Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. Recording in progress.

Yeah. Okay. I'd like to call this meeting  of the planning commission to order.   Uh the first order of business is the roll call. Chair Harrison, present. Vice Chair Brewaker here.  Uh Commissioner Golovitz here. Commissioner Shahid   here. Commissioner Bonitz here. And for the  record, uh, Commissioner Timmens is absent. Next item we had is introductions. Uh, I guess we  can uh just people know who we are now. We'll say   our names anyway with our pictures in front of  them. So, and then if we could have the staff   introduce themselves as well. So, I'm John  Harrison. I'm the uh chair of the planning   commission at the moment. Introducing ourselves.  Yeah. I'm Bruce Brewaker, vice chair. I'm Shaz   Shahed, commissioner. Danna Venites, commissioner.  Alexander Galets, commissioner. Okay. Approval of   minutes. We have no minutes. Let the city Oh,  I'm sorry. I guess I'm in too much of a hurry.   And I'm Lena Velasco, director of community  development. I'm here covering for Avery Stark,   our planning manager. And I am  Pete Severum, assistant planner. James Atensio, senior assistant city attorney.  Thank you. All right. Now I could go to minute.   We have no minutes to approve. So we'll  go to item D, approval of the agenda.   Does anybody wish to make any changes to the  agenda? Sequence of events. No. Okay. Seeing none,  

then consent calendar. We have no consent  calendar items tonight. I think F and G are   one and the same. So, uh this is the Brown Act  public forum. Anyone who wishes to address the   planning commission on an item that is not  on the agenda is welcome to do so at this   time. We can't take any action on it, but we  can certainly hear your your comments. So,   it looks like we have a speaker. Cordell Hendler.  That's me. So, good evening, Chair Harrison. Uh,   commissioners, for the record, I am Cordell  Handler and I'm a Richmond resident. So,   if you recall a couple of weeks ago, I had my I  had raised concerns regarding the the the Chevron   item regarding of alcohol. I I had a conversation  with the Hilltop district council and we were   uh we were concerned because we was like wait  a minute they they approved the uh for sale to   sell alcohol and that's a concern to me because  I shop at stores occasionally and one of the   issues that I had raised at that meeting  was is the their staff to for the business   to train their staff on watching uh people go  inside the store with their backpacks. I don't   feel comfortable about that because I've seen  a number of people gotten their stuff stolen.   Whose pocket is it going to come out of? Is it  coming out of my pocket or Chevron's pocket? So,   let's think about that. The second issue that I  had raised is like, what about the schools? They   were like in close proximity of the site. How  come they were not aware of this? Because this   affects them too. Because on any given day,  I've seen it happen just that quick. At 3:00,   the kids get out of school and the traffic is  horrendous. So, that should have been taken into   consideration, a traffic analysis, because between  1 and 3:00, traffic is horrible, especially like  

in the Hilltop area. That's two. And then the  third thing is um I I don't know if you saw   there was a letter that was submitted from April  Roy with the Hilltop Village HOA. Her that was   her main concern is like you know is the traffic  because her issue was like that that there's a   close proximity of schools and especially in a  residential area. I'm thinking to myself maybe   Chevron should consider that. I'm just concerned.  So, I just hopefully that this commission,   you know, think about how the community felt about  that. We were hurt. So, with that, I'll save my   comments when we get to item number two. Thank  you. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else uh wishing to   address the commission on item not on the agenda?  Is there anyone online wishing to address us? If there's any speakers online  who would like to address the   planning commission under the Brown  Act, if you could raise your hand. Okay, I don't see any hands raised. Okay,  then we'll move on to the public hearings.   The first one, item H1, is going to be  continued until May 7th. It's Cascade   Town Homes. So we'll move on to item two which  is PLN26-073 the USSF outpatient center. So if   we can have a I guess I'll open the public  hearing and ask for the staff presentation. All

right. Good evening, commissioners.  This is uh agenda item number two for   the UCSF outpatient clinic. Uh a background  of this site. This is a 2 and 1/2 acre site   uh developed with a 20,000 square foot building.  It's a twostory 30-foot building with uh three   existing commercial units. On the first floor is  the Apen, the AsianPacific Environmental Network   Office and which is about 5,000 square feet. Uh  next to it is a vacant tenant space. Uh it's about   the same about 5,000 square feet as well. On the  second floor is the SGI USA which is a Buddhist   uh community assembly as well as their  office. Uh adjacent to the sites are the   enterprise rent a car um two schools  as well as Hilltop Mall to the north. The zoning for the site is a CM5  which is a commercial mixeduse as is   uh the surrounding hilltop mall area. Uh the  intent of this district is for uh office,   retail, entertainment, and uh residential  uses in uh mid and high-rise developments.   It's informed by the general plan which uh intends  for this area to be a highintensity mixeduse zone.   It's designated as a change area which uh  is defined in general plan is are areas that   require additional guidance from staff and  planning commissioners to move towards the   the desired form. Uh the general plan wants to  see this area transform into a higher intensity   urban area with more active uh street life with  more active uses and as well as a mix of uses.

The applicant here is proposing a  clinic and in the CM5 zoning district,   uh, any clinic that are over 3,000 square  feet requires a conditional use permit. Uh,   the proposed clinic is approximately 5,000 square  feet. Uh the services that they are proposing is   an outpatient medical care which would be operated  by the University of California, San Francisco uh   UCSF and they would provide uh services from 8:00  a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through 5 sorry Monday   through Friday with uh no overnight services.  Uh there will be a total of uh 15 employees   at the site. Uh and with the square footage of  the clinic and the number of employees, um the   required vehicle parking would be 10 spaces uh as  well as five short-term and five long-term spaces. As for how this clinic meets the zoning  compliance, first uh we review the definition   for clinics. uh clinics are differentiated  from hospital uh by their services. They   provide services to patients uh without uh lodging  them overnight as opposed to hospitals. And these   services the clinics are also offered exclusively  on an outpatient. Uh so patients would visit for   the day. Uh this clearly fits the definition  uh of clinics as proposed by the applicants   as no overnight services are proposed and uh  services would be on an outpatient basis. Uh   the code requires that uh the clinic be located  on the ground floor in mixeduse buildings.   Uh this tenant space is on the ground  floor which meets the requirement and  

the building has a street frontage of 130 ft  which meets a minimum requirement of 50 ft. As for parking, uh there's a total of 87 existing  parking spaces on site. Uh based on my calculation   below, uh we take the square footage of the clinic  uh to calculate the estimated parking demand. Uh   we reduce it by 2,000 to uh account for mixeduse  buildings and we use that to calculate the minimum   parking requirements. Uh the calculation comes  out to 10 spaces. Adding up all three tenants   at the existing sites would require 68 total you  sorry 68 total spaces which meets the requirements on the site. Uh there would be five parking  spa sorry five short-term bicycle parking   spaces required uh based on the square footage  of the clinic. uh five would be proposed. Uh   by definition, short-term spaces must be publicly  accessible and they're meant for visitor, guests,   and patients for the clinic. Uh the short-term  bicycle parking would be located in front of the   building, which is accessible and meets  the requirements. And just a correction,   um this should say long-term parking on the  right. Uh based on the square footage as well,   five would be required. And by definition,  it must be secured, weather protected,   and it's meant for long-term overnight or  workday storage. Uh, thus the applicant is   proposing five spaces which would be located in  a staff restricted area. Seeing that the clinic  

wouldn't provide any overnight services, uh,  all of the parking would be for the employees. Though the project meets all other zoning  uh regulation, one uh that needs a bit more   guidance is the landscaping. Uh based on uh  a site visit on my personal observations,   uh the landscaping code has not been met. Uh  in the code, it requires that landscaping must   be maintained uh free of injury. uh based on  the site condition shown in the photo here   um it is out of compliance. Staff is  recommending uh in condition number   eight is that the applicant would submit a a new  landscaping plan to bring uh all of these parking   strips back into compliance with the current  uh water efficient landscaping code. This must   be completed before the building division can  give out the certificate of occupancy which is   um given after a building permit is done  and the building can um start operation. As for public comments, uh we have  not received any public comments and   no written comments have been received from  the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council for its required findings. As  for all conditional use permits,   uh this project meets land use policy  for uh revitalization and job creation.   It would also meet health and wellness policy  to provide a local employment base at the site   and improve health outcomes by providing  additional medical services to the area. There have been standards condition  of approval that have been added   uh to ensure that the project would  not create any nuisances in the area.  

Uh the project meets all criteria requirements  for approval in the zoning ordinance and by   meeting the parking requirements they would not  cause an adverse impact on traffic in the area. Staff is recommending that the planning commission  approve this project and adopt the attached   resolution. That concludes the presentation  and I am available for any questions. Right.   Thank you. Are there any questions of staff at  this time? I have a question. Um I didn't see   is there is there transit access to on Hilltop  Mall Road? Yes. Uh there are two AC transit lines   um that are accessible. There's one bus stop  directly in front of this lot and there are   several um at the Hilltop Mall. Okay. And  is there an accessible entry to the building   from the sidewalk? Do you know? Um, so I went to  visit the building myself. Um, it is accessible.   It's basically on the ground floor. Uh, any I can  imagine a wheelchair user is able to um access the   building and enter the building directly into the  clinic. Okay. Thank you. And Vice Chair Brewbaker   too. I I'll just mention that if the project's  approved during plan review for building permits,   if a new accessible path of travel to meet current  code requirements is triggered, then that will   be enforced. Okay. Thank you. Other any other  questions of staff at this time? Okay. Then why   don't we uh I guess we would have a presentation  by the applicant if they wish to do make one.   You don't have to, but you're welcome to do so. I  don't think we have anything to add. Okay. Great.  

Thank you. And we have to give an opportunity  for anyone to speak in opposition to this. We   do have one speaker whose position was not noted.  Um, Cordell Hindler. Okay. So, good evening, uh,   Chair Harrison. Uh, commissioners, for the record,  I am Cordell Hendler. I'm a Richmond resident. So   thank you Pete for that presentation. So one of  the things I was looking at the the presentation   um one of the things that I don't think it  was mentioned um about security on site. So,   I'm thinking to myself, I mean, I do support the  idea of a clinic, but the only thing that I would   like to add to that is like, you know, is having  security on site because I visited other clinics   around West County and they do have security u  on the premises and so that would that should be   uh hopefully you're taking a note like you  know adding security because cuz there has   been concerns you know like regarding the uh  not enough you know security along along on   the on site. So if if that should that should  be an added bonus, you know, having security   on site. Number two is like, you know, is um  the parking. It's like I had visit the site   adjacent to it and I'm thinking like, okay, this  sounds reasonable. I do support the clinic, but I   would also that I'm just only one vote, but I'm  thinking that the Hilltop District neighborhood   council should also weigh in on this, too, because  that should be another added addition like having   the Hilltop District community uh you know,  weigh in on this. So, I do support the project,   but we have to hear from the the neighborhood  councils uh to get their input. So, that's it. Okay. Is there anyone else wishing  to speak uh either for or against   this item? Is there anyone online? I see  we do have one participant on Zoom. So,  

if anybody joining us online would like to speak  on this item, if you could please raise your hand. Okay. No hands raised. Then I will um close  the public hearing and bring it back to the   commission. And what uh further questions or  actions would you like to take? I guess I'll   ask real quickly. What's the neighborhood council  provided the opportunity to review this? I assume   it's your pro procedure to advi apprise them  that something's upcoming up in their area.   Yes. So I could speak on that. Uh I've advised  the applicant to reach out to the neighborhood   council. Uh the neighborhood council uh was also  notified of the project um as is procedurally done   uh for all projects brought to public hearing  and I have not received any comment from them.   So no they chose not to provide any comments. Is  that correct? They chose not they had no comments   to provide. Right. No comments provided.  And I'll follow up on uh Cordell's other   uh concern that of security. Does this I mean this  building is multiple tenants. Does the building   owner or another tenant have a security service  or was has the applicant been asked about that   concern? Um not that I'm aware of. Uh I can also  uh look into this potential issue as well. Um,   I can also invite the applicant to speak if they  could be a little closer to the mic. I can't I   heard I can't hear you. Oh, sorry. Um, for this,  um, I can investigate further. Um, I would like to  

invite the applicant to come up to speak as well.  Uh, if they can provide any more information. You need to come up to the micro. Yeah,   if you can please please come up to the  podium. You drew the short straw, I take it. Good afternoon. My name is Matias. For the record,  I'm the property manager for the building. Um,   we do have on-site security in the form of  tenant um accessible cameras. Uh that's what we   currently have in place, but um if there are any  um additional security features that would need   to be added to the building to make sure that you  know we comply with uh whatever may be required,   that's something we'd be open to discuss with the  ownership and get done if needed. I take it the C   clinic would not have any um materials on site  that would be uh something that someone might   want to break in or have some you know opioids  or something like that. Is that is that kind of   stuff secure in inside of a building so it's  not a risk of some coming along and trying to   break in? That may be part of Cardell's concern.  I don't know how that works. So, I'm just curious. Hi, my name is John Walter. I'm the architect  for the project. Is that good there? Yeah. Um,   so the the building will have small amounts of,  you know, like medical waste. Um, I can't speak   specifically to what it is, but we can find out  from UCSF what they would have on site. Um but   it would follow all the typical you know medical  discharge procedures and it is locked within the   facility um in their lab space. I would assume  there's some pretty high standards that you have  

to everybody has to follow for for things like  that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Anybody else have   questions? Well, can I just add to that and maybe  there's a question for Pete or for Lena. When this   gets reviewed by all the the city departments,  the police are also part of that review process.   The question um it's not typical for every  project. I think right now standard would be   um you know building engineering wastewater  um as well as the fire department. However,   for some uses such as, you know, cannabis,  um, other kind of large users that may have   a criminal attraction or something that  we we could advise and bring them in. So,   um, particularly medical clinics that are  storing medications, we we could work with   the police department. Okay. Thanks. Okay. Any  other questions of staff or the applicant? Okay.   Then what is the wish of the council in ter  commission in terms of action on this item?   Anybody want to make a motion? I'll make a  I'll make a motion to approve conditionally.   So follow staff's recommendation. So you're  recommending the adoption of the resolution.   Uh let's see. So the recommendation was theition  first first page bottom bottom three lines. Yes. Casey or she if you could please  um pull up the presentation. Um the   recommended action is on the  last page of presentation. I can't understand what he says.

So the recommended action is uh  the first line on this slide. Okay. Yeah. I move to adopt  resolution 26-08 approving PLN 26-003. Is there a second? Second. All right. I guess we  have Do we roll call or just uh voice vote? Um I   can do a roll call. If you want. Doesn't matter  to me. Um I really don't think we need one,   but Okay, then just do a voice call. Uh all  those in favor of the motion signify by saying   I. I. I. I. Anybody opposed? Motion carries  5. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Good luck. Next is uh our next item is  uh item item three which is   the Ohio Avenue live live work project PLN25-0168. So I will open the public hearing for this item  and ask for the staff presentation. Thank you. Uh   just checking if you can hear me. Okay. Right. So,  a background on this site. This is a 5,000 square   foot lot. It is currently vacant and all records  indicate that it's been vacant since at least   the 1960s. Adjacent to the site along Ohio Avenue  are mainly warehousing and light industrial uses   uh as well as single family homes uh  sprinkled throughout uh the corridor.   Directly south of the lot. Uh you can see from  this images behind the lot is a single family  

um neighborhood uh which is comprised of ma mainly  single family homes. The zoning for this site is a   IIL for light industrial. It's mainly intended  for light industrial uses such as warehouses   um light manufacturing without heavy machinery.  Uh it also permits some smallcale retail and   office uses. The only type of residential uses  that are permitted in this zone are lift work   uh which is uh proposed by the applicant. As  for the general plan, uh the designation is   business and light industrial uh which informs  the zoning district. It's also located in a key   corridor uh also a change area with enrichment.  Uh it's called the Ohio Avenue corridor. Uh the   intent of this corridor is to uh further the  development of legacy industrial uses. Uh this   was done because the Ohio Avenue corridor is  directly south of the Richmond Greenway and   in the past it was a railroad right of way.  uh now has been turned to a park. However,   uh the light industrial uh and warehouses were um  were placed there because of this history. Um so   the intent of this general plans uh designation  is for um a reconciliation of the industrial uses   uh it that's compatible with surrounding  residential. Um it also encouraged mixed use uh   residential development that can coexist with the  nearby warehouses and light industrial use. This  

project is a live work building which is again is  the only type of residential use permitted in the   IL zone. It's a threestory structure with a total  of 11,000 square ft. Uh it has a lift to work   ratio of 2/3 living space to 1/3 working space  as required by state law. Uh the height of the   building in total is 35 ft with a total of seven  units, one of which would be a manager's unit. On the site, uh there's a approximately  1,100 uh square feet of landscaping. It's   mainly located south uh of the site abudding  the RL2 single family zoning. It comprises of   uh native plant landscaping uh permeable pavers  as well as bicycle parking for uh two bicycles. Just a summary of the unit types.  There are uh three unit types ABC. Um,   they all contain two bedrooms, uh, one and a half  bathrooms, uh, one workspace, and one garage. Uh,   with the exception of the manager's unit, uh,  which has an uncovered parking space instead   of a garage. Uh, these range from 1,200 ft²  to approximately, uh, 1,500 square ft. The   layout are pretty similar uh, between all  units. uh on the f on the ground floor are   the garages and the work space. On the second  and third floor would be the living spaces. These are the elevations of the building. As you  can see, these are the designs. Uh if you look  

uh behind you uh there is a um material  and color board if you would like to see   um the color um I know it  looks a bit different than   um what's being shown on screen. If you would  like to take a look at the uh provided color   material board um that is the design that  was approved by the design review board. Uh as far as zoning compliance,  uh this project meets all of the   uh C sorry criteras under the zoning code.  Uh it meets all the design standards for   uh the IIL uh light industrial district. Uh it  meets all the setback requirements. Uh it provides   for seven spaces which meets the minimum of five  spaces. Uh the landscaping meets the minimum   buffer requirements and the buffer tree required  to uh buffer the uh light industrial use from the   uh single family residential zoning. Uh the only  thing that requires planning commission approval   is uh an increase in floor area ratio. Uh this  floor area ratio of 2.2 two is required for them   to meet the two to three uh liveto work ratio  as required by state law. Uh and in the code the   planning commission can approve an F a floor air  ratio of up to 3.0 and this is within the limits. As for the environmental review aspect of this  project, uh the applicant is uh requesting a   class 32 exemption for infill development in  urban areas. There are five criterias to meet  

for class 32 exemption. Uh first of which is  that it must meet all general plan designation   and zoning ordinances. Uh it is in compliance. The  site must be less than 5 acres. It is 5,000 square   feet which meets the requirement. Uh and based on  the uh US fish and wildlife database, it is not   located in a critical habitat. Uh it would not  result in any significant effects uh related to   traffic, noise, air quality uh as it meets the  parking, landscaping and buffer requirements.   It's also subject to uh the performance standards  and its conditions of approval uh which addresses   noise, lighting and such. And lastly um it is  required to be served by utilities and public   services. It is located in an area where it can  be served by utilities and as well as any public   services required. The applicant is proposing to  make all rented units, so six uh units would be   affordable. Uh under our inclusionary housing  agreement ordinance, um only developments that   are 10 units or more are subject to that section.  So there is no requirement to make uh the units   affordable. They also have not requested any  affordable housing density bonuses. Uh so staff   is recommending uh in condition approval number  12 is for us to further work with the applicant   to outline an agreement. Uh this will be done  uh prior to the building permits being issued. And again the design review board  has reviewed u the design of this  

building at this meeting on February 11, 2026.  They've recommended approval of this design. Attached to your packets are also two comments  from the Santa Fe and Iron Triangle neighborhood   councils. Uh no other additional comments have  been received by staff. The comments from the   Santa Fe and Iron Triangle neighborhood  councils are in support of the project. As for the required findings  for all conditional use permits,   uh this project aligns with the general plan  vision for um this designation for business   light industrial as well as for the Ohio  Avenue corridor. Uh it meets the land use   and economic development policies uh to provide  um affordable infill development in an urban area. The conditions approval that's been added to  this project will ensure that no nuisances will   be caused. uh all the criteria requirements have  been met in the zoning ordinance and in meeting   the parking requirements they would also not cause  an adverse impact on traffic in the area. Staff   is recommending approval of this conditional  use permit. Uh this concludes the presentation   and I am available for any questions. Great. Thank  you. Does anyone have any questions for the staff?   Please. First, thank you for responding to all of  my questions via email ahead of time. Just wanted   to follow up on two. One, the affordability. Thank  you for providing context of that uh condition   of approval number 12. But if you can walk us  through how that process works because people  

define affordability different and then wanting to  know if it's possible to have them align with the   very low or low income AMI requirements that  we have in Reena, the regional housing needs   assessment. So that's question one. And then  question two is in rel Oh, sorry about that. I   don't know what that was. Um, in relation to the  community facing features, I noticed that in the   one of the public comments there was mention of  streetscape activation elements like landscaping   and potentially a little library. And the uh um  neighborhood council person was very excited and   said yes, but the little library isn't mentioned  in the application process. And so just want to   acknowledge that it looks like the neighborhood  council had that expectation in mind. And also   it's really cool that this is a live work unit  providing a transitional buffer between that light   industrial space into the residential. And I know  I had previously asked you about how many of the   sites were active cuz it can be a little creepy  and scary when there's a lot of vacant spaces or   you know there's not enough lighting and so it's  important to have communityf facing features that   will activate the street. Thank you. Thank you for  your question. So to begin with the inclusionary   housing and affordability. So they are exempt from  that section. Um however uh we've decided to add   the condition of approval as a guideline for staff  to work with the applicant to guide them towards   meeting uh the standards in that section. Uh from  what I can recall uh there are certain percentages   of units that must be um designated as either  moderate income, low income or very low income.  

Uh the percentage of units will depend on um  the the affordability level. Uh if the applicant   wishes to make them all uh affordable to moderate  income, very low income, it is uh up to up to   them. Uh but we do want to guide them through  uh this guidelines. Um and this would be done   um before uh the building permits uh would be  issued. uh missed guidelines. I can also provide   further information. So this uh hearing wouldn't  be the end. Uh we wouldn't or wouldn't be letting   um the affordable unit slip away. Uh there would  be further work uh from the staff side as well as   the applicant side um after tonight. as well as  for the little library. Um, so that was not one   of the items on our minimum uh required submittal  checklists on the plans for the landscaping plans.   Uh, that would be uh required by the planning  commission if they choose to motion to. Um,   I can also uh request the applicant to speak  further on this as well. Um but as far as we know,   staff can also work with the applicant further on  the um affordable housing agreement um as well as   add making sure that the library is added during  the building permit process and then through the   chair. Can I do one followup? Sure. Uh just wanted  I just want to get clarification. Thank you for   for both of your responses for the process uh  for affordable housing to help meet standards.   Is there any chance that a if we move forward  and approve this that there will be no affordable   housing units because things will be changed  because if we're approving this, we're approving  

this with the understanding that there will  be affordable units when it isn't super clear. It can be a requirement in the city. However,  um as far as I'm aware, the applicant is not   requesting any affordable housing density bonus  nor um are they subject to uh the inclusionary   housing ordinance since they are less than 10  units. However, um this initiative was uh put   out by the applicant and which staff will uh  gladly support and ensure that uh you know that   the section although they're not subject to it  can be used as a great guidelines for them to for   us to come up to uh come up with an agreement to  create uh some sort of insurance that there would   be affordability in um this development and in the  conditions approval Well, with this uh resolution,   um it does require that the applicant work with  staff uh in meeting the um inclusionary housing   ordinance. So, we would uh look through all  of this section and we would require that   they complete uh a compliance agreement with us uh  before we even issue the building permit to them.   Um maybe it would be good at this point  to hear from the applicant in terms of   their your understanding of the question here  about the affordable housing and the li and the   uh little library over there so that  we are clear what you understand and   if that's in sync with what we're  hearing here today. So would you mind   uh if anything else you want to tell  us about your project feel free. Good evening everyone. My name is Keith  Chung. I'm the the owner, architect, and   um design builder on this project. So, um so I  guess uh the first thing is the little library.  

So, that's the student intent to to have the  little library built on site as a uh a site   um I guess features or amenities. Um but the  location is yet to be determined. Um and then in   terms of um affordable units uh I think I we we  provided a matrix uh to the planning department   outlining you know which type of units uh will  be um meeting which type requirement. I think   uh there's two units that's going to be 80% um  medium income and then there's two for very low   affordable um units. uh but I couldn't recall um  the matrix right now. Um but it is our commitment   to to build affordable units. Uh I know there's  no incentives for us to do so as Pete outlined,   but it's our intention um because I used to  live in Richmond and I love the city and we're   fully to commit to invested city and um yeah, I  hope that that answer the questions. So I'm not   entirely sure how the process works. uh director  uh ask is the ultimately would there be some kind   of a written agreement between the developer and  the city in terms of what actually gets provided   as affordable housing. I mean that's I think  that's what condition 12 is driving towards.   But I don't I think we're both wondering how  does that get how does that get executed? Typically, um, as a requirement under in the  inclusionary housing ordinance or density bonus   law or SB35, there would be a regulatory agreement  with the standard term. Um, you know, typically   it's 55 years. Um, however, in this case, it's a  voluntary proposal with no incentives coming from  

us. Um, so the term could vary. Um, and that's  something as well as the definition. There are   definitions under the reena that we would need  to meet if it was as well as a minimum term. Um,   so this is a bit of a unique circumstance. Um,  that's not being prescribed by law. It's more like   a voluntary request to enter into an agreement. So  I think if it's it's not an obligation. And so if   the commission would like to see us to effectuate,  if you wanted to express a minimum term that   you would desire to at least try to be achieved,  whether it's a minimum of 10 years, 15 years plus,   um, and then we can work with the applicant  to, um, try to, you know, organize. I mean,   I think legally, James, I don't know if you have  any concerns. I mean voluntary um engagement into   this type of agreement is something we certainly  want to encourage and try to work with the   applicant but legally it's not required. Okay.  Um right. We couldn't enforce a an obligation as   a condition of approval. So it would just be some  guidelines that you know so there's really no if   we did as a director suggested that we'd ask for  a minimum of 10 years as a condition of approval.   there really it really can't be enforced. That's  correct. Okay. But if it's in a condition I mean I   think our goal would be to try to get a regulatory  for the term that you're seeking. Um so again with   some directions it would help us to make sure  we're aligned and certainly the applicant is   here is voluntarily agreeing to it and we would  want to work together to to achieve that outcome.   Um, so if you have thoughts around a minimum  term that you would like us to achieve,  

um, I don't know, Pete, if we have access to  the matrix that the applicant has provided   that maybe we can review that, um, since  he he can't recall the exact commitment   that he's at least submitted to staff.  Um, but we can work out the details um,   post planning commission action. Would you like  to make a suggested condition related to this?   Yes, but I think with the understanding from  what I'm hearing from our attorney that it's it's   more of a it's in good faith just also just big  appreciations because like Lena said this doesn't   happen very often and we do have housing to meet  and so I I'm wanting to see if folks what do you   all think about like a a 10 year I think what yeah  I think we giving staff a recommend commendation   from the commission on what extent duration we  would like for them to to push towards in this   voluntary arrangement would help staff moving  forward. So if if you have a thought in mind   that would be we could make that into a condition  make sure it uh will be able to be added to the   resolution. Yeah, I was proposing 10, but wanted  to hear from other commissioners if they had other Anybody else have thoughts on the  uh trying to get some at least some   portion of the with some level of  commitment to affordable housing? So, this is a guideline that we would be um asking  the city to work with uh the applicant on. The   applicant seems like they have an idea about what  kind of affordable units they want to provide.  

Um I I don't want to provide I guess if it's a  guideline it doesn't matter but I I don't have   anything in mind in terms of term or rank of um  low moderate income personally but I think it's   great that the applicant is interested in doing  this of their own valition so I want to encourage   that as much as possible. Yes. Sure. Hello. So,  I'm I was able to pull up the matrix. So, I have   two units at the type A units designed for 80%  AMI. Three units, the type B units are designed   for 50% AMI. And then one unit, the type C unit  is designed for extremely low 30% AMI. And then   the manager units is unrestricted. Um, in terms of  the 10-year time frame, I mean, I we're definitely   open to working with the Richmond Housing  Authority and finding the the tenants for for the   building. So, um, maybe there is a uh um pathway  um to to ensure that, you know, the the building   is truly intended designed to be 100% affordable.  So, thank you. That's very helpful. If so, if we   were going to try to add this as a condition,  it would be more like that we are encouraging   the applicant to work with staff towards achieving  that goal of the number of units of the different   income levels. And I couldn't quite hear what  they were, but I hope somebody else did. So,   if I heard and I thought they were great goals.  There you go. Amazing. So, I would just I would   want the staff to work with those as a starting  point. I don't have enough experience to know   about terms and I don't know what a standard term  is for affordable units. Um but it seems like that  

would be a good goal also is to use a standard  term. So do if somebody else knew what a standard   term for affordable housing it would be good. Yes.  So there are standard terms in the inclusionary   housing ordinance um that can be used as the  guidelines. Uh looking at it briefly, it seems   that uh the minimum ratio would be um let's see  for rental units would be 9% for a very lowincome   household or 10% uh for lowincome household. Uh  as for the terms uh I believe it is 50 years. Thank you. Um, I have other questions on other topics.  Okay, we can come back and try maybe you can   try to compose a what you would a condition of  approval. That'd be great. Go ahead, Bruce. Um,   I just regarding the question about the little  library, I I was more interested in landscaping   there. There's two existing trees. I went by  the site. Uh there there are significant trees   existing. Um and I'm glad to see that the  project is aiming to um to preserve those   trees. Uh but there's there's some beds that  are being proposed with that. I don't see   landscaping called out. There's a there's an  enlarged landscaping plan for the rear yard,   but I don't see landscaping shown for the for  the street uh landscape beds. And in particular,   I don't see trees proposed for the street beds.  So, I guess that's a question. And if there aren't   trees proposed there, then I would probably  want to make a condition that there should be  

trees proposed for those landscape beds. That's  one question. Uh, another question I had was   the distance from the property line, which is the  face of the building to curb because we have one,   two, three, four curb cuts along the street,  their driveways to get into the garages. If   that distance, it looks like it might be 20 ft.  that's just big enough to park a car or a truck.   And if someone parked in that driveway, then  it would block the sidewalk. So, I don't want   a project that's going to encourage residents to  park in the driveway and block the sidewalk. So,   that's kind of a question in a statement, and I'm  not sure how we can address that moving forward.   And then the last is regarding bike parking.  And I I think I think I did read that there   was some bike parking provided, but if someone  could summarize the the parking for bicycles,   that would be good. Yes, thank you for your  question. So the first uh is that there are   trees provided uh in that curb on the sidewalk. Uh  it is located on the site plan. Um it's not on the   landscaping plan, but if you look at the uh site  plan showing the uh garages and the curb cuts,   uh you can see the trees. U there's two  trees on Ohio Avenue and two trees on Third. There are also three trees in the uh landscape  in the rear yard as well. On the site plan. on the site plan. Um, I see a landscape plan. I  

see a heartscape and utility  plan. Oh, here's a site plan proposed. Um, sorry, I'm just trying  to see where it says tree.   And I'm I'm not I'm sorry, I'm not seeing  it. I don't know if you could bring it up   or if if there's some way to indicate where  trees are indicated. Yes, I can bring it up. Give me one moment. So they are on sheet A1.0 uh  the first page of the plans. A1.0 I I see two trees indicated but  those are existing trees. Ah I see.

Yeah, I believe as required uh only those  two trees uh would be required. Uh however,   the planning commission can make the motion to  okay require additional trees. Okay. They're not   shown on the drawing, but we could put a condition  that there be trees in the landscape beds on both   Ohio and on third. Yes. Okay, great. Thank you.  For uh your other questions, you had a question   uh regarding bicycle parking. Uh there is one  bicycle rack proposed. It is located in the   rear yard. Um it's between uh two of the trees.  It's located near there. Uh there's one bicycle   rack providing parking for two bicycles. Two  bikes. Yes. Is is there a parking ordinance for   bicycles for live work? So for live work in the  bicycle um parking ordinance um it is required   for conditional use permits. Um when a uses change  as for new development uh it is a bit different.   is mainly um aimed towards um commercial uses  in this section. Um I can pull up this section   as well and review it. Okay. You know, my my  concern is is really that you're less than one   block away from the greenway on this site. So,  there needs to be adequate bike parking. Now,   these are live work spaces. They have garages.  They have workspaces. Presumably residents will   park their bikes in the garage. Fine. But there  needs to be enough bike parking for visitors uh  

is my thinking. So I don't know if the ordinance  says something about the minimum number of bikes   uh for visitors. Um but that that was my  question there. Thank you. All right. Staff   can definitely work with the applicants  on making sure the requirements are met.   Okay, I guess uh public hearing is still  open. We need to uh see if there's anybody   I don't think there's anybody here in this  chamber, but is there anybody online that   wish to make comment on this project? We do  have a participant online. Um so if we have   anybody online that would like to make a comment  on this item, if you can please raise your hand. No hands raised. No. All right. If there's  no further comment, then I'm gonna close the   public hearing and we uh commission can sort of  work on these proposed conditions and make sure   that they're acceptable to the applicant before we  make our motion. So, do we want to start with the   one for the affordable housing? Sure. Um I thank  you staff and thank you applicant for sharing all   this information. I think I feel comfortable with  the conditions of approval as stated in number 12   based on the standard um terms that were discussed  even though they aren't required but they'll be   a part of the guidance and so I'm comfortable  with that. No, no further modification to that.   No. Okay, great. Uh then we had uh trees in the  parkway. You want just require that there going to   have to meet the requirement requirements? I would  make a condition that there be at least one tree   in each landscape bed, each separate landscape bed  on third and on Ohio. Okay. Is that a acceptable  

seeking at least one tree on each of these  each p each air planting area on each street? I mean, we're open to that, but um I mean, just  looking at the site plan because the building   is almost like a zero lot line design. So, I  don't think we have room to plant a tree on the   along the Ohio side within our property. But, but  there's a landscape bed in between the sidewalk.   There's a landscape bed in between the sidewalk  and the and the uh curb. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So where   there's a landscape property line, it's outside  the property line, but we would still like to see   the applicant yourself put a tree and maintain  a tree in that site. Yeah. Yeah, we definitely   open to that. Thank you. Um if I may want to  follow up with that, parking in a driveway,   potential park, please. Um because again, uh this  existing sidewalk and the curb is kind of narrow,   so it wouldn't be possible to park the car in  the driveway because the car would be sticking   out to the street. And then additionally, we'll  be adding signs to say no parking on a driveway   as well. Okay. Would you mind if we added a  condition that there be signs posted to not   block the sidewalk? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.  So, we've got was So, do we have two additional   conditions then? One related to trees in the what  I call the parkways between the sidewalk and the   street and one requiring uh signs indicating  no parking in driveways. Was no no blocking of   sidewalks? No blocking of sidewalks. Is there u  any were there any other conditions we needed to   consider? U does anybody else on the commission  have a thought about uh bicycle parking? I don't through the chair. I I agree. And  trying to see and I know it's it's tight  

as you were saying, but if there's even  an addition of like another bike rack. Yeah, I bet there's not space. Yes. So, in  review of the bicycle parking requirements,   um it is uh actually only one would be required  for this development. Um it's one plus one for   every 20 units. So for this seven unit development  only one is required. However um I can the staff   can also work with the applicants to add  additional bicycle parking. So we won't make   that a condition then if that's okay with others.  Yes I'm happy. Do we need do you need specific   language for these conditions or do you have the  I I think we can develop the language based on the   direction. I think with the street trees, from  what I'm hearing, if we could just make those   subject to review and approval by the city's parks  and landscaping uh superintendent just to make   sure that they can actually accommodate and aren't  going to block a sidewalk. Um and assuming they   say yes, we would plant we would. The condition  would state uh at least one tree in each of these   beds subject to approval review. Subject to review  by Parks and Landscaping. Okay. Yes. Okay. Um are   we ready for a motion? Why don't you make it,  Bruce? And you're the one making the amendments.   That way you can get them in there. I I thought  Diana was going to make her first motion here,   but um I will make a motion that we adopt  resolution number 2605 adopting the funings   and approving a conditional use permit to allow  the proposed live work development PLN250168

subject to conditions. And the conditions include um just these two, the trees in each bed and  the sign blocking the sidewalk and and there   is no condition for affordable. Well, there's  an existing there's an existing condition. So,   we are not adding another condition. So,  that is my motion. Seconded. Okay. We have   a motion and a second to adopt the resolution  with the added conditions. All those in favor   signify by saying I. I. I. I. Anybody opposed?  Okay, motion carries. 5-0. We're all looking   forward to your project. Yes. Nice project.  Thank you. Okay, I think we're getting close   to the end. So, that's all the items we have.  Any communications from staff or commissioners?   staff has um some announcements. Um uh so just to  share with the planning commission um next Tuesday   the city council is going to discuss whether or  not to direct staff to establish a moratorum on   data centers. Um it's becoming a more prevalent  use not just uh in the Bay Area but nationwide.   And so um they're going to have a discussion as  to whether or not they put a moratorum. So that   would provide some time for us to work with the  community to come up with some requirements should   they be desired to be located within the city.  Is there an existing data center somewhere in the   city? Uh no. Okay. No data centers but it is they  we are starting to see them in Contraosta. I know   Oakley just on Tuesday considered a a moratorum  after approving one in their city and so it is  

something that the council will be considering.  Um and we'll report back to the commission on   that. Um, and then also just to share that earlier  this week, staff was alerted that um, there are   scammers that are using publicly available project  information um, and are sending fraudulent emails   using city staff names um, requesting payment uh,  of project fees. And so we have put announcements   out on our web page as well as to our online  permitting system. They are using um non city   domain emails but are using staff names and adding  signitories. So we are trying to get the word out   and are sharing that with the commission as well  as the public to please be vigilant. If it looks   suspicious, sounds suspicious, it probably is  suspicious. So please beware. Um, and certainly   if you have any questions, please contact staff  and um, you know, a lot of them are asking you to   only pay via wire and by responding to email. So,  um, and then just the this weekend there's a lot   of great Earth Day events happening both at the  Richmond Greenway as well as the Ly's a park up   in North Richmond. So encourage our residents to  go out and um enjoy Earth Day and participate as   well as park prescription day will be happening on  the 25th at Nickel Park. So um we hope you all can   join us. Great. Thank you very much. Yes. Um I had  sent staff um this question because um at our my   very first commission meeting LA earlier this  month um there was a question that was raised   by Bruce acknowledging that because of a lot of  um the different legislations that there's a lot  

of byite approvals happening now so there's less  stuff that we're seeing and so I had asked uh if   there was an opportunity for us to be periodically  informed on development activity that's happening   by Right. And I did get a response back that  that is being tracked but that I don't think uh   the commission has been getting updates. So just  wanted to start up that discussion to get highle   summaries that includes like number of units AMI  levels uh number of commercial businesses by zone   light industrial just so we have a sense as we uh  continue to approve the projects that are coming   down to us. That would be great. Is that something  you guys can take on? Uh yeah, just in response,   so we currently already provide a a project list  by neighborhood. Um and this includes projects   that are will come to the commission to the DRB  or um historic preservation commission as well   as administrative reviews. So we can certainly  add the commission's emails to that distribution   list. It's provided monthly. Um, and again, it's  broken down by neighborhood council. That would be   perfect. Thank you so much. So, the commissioners  would get the email from every neighborhood   council correspondents. No, it's one combined  project list, but for the neighborhood councils,   they like to see the projects by their  district or by their neighborhood. And so,   they're listed by neighborhood as opposed to by  project number. Got it. Thanks. Okay. Anything  

else? Okay, then I will adjourn the meeting  at 7:38. Thank you all for coming. Thank you.