?

I'll second. Okay, we have a motion and second. We have a motion and a second. Can we uh have a roll call vote, please? Yes. Commissioner or Chair Harrison? Yes. Uh Vice Chair Burbaker? Yes. Secretary Timonss? Yes. Uh Commissioner Golovves is absent. Um Commissioner Shahid, yes. And Commissioner Bonitez, yes. Thank you very much.

Okay, that brings us to commission business. Is there any re any reports from the commissioners or staff that uh coming forward here? Don't see any. Oh, good. No. Uh, as far as updates go, I just want to take the opportunity to welcome our two most recent additions to the planning commission. We're very glad to have you on board. Your expertise in your respective fields is going to help continue to develop our planning commission and kind of really broaden the ability of this commission to represent Richmond as a whole. I will also add that the mayor's office will be appointing an additional planning commissioner um at the next public hearing for council. So you will be a full board. Um we'll be very excited. So there'll be

for it took a took it took you know it took a little bit of pushing but we got it there and so we'll be glad to have a full board a full representation of of Richmond as a whole. Um and as I provided to you some some documents on just how the planning commission operates from uh from the California League of Cities. There will be an opportunity probably in the upcoming months uh for a legislative training and update just to continue to keep you apprised of the many changing laws. We're still digesting them ourselves as we kind of get into the new year and make sure we're compliant. Um and then as far as forecasting um we will have a special meeting uh on the six on the 16th. Thank you. Um where Pete Sever will have two presentations for two projects. Um I know that commissioner uh Timonss uh you will not be present but we will have so many wonderful commissioners that will always have quorum. Um and then following that we will continue to bring um additional code updates um related to different topics and things that come up. The major one is going to be uh in May, late May will be the update to the housing to the environmental justice element, the noise and safety component of our general plan and the uh kind of bringing together the local hazard fire mitigation plan and a noise component. Um that will kind of finalize and round out the house the general plan for some final amendments that needed to be made. Um and then later this year we will begin kicking off the update to our general plan to 2050. So um we'll continue to have our meetings once a month. We have lots of items on the horizon, number of projects, new housing projects and policies to bring forward. So we're excited to have this board be a full board and um continue to be able to provide service to the city of residents of Richmond.

Thank you. That sounds exciting. Are there any update on what's going on with the Hilltop area? Are they still in discussions? As far as the Hilltop Mall, um I can turn it over to Michelle Morris, senior planner, who leads and PMs the Hilltop specific plan.

So, right now we are very very busy doing our analysis and um um working on preferred plan. So, things are moving along and hopefully we'll have some outreach later on this year. Hopefully, the sooner the better. So, um, I will be updating the Hilltop Horizon's website when we have dates for different community outreach events. Um, so keep an eye on that. Um, yeah. So, things are moving. It's very exciting. Great. All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? If not, then I will adjourn a meeting at 7:44. Thank you all very much for attending.