Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. you Thank you.

Recording in progress. Now call a meeting to order at 630. If we could start with the roll call.

Chair Harrison present Vice Chair Brubaker here. Secretary Timmons is absent. Commissioner Golovitz. Here. Commissioner Shahid? Here. Commissioner Benitez is absent.

Okay, the next item would be the minutes. Oh, introductions. I thought this was an agenda, but it's minutes. So I'm John Harrison. I'm the current chair of the Planning Commission.

Christopher Baker.

Shazib Shahid Alexander the latest Commissioner Avery Stark planning manager, and we're also joined by Chris Drexel of the city attorney's office The approval of minutes we have minutes from the meeting of May 7th Is there any additions or corrections that anyone wishes to request If not, then I can have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted I

I move.

Second.

I second that.

Okay. We can just do this by hand vote. Our voice, all those in favor say aye. Aye.

Aye. Opposed? Motion carries. Okay.

The approval of the agenda, is there any change to the agenda that any member of the commission wishes to make?

Chair the staff would like to request that we move item 4 which is currently the PLN 2600 for the new school for social services use to item 2 and then proceed with as listed item 3 which is cascade townhomes and then end with Richmond Transmontane.

Okay so the item 2 is off.

Item 2 is held over as a point of update. We identified July 2nd after speaking with the applicant it will be held over to a date uncertain likely in August. We will reschedule and re-notice it accordingly for that meeting and hearing. That is for 237 Western Drive will be held over to a date uncertain.

All right so we have one rearrangement of the agenda no other changes? All right, then we'll call that the approved agenda consent calendar. I don't believe we have any consent calendar items. So the next item is the 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'll take speakers here in the chamber first, and then we'll see if there's anybody online who wishes to do so. So go ahead, Cordell.

First, we have Cordell Henler. Thank you, Avery. So good evening, Chair Harrison, commissioners. For the record, I am Cordell Handler, and I'm a Richmond resident. So let's go back to May. If you recall last month when you had a couple of items regarding the UCSF Medical Center, Once again, I had spoken with the Hilltop district council and I don't think there was no objections to any of the projects. So I'm like, that's a good thing. So I, I'm gonna make this very clear. Any time a project before any projects come to whether design review board or this body, the applicant must talk to the neighbor councils to like, to get their input. So let me give you another example. If you recall back in November of last year, when we had the, um, The applicant wanted to convert an office building into an emergency shelter. That stopped because the Pullman and Park Plaza, we came together and we came before you all to address these matters because, once again, we were never notified from the city. We were never notified. But the applicant said that he talked to the president of Pullman. That's incorrect, because I spoke with Ms. Williams myself, and she had concerns regarding this project, and it's literally adjacent to a school. So I'm like, that's not a good fit for our community. And it would value the property value. So that's a good thing. I'm glad the commission had put a stop to that. Let me say this again. Any time when projects come before anybody, the neighbor, the applicant must first come to the neighborhood councils to get our input. So with that, I will say my comments for when we get to the Cascades item.

Thank you, Cordell. Is there anyone else here in the chamber that wishes to address the count commission on an item not in the agenda, not on the agenda?

I have no members in the chambers. If there's anyone online who would like to address the commission items not agendized this evening, please raise your hand. Seeing none.

Okay, then we will move on to our public hearings. The first one is item G1, which is PLN 22-282, the con residential structure. A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER A MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW VARIANTS AND EXCEPTIONS TO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-UNIT 5,820-SQUARE-FOOT MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AT 423 46th STREET. AT THIS POINT WE'LL HAVE THE PRESENTATION BY STAFF.

Okay, good evening, Chair Harrison, members of the Planning Commission. Richard Hirsch here for the Planning Department. It's my second appearance before this board, so good to see you again. Hope everyone is well. And thank you for the opportunity. The project before you is a three-unit residential multifamily dwelling at 423 46th Street. Can you see the presentation on your screens?

Not yet. Here it is. Okay, great.

And we'll just familiarize where the location is. This is the regional location. We're just east of I-80, south of Barrett Avenue.

Rick, one moment. Could you just hit presentation mode so that it pops up on full screen?

Oh, sure.

And then from the beginning. Yeah. There we go. Thank you.

Is that better? Yeah. Okay.

Yeah, this regional location, east of I-80 and south of Barrett Avenue, west of San Pablo Avenue. And here you get an aerial photo showing the location on 46 just wedged in there between the freeway and 46 just north of where Nevin Avenue intersects 46 at the at a dead end there. And the parcel is about 7,400 square feet. This area of the city is in the form-based code subzone T5N55. And the site currently hosts a vacant 3,600 square foot commercial office building that had previously been the home of the Contra Costa Association of Realtors and the Board of Realtors. There's also a 58-foot-tall pylon sign that currently hosts a telecom facility. And surrounding uses consist of single-family, largely single-family residential housing to the north and east, and Caltrans right-of-way to the west and to the south is the Caltrans, like a cloverleaf exit to McDonald Avenue. As far as regulatory compliance and entitlements being requested, the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under CADEX exemption 15303 for new construction of small structures. It is in the form-based code area in the T5 neighborhood zone or transect and T5N55 subzone. The applicant is requesting a major design review, a variance, and a minor exception to architectural standards. The major design review is required due to it being greater than 1,200 square feet of new development. That triggers major design review as opposed to minor design review. The variance that's being requested is to allow parking on site within the 30-foot front yard parking setback area. And the minor exception is to exceed the 48-foot maximum building width, as the building is being proposed at about 59 feet 10 inches. This is an overview of the site plan. As I mentioned, it is a three-unit multifamily building, three stories, approximately 38 feet in height. The new building is 5,820 square feet. Five on-site tuck-under parking spaces are being proposed at ground level. There's some open space being proposed as possible. It's a very congested, condensed site. So open space was a challenge. But there is some open space at the rear of the building, a new curb gutter sidewalk and related utilities being proposed. And I've got some elevations. This is the front elevation as viewed from 46th. And the building on the left is the new building. The one on the right is the existing 3,600 square foot office building. And this is the north elevation of the new building. and the south elevation of the new building. And this is the rear viewing the property basically from I-80 with the new building on the right, the existing older building on the left. And I've got a few nice oblique sort of color renderings. This is a shot from 46th viewing from northeast to southwest essentially. And this one is from Nevin and 46, basically looking from southeast to northwest. And another oblique view from south to north. And finally, one basically from I-80 viewing eastward with the new building on the right and the existing older building on the left. There's one more. AS FAR AS PUBLIC COLLABORATION AND COMMENTS, THE RICHMOND HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL WAS CONSULTED ORIGINALLY BACK IN MID 2023. THEY DID SCHEDULE A MEETING IN OCTOBER 2023 AND THE APPLICANT OBTAINED NINE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM THE PARTICIPANTS IN THAT MEETING. Planning Commission that we're having here tonight, public notice was completed in compliance with the municipal code and no public comment letters were received. As far as the overall decision-making process, the design review board recommended approval of this project on February 11th. And tonight you this commission is holding the public hearing. Presumably you would make a decision on all of the requested entitlements, the major design review variants and exception to the architectural standards. And the decision tonight is appealable to council within 10 calendar days. and staff does support this project a parking study was prepared and the conclusion by staff and by the parking consultant was shared on street neighborhood parking will not be negatively impacted by this project the variance is not expected to result in any negative aesthetic or safety impacts staff also finds the requested exception to the maximum building width would not result in negative impacts to the neighborhood. And staff does recommend approval of the project with the conditions of approval as stated. And this concludes the staff report. I do also have the applicant sent me a brief minute and 45 like flyover video that they prepared. They were very excited about it and he asked that I show that. So I'll try to show that now.

Let's see if it works.

And let's see, are you able to see a video on your screens? No, not yet. Still a presentation. It's with the media player software. Any idea how we get that?

You'll have to probably close out the presentation or just minimize it so that you can move the media player onto that right-hand screen.

Okay. Let me try to close all those screens out. Ah, can you see it now? Yes.

Oh, great.

And I believe that concludes his short video. Yeah, kind of neat. He worked on that. So that's the staff report. The applicant is also here if you'd like to ask him any questions about the project. And staff is available to respond to any questions as well. Thank you.

Are there any questions for staff at this time? We can come back to that later. Why don't I open the public hearing then? If the applicant would like to make a presentation, a brief presentation, that's great. If they're satisfied that the flyover is all we need, then we'll leave it at that. And certainly if we have any questions for the applicant, the applicant can come up when those are presented. Yeah, absolutely.

Chair Harrison, I have several questions.

for the applicant or for staff? For both staff and applicant. Let's go for it.

OK. Thank you. I have a fairly lengthy list, so I'll ask them one at a time and see if an answer. And if you can't answer, it's fine. We can discuss it later. One is the existing building is a commercial building. I assume the use will remain commercial, but I just wanted to verify that, that in the future that building will be used as a commercial use.

It would there's no proposal to change the use of the existing building and it's not actually part of the scope of work of the project But it is on the property right same property for sure and it's it's all it's all one property and I do there there is I recall from the design review board meeting that there the owner has an intent to use that building as a medical office building. But I don't have any further information on its future potential use other than that.

OK. In the site plan, there is a small strip. The buildings are close to the sidewalk, but the existing building has a small strip of landscape between the sidewalk and the building where there's not an entry. This building, the new building, is in the same relationship to the sidewalk. There could be a strip of landscape there, but there isn't shown on the plans. And so I'm just wondering, is there a problem or why not? It seems like it would be a benefit to the project to have landscaping in front of the building between the sidewalk and the building wall.

It's an excellent question. So being in the form-based code T5N transect, there's technically no required front yard setback between the front building wall and the front property line. In other words, the building could be built right up to the property line. It does have a one foot setback. The building front building wall is set back one foot from the front property line. The issue with this property is that it's very uniquely shaped and narrow. There's not a whole lot of room to push the building back to provide an amenity like a front landscaping buffer area. and the code doesn't technically require them to do it. We can have the applicant speak to that issue, but in terms of the code requirement, it does comply.

Right. No, I understand that it complies. I only mention it because the existing building is the same setback from the sidewalk as the new building, and it has a strip of landscape, so I was just wondering why the new building does not. I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT LIGHTING. ON PAGE 5 THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT THE LIGHTING, LET'S SEE, ALLOWS A MAXIMUM LIGHTING ZONE LZ3 ALLOWS A MAXIMUM OF 20,000 LUMENS FOR MIXED USE SITES. PROPOSED LIGHTING PLAN WOULD PRODUCE ABOUT 33,500 LUMENS AND THEREFORE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM. Yes, I tend to really want if there's a good reason to have the lighting it's Maybe understandable, but I would want to hear what the reason is to exceed the Recommended lumen level are you able to see the slideshow again on your screens not yet?

Okay I put it back up. Okay. So another excellent question. It is definitely in the staff report. The maximum lumens, luminosity per the code is typically 20,000. The form-based code does not address or provide for a maximum amount of lumens on site. So I reverted back to the traditional city of Richmond code for that language. I don't think that technically there's a maximum luminosity or lumens for this project site, to be quite honest. That said, I did anticipate this question. So these are just some renderings the applicant provided showing the existing lighting and the new lighting on the new building. You can see that the older existing building, it has very strong high-powered security wall packs on both the front and rear walls. which provide good security lighting. It's basically flood lighting on the front and back with pretty high luminosity. And then the new building has a series of, I think, about 20 wall sconces that are much more, a warmer sort of amber Kelvin, 3000 Kelvin lamp. And it's a much warmer light. Altogether, the luminosity is, let's see if we can figure it out. This is the site lighting plan was provided and it looks like 33,500 total which would exceed the maximum by about 13,000 But from staffs perspective The lighting is is an important feature for safety and security in the neighborhood and it is adjacent just immediately adjacent to i-80 which has very, very high luminosity, very high LED lighting. So there's already ambient lighting glare within the neighborhood. That said, we could ask them to change the wall packs on the existing building to a lower power to come down under the 20,000. I don't believe staff would recommend that.

Okay, it seems like there's a lot of exterior light fixtures, and I'm always an advocate of less lighting, or as little lighting as is safe and practical, the better. So that would be my take on lighting. Moving on to other questions. Thank you for the image, though. That's great to see the rendering. Thank you. Public art, there's public art required as part of this project. Is there any thought about what that public art should be, would be?

So they have three options per the code. They can either pay 1% of the valuation of the project at the time of submittal of building permit, however it's assessed, or they could provide an onsite art installation, or they could provide an onsite room or space to have public art. THE APPLICANT HAS ELECTED TO PAY THE 1% IN LIEU FEE INSTEAD OF HAVING AN ART INSTALLATION OR FACILITY OR ROOM ON SITE TO ACTUALLY PAY THAT 1%. SO IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE CONSTRUCTION VALUATION OF THE PROJECT WERE TO BE, FOR EXAMPLE, $500,000, THEY WOULD PAY A $5,000 IN LIEU PUBLIC ART FEE UP FRONT WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL.

Seems like the opportunity for public art would be the top of the sign, which is incredibly visible and it would be lots of fun, just saying. Okay, another question regarding the sign is it is currently a radio frequency emitter. CELL TOWER.

IT HOSTS A CELLULAR PCS MOBILE CARRIER.

YES. AND THAT FACILITY HAS WARNING SIGNS ON THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND IT SAYING THAT POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS. take care things like that um the the top story looks like it's actually at the same level of that is is that cell tower going to remain and is is there ways to counteract the issue of i'm just wondering about the safety of the inhabitants

That's another good question. So the pylon sign and the cellular carrier are, again, not part of the scope of work of the project. They're a separate tenant. They lease from the property owner and have been there a relatively long time. The EME report, electromagnetic energy report that would have been provided to the city by the telecommunication carrier would provide the radius around the antennas that is a safe minimum distance. The building, the new building, is more than 30 feet away from the nearest antennas that would be shining or pointing at the third floor of the building. I haven't seen the EME report. My presumption would be that the new building is outside of the range of where would be dangerous exposure to RF or EME energy. Okay. I can't speak more to it than that.

Yes, it seemed like it was closer There's there's an image that shows up much closer than 30 feet. So just you know, there's something for the applicant to think about And then my my last question is regarding air quality at the freeway and whether I think those windows are operable windows on that side and it is very close to the freeway and want to ensure that the applicant knows that they need to do special filtering systems for the units and that are that close to the freeway, there's state law regarding that. So that would be my last question.

Thank you for that. Could I have the applicant come up and address that question? I'm not familiar with those requirements. Gustavo, would you mind? You can use this one. Thank you. Just introduce yourself.

Good evening, everybody. My name is Gustavo Barrios. I'm the owner of JV Designs. I'm an architectural designer, and I am in charge of this project. And to your question, I really appreciate your concerns. I actually have talked plenty amount that with my client and just for the future of the people that's going to be inhabited this place. And so we do have operable windows. They just only open four inches to the exterior. AND WE WILL BE HAVING AIR VENTILATION IN THE INTERIOR, HVAC. WE WILL HAVE FILTERS. I THINK IT'S COMMONLY NOW MORE IN THESE BUILDINGS. BUT, YEAH, HE IS WELL AWARE OF IT, YOU KNOW, AND THE PEOPLE THAT WILL BE INHABITANT AS WELL, WE WILL MAKE THEM AWARE. YES.

I WOULD ADD THAT THIS PROJECT I WOULD ADD THAT THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE FULL BUILDING WILL REQUIRE FULL BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT REVIEW IN COMPLIANCE WITH CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE AND CITY OF RICHMOND'S CITY OF RICHMOND'S BUILDING CODE. BUILDING CODE. I'LL BE SURE TO ADDRESS THOSE I'LL BE SURE TO ADDRESS THOSE THINGS WITH THE BUILDING THINGS WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL. OFFICIAL.

I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT, TOO. TOO. AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL, THEY'LL HAVE TO SUBMITTAL, THEY'LL HAVE TO COMP

Does anybody else have any questions for the staff or the applicant?

Yeah, I have a question about parking. So parking is one of the issues for the variance, correct?

Well, the variance is a request to allow parking within the 30-foot front yard parking setback area. I have a slide for that as well, and you probably saw in your packet the exhibit.

I'm looking at the schematic. It looks like all of the cars are going to have to back out from the garage onto the street.

Wondering if there is any safety concerns or any safety precautions because like there's probably gonna be visibility restrictions when the cars are backing out So close to the street Per our RMC all vehicles are required to drive out those first So they would be required to reverse into those parking stalls under our RMC code that would be applicable to all homes within the city of Richmond technically backing out of your driveway is not permitted and

And I read the diagram as being that cars would be, because there's two doors, so cars would be able to maneuver, but maybe I'm wrong.

There are two roll-up garage doors. Some of the movements out and into the spaces are tricky. There is an exhibit in the drawing set that you probably saw that shows how the movements would work as far as two three-point turns.

So if I understand correctly, Avery, they'd be doing those maneuvering to get back to back into these rather than to back out.

Yes, effectively. And again, as Rick's pointing out, the request for the variance is to allow for the parking to be within that front 30 foot yard setback where in accordance with the form based code, we would not allow that. But I'll let Rick speak more to the staff's reasoning and explanation to why the variance findings are being met for that request.

Any follow-up question on that, Commissioner?

I'm still not getting how they're going to turn around within the garage, because it looks pretty tight on the schematics. But if it's been addressed and they're going to drive out, head out, then it's fine.

There's no doubt that it's tricky. It's a tricky maneuver to get out of the middle space. I see the one that you're probably referencing at the wall there, that third space. That'll be tricky. but doable according to the parking movement exhibit. Small cars.

Any other questions of the staff or applicant at this time? Is there anyone signed up to speak in opposition to the project?

Think we have to have an opportunity if there is someone signed up to speak in opposition We have one person with our hand up, so I don't we go ahead and have that person's I don't have You'll have to fill out a speaker card, please and then place it in the bin Yep, it's gonna be right over there in your left hand side the gentleman look there's gonna help you. Thank you I While he's working on that, I'll call Cordo Handler.

So good evening, Chair Harrison, commissioners. For the record, I am Cordo Handler, and I am a member of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council. So thank you, Rick, and nice to see you again, Gustavo. So looking at this presentation, I was I was like, especially the visual, I was like, this is very remarkable. So I'm like, if each Richmond Heights, uh, was in support of it. So that's number 10 for me. So I'm like, so I'm asking you chair Harrison to someone to make a motion seconds it to approve the project as presented by staff. And that's, that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Stephen? Yep, right there, and you'll have three minutes.

Okay, I'll own 435 46th Street, okay? I'd like to know, what's that bridge going to the old building? What's that bridge for? For one thing. If they're going to put four cars there, When they're building the apartment, how long is it going to take? And all the cars that was going to park on the street going in and out, how long is that going to take? And exactly what are they going to do without first building? They're saying medical. Is that what that bridge is for? So that's going to bring more traffic into the neighborhood. My tenants at the moment at 435 46th Street, they have four cars. So that takes a lot of parking away when they build their apartment and where they're going to use that main building for, the building that's there now. So maybe you guys can let me know what you're building. And the people who site there, he said the nine people. Who's the nine people that sites and give you the okay, just says okay? Do you guys have the nine? Do you have them people's names?

I'll check with staff on that.

Right, because if it were one of mine, when I signed it, he said it was because of the fence. So I was mislead for me signing it. If I'm on there, he said it was for the fence, not to have something built there. So you might want to talk to other people who signed it and see exactly what they was told about signing it.

Thank you. Yeah. I know that from what I understand from the staff report, the bridge is to provide access from the new residential units to the top of that building as open space for those residents of those three new residential units. So that's going to essentially be their patio for the people that are going to be in the new buildings. As far as parking in the neighborhood, I don't know that it has been addressed relative to on-street parking during construction. I don't know if that's something that we deal with or not. And I also don't know if at this point we can really talk about parking for the future use of that existing building because it will no longer have a parking lot if this project gets approved. So how is the applicant thinking they're going to park that medical building?

Those are good questions. So on the parking issue, I do have some slides on that. If we could put the PowerPoint presentation back up, I can, I'll be happy to go through it.

Do you want to continue taking public comment or?

I'd like to try to respond to these and then we'll go on to the next people with questions.

Okay. Can you see the slides on your screen? Okay, so we were anticipating maybe some questions about the parking So there's two portions of the project a residential new residential portion an existing commercial portion the residential part In the code, the maximum allowed residential parking, the maximum is 1.25 spaces per unit. However, there's no minimum required for residential parking in the code. And there is no parking required for the three new units. On the commercial part, EXISTING BUILDING, THERE'S NO PARKING REQUIREMENT NOTED IN THE CODE FOR COMMERCIAL OFFICE, BUT WITHIN FORM-BASED CODE, T5N TRANSEX SUBSECTION H, FOOTNOTE 9, I KNOW THAT'S VERY DETAILED, BUT BASICALLY THAT SECTION OF THE The sub zone that this project is located within points you to the municipal code section 1504607 for uses that are not listed. Basically the idea is trying to figure out what parking is required for the commercial office building. Office uses are calculated at a maximum of two spaces for every 1,000 square feet. And the minimum parking requirement is actually 33% less than that formula. I know that all sounds like a pretty complex formula, but this is what is stated in the code. So the existing office building is about 3,600 square feet. The formula would be 3,600 square feet divided by the 1,000 times 2 times .67, and it yields five total parking spaces. And the project is providing five spaces on site for the commercial. All of that said, there really is no parking required for this project at all. Assembly Bill 2097 provides for an exemption for these kinds of projects. And the concept behind AB 2097 is to reduce housing costs, promote transit oriented development and lower carbon emissions. And essentially it states, Public agencies shall not impose or enforce any minimum parking on eligible residential commercial or other projects located within half a mile of public transit. And it's important to note that in AB 2097, both planned and existing transit stops can be used for that calculation. So bus stops that are noted as planned on the regional transportation plan map within half a mile can be used. So I went and found the regional transportation corridor high quality database and found that the project site is about a quarter mile away from a planned major stop on San Pablo that isn't there yet but is planned to be there. And so therefore, because the project site is within a half a mile of this planned future major transit stop, it technically does not have to have any onsite parking whatsoever. But they're providing five spaces. So, essentially, no parking required. And on top of that, there was a parking study provided for this project by Farron Piers. Farron Piers collected data in the neighborhood in December. And they discovered that at peak weekday times, at 2 p.m. on a typical weekday, that there's approximately 46 open parking spaces on the street within a couple blocks of the site. And at a typical day at 9 p.m., there's about 41 open spaces. So therefore there's plenty of parking on the street that is not restricted by permit requirements that could be used for any sort of overflow or additional parking needs. And because there's so many spaces available within two blocks, the fair and pure studies concludes that there's no adverse impacts to the availability of parking in the area. So basically, long story short, the conclusion is that the project does not technically need to provide any parking, but they've provided five parking spaces.

AND THOSE FIVE SPACES ARE THE ONES BENEATH THE NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. CORRECT. SO THEY'RE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE MEDICAL BUILDING.

RIGHT. AND THE MEDICAL, THE OFFICE BUILDING DOES NOT TECHNICALLY NEED TO PROVIDE ANY ON-SITE PARKING SPACES.

AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW YOU MENTIONED?

AB 2097.

SO BETWEEN THE FORUM-BASED CODE AND THAT that state law, the city cannot require additional parking beyond these five that the applicant actually doesn't have to provide in the first place.

That is true the city prefers the city would like to encourage multimodal forms of transportation and Not see parking as a primary goal So yeah, but five spaces are provided on-site Okay, thank you for the clarifications on all that I

You had your moment to speak so not really not the way this process works Sorry, but go ahead. Come on back. Come on back.

I you might as well Through 46 Avenue you can tell it's no parking and in front of my house on that side of the street. No parking at all. It's all driveways. Apartment building, other houses have the driveways facing 46th Street itself. So there's no parking there at all because it's all parked driveways. So that's just no parking at all. Now, if you're saying if he can build his house or the apartment up to their parking line, it means I can do the same thing with my house? I can redo my house and bring it up to their sidewalk?

I don't know if that applies to single-family residential or if it's just for multi-family residential. That's the setback requirement. But I think that's getting a little bit off the topic here.

I have to know because if they're doing it, bringing it up to the line, should I be able to do it? As I said, I'm two houses away.

Again, I think it's the... I don't believe that single-family residential have the same criteria as multifamily?

At this time, I would ask that, you know, we'll provide you with our business cards and we'd invite you to come with us to the planning counter and meet with us. We can certainly look over your project, your parcel, and help you understand the development rights that are available to you so that you can understand in the future if you wanted to do that type of development.

If I can tear it down and bring it real close?

We can certainly have that conversation, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Okay. Are there any other speaker forms?

Yes. I have a, I believe it's a Raymond.

Reynaldo. Reynaldo. Yes. I can't read. Good evening. I live to the, next to the existing building. And, you know, this is like a lot of, I want to know what is the night person, the night person that signed the document. that they said they give permission because when we signed that paper, he tells us he's going to put a fence around that, the building. He don't mention that he's going to make units over there. And parking, you know, my neighbor already mentioned there is no parking there. I mentioned before in the meeting before, it is an RV that been sitting there for three years. So I don't know where they're getting all this parking. And around the corner in Nevin is trucked with equipment full of trucks over there. So that's what I want to say. Thank you. Thank you very much.

And I have one online speaker, John.

You wanna fill out, did you fill out a speaker form, sir? If you could do that, then we can bring you up, go ahead and do the online one right now.

All right, go ahead, John, you have three minutes. John, do you wish to speak on this item? We can proceed.

Gentlemen, just one point of clarification on the trailer that the previous speaker spoke about does not belong to this project property owner.

We do have one additional speaker card here for this item. Greg?

Yes, go ahead. I just wanted to briefly mention about the parking. I don't live close to this building, but I'm very familiar with this building. I've been inside of that building before. I live in a totally different part of Richmond, but I live next to medical facility. which was erected next to my house and I totally agree with gentlemen who raised the issue about the parking. Unfortunately, that medical building was erected without sufficient parking and now all residents suffer from visitors of this medical facility. It's basically been any empty space on the street was overtaken and local residents cannot find a parking anymore. So THIS BUILDING CAN BE ERECTED UNDER CONDITION IF THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING PROVIDED ON SITE. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MENTION. THE PARKING IS REAL ISSUE HERE. NEW SPEAKER THANK YOU.

I have additional speakers. Anna Lopez.

Good evening. Yes, I would also like to support the local residents who are opposing this project. Although I don't live on that street or nearby, I think it is important when you construct a building to really make sure there is parking spots available because very often the buildings are constructed and many people rely on cars. And I know we're talking about the future and how People are going to rely more on public transportation in the future. But we need to consider also what's going to be in a short term, such as five or seven years in the future. And I think cities should not allow to build a building where the owner does not provide sufficient parking for the residents, the actual parking on the property. Thank you.

And then I've got one more speaker here, I believe, for this item. His last name is K-A-H-N. Good evening, members.

And I'm here to speak, put some light on parking issue. I want to make all my neighbors and whosoever came to oppose here to make them aware. We are not running a medical business. It's not a medical building. It will be a medical transcription, only two employees. There will be no in and out traffic coming in, no patients coming in, just two employees transcribing whatever Doctors in and around the hospitals speak, and they dictate the notes. They don't write the reports. So the staff, the medical transcription staff, is only two people. And they sit, hear all those recordings, and they type it. There are no patients coming in and out, and there is no parking required. And I want all my neighbors to understand that nobody's parking spot will be taken because we only have two employees transcribing in two shifts, like one coming one time, when he leaves, the other one comes. So there will be no requirement for parking, and there will be no patients coming in to get checkups. So there will be no traffic in my project nearby. So I just want to know that it's not a medical building, it's a medical transcription, that the business is transcribed by only two people. So it will not need any parking from the neighborhood.

Okay, thank you, appreciate that.

Thank you.

Any other speakers?

No other speakers.

Okay. Then I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back to the Commission to discuss. I guess I sort of raised this parking issue, so let me kind of give you my impressions on that. ALTHOUGH THE MEDICAL USE THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT SEEMED TO BE THE SOURCE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT, IT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. WE'RE ONLY DEALING WITH THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. SO WE REALLY CAN'T ADDRESS ANY REAL OR PERCEIVED CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THAT. Medical building that will be if the applicant needs to have a some kind of a permit for the use He's describing it can be addressed at that time Secondly as the staff pointed out parking state law and The direction most organizations are going now. They're trying to as staff pointed up encourage people to use public transit or not and so they're have waived a lot of the parking requirements for new developments, which is good in some locations. This may not be a good location for that, but nonetheless, that's what the law makes very clear as staff laid out not only the requirements in the form-based code, which is the City of Richmond's regulations, but also the state law, which is really forcing cities' hands relative to parking. AND TRYING TO DISCOURAGE ADDITION OF PARKING AS A WAY OF GETTING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR CARS AND INTO BUSES AND TRAINS. SO THERE'S NOTHING WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS RELATIVE TO THAT PARKING TONIGHT. AND AS THE STAFF HAS POINTED OUT, THERE ARE FIVE SPACES ON SITE WHICH Technically, I guess are not required but or I think makes sense when it's a residential use people are going to want to have somewhere to park their car So it only makes sense to have it there So I just wanted to clarify that I don't know And that's I'll turn it over to my other commissioners any comments they have or suggestions. I

uh thank you i i will just add that there was a whole parking study done as part of this project which is included in the staff report and it looks at streets surrounding this area it counts the number of available spaces and it counts the number of spaces that were occupied at the two times that the examiner went out and did the survey and uh i know the firm is a reputable firm fair and peers so it seems that this parking study does indicate that there's not a large parking impact at least in the overall broader neighborhood there may be specific impacts on individual properties within that neighborhood but as a whole just the parking studies does seem to indicate that there is some space available so um i did have a question about the parking study how did they determine the number of spots are available was it just like a regular sedan with and just went in and started counting up spots

Visual observation during the two times of day. On a typical weekday at 2 p.m., the field surveyor went out to the neighborhood and basically walked the streets within two blocks of the project site and counted how many 20-foot long spaces there were along the curb in the public right-of-way. Visual observation. And then at 9 p.m., they did the same thing. Thank you. Simple methodology.

Okay, any other questions or comments?

Yeah, there are a couple of people raised the issue of who was in support of the project and what were they supporting because someone was told it's only the fence and then looks like there's nine people that supported the whole project. Do we have any clarity on that?

I'm sorry, so your question is about the fencing?

No. So there is a couple of residents that came to the mic and they said that when they asked to sign in support of the project, they were told that the project is only about fencing. And then the staff report said there was nine people supporting the project. So I was just wondering, is there any clarification as to those are just separate nine people who actually supported the project, not the fencing?

All righty. So I did attended the meeting with the Richmond Heights neighborhood council, and I spoke lengthy about the project. Also, we were creating a fencing which is built already, and we requested a permit because there was a lot of homeless and a lot of vandalism happening in that area. And because of that, we created the fence and we also spoke about the building the future of what the area will look like. I do have a letter that I have everyone that sign that were basically and approve. If there is anything else that you'd like me to provide, I'm happy to or go back to the Richmond High Neighborhood Council.

So the letter that you have that the people sign, it says the residential building, not just the fence, correct?

It does not say that. It does state in here that it's being Defensing is being approved also. I don't think that letter estates any of it though I think I can get any record of that Meaning if there's that requirement in question that we didn't you know We're open about the building because we were I don't have it right now, but I do have a letter where they sign it But I can go back and ask them for any other I don't know, approval.

No, it's okay, so long as it's clear. So the people who supported, they only supported the fencing. That's what they were asked to support, and that's what they supported.

We talked about it, both for the fencing and the project.

The meeting was about the project.

Yes.

Not about the fencing. Yes. And they were presented with the site plan and the elevations for the project.

So is it fair to say that they understood that they were supporting the project? Correct.

The letter. I remember now that there was a lady that she actually had comments about the art. Because in that meeting, we had a conversation about the 1% of the art. And then I was thinking, I was talking with her because she was opposing into what type of art. And so I was letting her know that I think I will talk with the client. And it seems like we come out with a conclusion that we will donate the funds to the city of Richmond so you guys can decide to do whatever with the art because

the oppose was that if we created a mural it might offend somebody so they were yes so we were definitely talking about a building in there understood thank you okay if there are no other questions uh are there we're i guess ready to consider a motion to approve or project or seek additional conditions what's the wish of the commission

The motion would be to adopt the resolution, right?

Yeah, it's at the bottom of page three of the staff report, continuing on to the top of page four.

I am happy to make a motion. I would like to propose a couple of conditions.

Okay.

These won't be hardline conditions, I think, but rather maybe some proposals to consider. And one of the conditions would be to consider adding landscape to the front of the project that matches the existing building's landscape in front of that building. along the sidewalk if feasible. And the other is to reduce the amount of lighting that is surrounding the building to the level that is mentioned in the staff report as being maximum so reducing the whether it's by reducing the existing buildings lighting or the new buildings lighting as long as it still is at a safe level for this neighborhood but lighting should be a minimum and the goal should be that lower number of lumens

uh so far as it is safe and uh properly illuminated so those would be my two conditions could that be done with a combination of things if they reduce the number of sconces on the new building and then change the wall packs so they weren't so um blasting um we could leave it up to staff to work with the app okay okay understood thank you

And with that, I will make a motion to approve. Let me see. I had it here. Hold on.

It's on page.

What happened? to adopt, make a motion with conditions to adopt resolution number 2610, granting approval of major design review PLN 22282, variance and exception to architectural standards to develop a new three-unit multifamily building subject to the findings and conditions of approval as contained in the resolution.

Is there a second? I second that Okay, do you want a roll call vote every year?

Hey well chair Harrison. Yes, vice chair Burbanker. Yes Secretary Timmons is absent Commissioner Golovitz. Hi And Commissioner shade. Yes, and Commissioner Benitez is absent item is approved.

Okay That was interesting Thank you, thank you for your presentation.

If I may just say that it's a very creative idea to provide a bridge to the top of the existing building to provide open space for residences. I haven't seen that before and it's quite creative.

Next we have Savannah Lynn who will be presenting on PLN 26004, new social services use. Savannah is a consultant with the City of Richmond through CSG.

Okay. We're on to this item two, relocated item two.

And again, item two as we approve the agenda with changes really item four.

Yes. As we approve with the changes. You got that language down, I don't. Okay.

Good evening chair Commissioners and members of the public. My name is Savannah Lane, and I'm a contract planner with CSG consultants I've been working with the city of Richmond for About eight months now and this is my first time presenting before the Richmond Planning Commission So I thank you for the opportunity and it's lovely to meet you all Tonight I'll be presenting Planning Application PLN 26-0004, a Conditional Use Permit Request for SOS Richmond and the Warm Hands Wellness Center at 32 Harborway. The subject site is located at 32 Harbor Way, south of Chancellor Avenue and north of Interstate 580. The surrounding area includes a mix of commercial, institutional, nonprofit, social service, health related and residential uses, including a senior housing facility and single family homes. gymnasium a high school religious assembly uses and automobile related repair facilities The site has a general plan designation of CMU which is medium intensity mixed use with a commercial emphasis it is zoned T for MSO under Richmond's livable corridors form based code and Social service centers are conditionally allowed in this transect zone subject to planning condition approval of a conditional use permit. The project site is approximately 5,625 square feet and is developed with an existing warehouse building that has historically been used for mixed commercial warehouse and vehicle repair purposes. SOS Richmond began operating a social service center from the site before obtaining necessary city approvals, which resulted in a code enforcement case. Before social service centers Excuse me, because social service centers are conditionally allowed in the T4 MSO transect district planning and code enforcement staff advise the applicant that they could bring the use into compliance with Richmond's code by obtaining planning commission approval of a conditional use permit. The Commission's review tonight is focused on whether the proposed use is appropriate at this location and whether the conditions of approval are needed to ensure the use is compatible with the nearby residential, institutional, commercial, and mixed-use properties. The use would include two components, an internal dispatch and operations hub for SOS Richmond's mobile outreach teams and the Warm Hands Wellness Center, which would provide daytime non-residential supportive services for unhoused and housing insecure individuals. Most services would occur inside the building. Limited outdoor activities would be restricted to the rear yard and adjoining parking lot. and no activities would be allowed in front of the building, on the sidewalk or in the public right of way. The limited outdoor use would include shower trailers on the adjoining parking lot subject to all applicable city health, safety, utility and property maintenance requirements. The applicant does have a shared use agreement with the property next door for the use of the parking lot. The site would not operate as an emergency shelter, overnight shelter, residential facility, or housing use. There will be no overnight stays, outdoor sleeping, or camping permitted. The proposed social service center has two main components. As mentioned, the mobile outreach operations hub, which is a staff-facing portion of the project, and the Warm Hands Wellness Center which is the public-facing portion that provides daytime supportive services. The daytime supportive services include things such as resource navigation, referrals, wellness support, hygiene supplies, prepared meals, and other partner services. The mobile outreach operations hub would operate Monday through Saturday from 830 a.m. to 6 p.m. and Sunday from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. The Warm Hands Wellness Center is expected to begin operating just two days a week with approval requested for up to five days a week from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m. During the Wellness Center hours, approximately five staff, volunteers, or partner providers are expected to be on site, with additional field staff entering and exiting at the beginning and ends of their shifts. Until a second means of egress is approved through the rear of the site, occupancy will be limited to 49 people. Inside the building, the Wellness Center provide low barrier supportive services, including case management, resource navigation, referrals, clothing, hygiene, prepared meals, computer access, recovery meetings, therapeutic groups and partner provided wellness services such as haircuts. Outdoor activities would be limited to approved areas only, including the rear yard and adjoining parking lot to the south. The use of the adjoining parking lot for shower trailers and shared parking service deployment and vehicle and equipment staging, as mentioned, is subject to the existing shared use agreement with the neighboring property owner. A copy of that agreement has been provided to staff. No outdoor activities would be allowed in front of the building, as mentioned. The shower trailers would also be subject to all applicable city health and safety requirements, as mentioned previously. The surrounding area includes a mix of residential, institutional, commercial, and automobile-oriented, nonprofit, social service, and health-related uses. Given that context, staff's compatibility analysis focused on the day-to-day operation of the use, particularly activity visible from or adjacent to the public right-of-way. The recommended conditions are intended to limit neighborhood impacts by regulating the hours, occupancy, outdoor activities, parking, vehicle staging, queuing, loitering, trash, site management and security. Public facing services would occur primarily inside the building. Outdoor activities, as mentioned, are limited to the approved areas only. With these conditions in place, staff finds that the proposed use can operate compatibly with the surrounding neighborhood. The project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15301 class one existing facilities. The city received eight letters of support from community organizations, one letter of support from the neighborhood council and one letter of support from a community member. Supporting organizations included Contra Costa County, excuse me, Contra Costa Health, Fountain Project Health and Wellness Center, Housing Consortium of the East Bay, HIV Education and Prevention Project of Alameda County, Greater Richmond Interfaith Program, ADEII Health, Lifelong Medical Care, and the City of Richmond's Community Crisis Response Team. The city also received one formal complaint regarding the operation of the use. The complaint ended up being unfounded as the complainant was under the impression that the zoning was different than what it was and that the CUP was not allowed. To approve the conditional use permit, the Planning Commission must make the five findings required by Richmond's Municipal Code Section 1504806040. As detailed in the staff report and resolution, staff recommends that the Planning Commission make all five findings subject to the recommended conditions of approval. As detailed in the resolution, staff recommends 29 conditions of approval. to keep the use within the approved scope of the conditional use permit and maintain compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The conditions address hours, occupancy, site management, service areas, shower trailers, parking, et cetera. In conclusion, staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt resolution number 26-12, approving Planning Application PLN 26-0004 for a conditional use permit to allow Social Service Center at 32 Harbor Way, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. I would like to point out that after the agenda packet was finalized, staff did receive additional Conditions are approval from the fire marshal's office They received four additional conditions which are highlighted in yellow on your resolution those four conditions are Number one provide plans for review and approval for a change of use and occupancy plan shall include any details for modifications to the facility or required to meet the new proposed use as identified in Section 302.1 of the 2025 Building Code and Section 1002.1 of the California Existing Building Code. Required modifications shall be completed under and through plan review for compliance with fire and building code requirements. Forgive me, I do need to read all of them. Obtain any required operational permits from Richmond Fire Prevention District. Obtain a fire clearance by requesting a fire and life safety inspection from the Richmond Fire Prevention Division. And finally, provide documentation verifying that any existing fire and life safety systems including fire suppression and fire alarm systems have been serviced, maintained and certified in accordance with the applicable maintenance schedules including quarterly, annual and five-year service requirements as applicable. That concludes my presentation and staff and the applicant are available for questions.

Thank you. Are there any questions for staff at this time? If not, I'm going to go ahead and open a public hearing. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation? If not required, but they're welcome to do so.

I believe he does.

They do?

I believe he does, yes.

Okay. Can you give us your name? The red button you need to push there to turn it on.

Got it. My name is Daniel Barth. I'm the executive director and the founder of Safe Organized Spaces Richmond. I'm hoping that you've got this updated packet of letters of support. And if anyone from the public would like to have a copy, I have a few extras. So I'd be happy to hand them over to you. I don't need to give too much. That was a great presentation. Thank you. And it's my first time being at Planning Commission. Bruce, you and I have a little bit of history because you remember what happened at the Castro encampment. and how we have seemingly intractable problems of homelessness. And we know that the situation is not going to get too much better. And those who are vulnerably housed in our neighborhoods are also highly susceptible to becoming homeless as well. And so by having a safe place, for daytime respite and access to services, we accomplish a lot. And I'd like to spend a couple of minutes and try to limit it to a few minutes here to describe how this works. So when we do work in homeless encampments, what we're doing is, and here's three of our staff here, we're hiring folks from the unhoused community, like from Castro encampment. and several of whom are still employed with us. They are talent that we have retained. But what we do is we engage a workforce development program which hires folks from encampments directly from the encampments that they're then going to serve. And they serve with those showers, with laundry services, sometimes drinking water. Sometimes if it's a larger encampment, we handle the sanitation of portable toilets and so forth. And we do trash collection and also help people to move from the encampment. We cooperate and work alongside in a coordinated manner. with our public agencies, with fire and police and public works and traffic enforcement and code enforcement to smooth the way for our public agencies to be able to address the encampments that ultimately are going to be moved. Because there aren't going to be encampments that stay. There are no sanctioned encampments. And we've had experiences like the Castro encampment. And we saw what happens when we handle them over the course of years. It's a very difficult situation. And I don't think anyone has any qualms about me saying, we've got to deal with that. And so the best way to deal with it, A, I found out from personal experience in the field, is you hire folks. They get work. By having work, we have the ability to obtain housing, and we can engage on that pathway, on that journey from tent to home. Not the easiest journey, in fact. And employing folks and running an organization that's 85% from the unhoused community is not an easy undertaking. However, it's a very useful undertaking in the sense that these individuals provide the peer-to-peer support that then allows them to do what they can do the best. What we know how to do the best is to work with our brothers and sisters as peers, helping peers, right? Neighbors helping neighbors and that collaboration between housed and unhoused ultimately is what happens. Public agencies and community members supporting unhoused leaders leading folks from encampments, helping to soften those encampment abatements, and also ultimately helping move folks into housing. Helping to actually physically transport folks and their belongings from an encampment into housing is a tremendously useful endeavor that we're helping folks make those moves while we, as unhoused and recently housed individuals, while we are making the personal changes in our lives. And the reason why I said all of that is to say it needs to have a home. We used to be underneath the 580 freeway on South 2nd Street on Caltrans land, underneath the freeway. And so when you saw one of those photos and you saw tents inside a building, you'd never see tents inside a building, but we got tents. Why? Because we started underneath a freeway and all we had were tents. And that's how we operated a wellness center on South 2nd Street. until Caltrans didn't allow that and anything else to go underneath those freeways from henceforth. And so we found and have a partner in a landlord who allows for us to stay at their location because there is no parking on that street. And by having no parking on that street, a normal business cannot usually do business there. So we can do the business of driving people to the site, shuttling them from the encampments, bringing them to the wellness center, to the showers, to the laundry, to their housing, to appointments, getting essential things like documentation so that they can get employed, going to services like lifelong medical care. That's two blocks down the way, but it may as well be. 10 miles for some people because taking the steps towards wellness takes a concerted effort. And so the central place that we provide, rather than being outdoors under the freeway, It's now at Safe Harbor, right? On Harbor Way, Safe Organized Spaces runs a wellness center called The Warm Hand. The Warm Hand that focuses on the relational experience that helps people to take the steps out of homelessness. We can't transact our way out of homelessness. We need to support people and accompany people. And so I urge you to recognize and come and visit us at 32 Harbor Way and what you will see tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock when you come. And I encourage you to please come, even when you vote hopefully yes to approve. We are going to continue. And we would like for you to have a stakeholder as our commission that supervises the appropriate use of that facility. And you will see that the appropriate use is that individuals coming off the streets, coming for respite, they're receiving refuge from being outdoors in all of what we know the outdoors to be, violent, dirty air, and everything. And they come indoors, and they have their friends. They have people that they know from the encampments that we hired that are now peer practitioners to help their peers take the same journey that they're taking. And by one at a time, 30 in a given day that walk through those doors, we can help folks change the course of their lives to take steps towards better income, housing outcomes and improved wellness to sustain the job and the housing. So if you have questions, I'm delighted to talk with you about it. Thank you.

Any questions for the applicant? I have a couple quick ones. I noticed in the picture there were two or three bicycles in the one photograph, but there's no requirement for a bike rack. Would there be any value to having a bike rack?

Well, you know, that's a good question. We have a bike rack there. And do people use it at that front door? Should we put it up there? And usually they just like to roll their bike right to that front door. And the beautiful thing about taking an auto body shop and turning it into a safe harbor is that all you got is open space and so in the corner we just stack the bikes up so that they can leave easily. Now can we use a better bike rack? Absolutely.

Okay. So if there's one there, there's no reason to ask for another one. The other question I had, I'm not too far. Do these portable showers, are they permanently on there? Do they bring them in once or twice a week? How do you do that?

Well, the term mobile showers means that they are mobile. It's on a trailer, and it can be towed by a vehicle, a truck, or a van, and we take them to different parts six days a week. Six days a week they go someplace to different parts of the city, and increasingly they'll go outside of the city and will be in West County, across West County, and hopefully across Contra Costa County in some fashion in the future in partnership with other organizations. The point is that we find those important locations where showers need to be had, and it started during COVID when there were no public showers at all. And since 2020, we've been providing those showers. And we have one shower trailer that provides three showers at any one time. And we have a second one coming. And we will have it by the end of this month because the other one is going to be put to pasture and mostly be used in the parking lot next door.

Great. Thank you. Anyone else have questions for the applicant? OK. Thank you very much for your time.

That's too easy. No. You must have more questions.

Well, we'll give you a chance. Just a minute. No, it's still a public hearing so we're gonna call additional speakers. So if you put a form in you'll get called What you know you need to address the Commission and then if we we can choose whether or not to Direct a question to him is So it's our meeting not his meeting so to speak Did you want to speak the Commission if

I will call names in order that I've received them, if you'd like to proceed with that portion of the meeting. The first speaker is Greg.

Hello. I'm voicing against this project because my residency been affected by this project. In just the past three months, I filed three police reports. I've been physically injured by visitors of this center. I witnessed these people taking clean clothes from this center, dropping dirty clothes in front of my property, they urinating. dropping trash across my fence and when I tell them to, stop doing this they're getting aggressive with me they attack me assault and battery so when i moved to this neighborhood i purchased the house i moved out from a city and neighborhood which provided exactly the same services so i when i chose this neighborhood it had different zoning and it seemed to be a safe residential neighborhood. And I lived there for more than 15 years, so now the zoning is changing. I'm against this zoning change and approval of these facilities because now I end up being in exactly the same situation as before. So, just... So what I noticed is people segregate in this neighborhood, attracting these homeless people. They're loitering, smoking marijuana, just dropping cigarette butts all in front of property, liquor bottles, throwing beer bottles at me. Just yesterday was another police report. I've been physically injured. This is totally unacceptable. My kids cannot play right near the house safely anymore because I noticed the visitors of this center, they coming to the kids, started talking. So this is totally unsafe behavior and there are different parts of Richmond. perhaps industrial neighborhood, not in residential area. I'm supporting social services, but not in residential neighborhood. There are plenty of spaces and empty spaces in Richmond where this facility could fit in. So again, I'm totally against this project. Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ana Lopez.

Good evening. I'm speaking in opposition to locating this facility in a residential neighborhood because I have already experienced serious problems associated with this activity in the area. This facility was operating for months without permit prior to this application. After the unhoused individuals are brought to this facility, they are not provided actual housing. Instead they are provided some services after they receive the services They remain on that block outside the building and on sidewalks around the block the issues I have personally encountered include loitering around residential properties trash being thrown and feces, abandoned clothing and liquor bottles left near homes, repeated trespassing onto private property, individuals looking through fences and around yards, apparently searching for items to steal, bicycle thefts involving locks being cut, vehicle damage, including punctured tires, aggressive behavior when residents attempt to address those problems, bottles and stones being thrown at me, physical assaults and threats, Every resident deserves to feel safe in their own home. Unfortunately, my experience has been that these types of activities have increased when large number of unsheltered individuals congregate near residential properties. I understand that people experiencing homelessness need services and assistance. However, the city also has an obligation to protect the quality of life and safety of the residents who already live in these neighborhoods. It brings down property values. I bought the house when the social services center was not allowed by zoning. I specifically looked for a house in this type of zoning. I still pay increasing property taxes based on house values. Values of our properties are down due to the center operating at this location. I respectfully ask the council to consider alternative locations in commercial industrial areas where the impacts on homes, families, and residential streets would be significantly reduced. This is not about opposing help for those in need. It is about finding a location that balances the needs of homeless individuals with the safety and well-being of the surrounding community. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ebony Blake.

Hi, I'm Ebony Blake. I've been with them since Wrighton Road. I came from Wrighton Road. I went to Texas, went there for two years, came back homeless, but I got help. They helped me again, and I'll be housed in any day now. I just graduated from the training from SOS. All I can say is they done helped me, and I done got far. So, whatever y'all can do. I don't know, but that don't sound right.

Thank you for your input.

Our next speaker is Randy Scott.

Hi. My name is Randy Scott, and I've been with SOS Well, pretty much since 2020, before we were SOS. I want to talk about just the social services and what we do there. Me being homeless myself and being hired straight off the San Pablo creeks was a miracle, really. Still being employed and having the opportunities I do now. is a miracle. And that's because Daniel Barth stuck his neck out and started something that was really good. And it continues today. In its current version, it's very professional. It's very updated. It's modern. It's streamlined. We have computer labs and we have Our collaboration with people that used to not like us at all is through the roof. I mean, we have CORE in there. We have ROC. We have fire department coming down. I mean, we have people coming in and doing services there themselves. We've all been trained in CPR. We've been trained in first aid. We have been trained in Narcan. No harm reduction training. There's not a day that goes by that we don't have some kind of training or something in there that goes on. And we got people coming in. Started off a few, but now we have a lot of people coming in that need help. They know to come there all the time. Now they know that we've become a center for acceptance. You know, no matter where you're coming from, who you are, what color you are, You're welcome there, and we'll pick you up and take you there. If you want to go there, I'll come to you where you're at, and I'll pick you up. If you don't have the ride, you don't have transportation, you need to get an ID or something, I'll take you there. I'll come in and I'll bring you in and I'll take you back home. Same thing with our laundry. Same thing with our showers. We will shuttle you in. We have vehicles that are insured and licensed and the drivers, including myself, are licensed and insured completely. It's all above board. We've got all kinds of social services in that area. You know, the Capital Charities is one block, one and a half block away. The church, the Catholic Church, is just a block away. Bifang Medical is one block away. Next door to us is another church. We fit in. We fit in. And I'd like to think that we're a benefit to the community. Well, I know we are. I know we're a benefit to the community. I like to think about it. Personally, I've benefited. I share that. The way I keep it is I give it away. Thank you. All right.

Our next speaker is Chombe Perkins. I hope I pronounced your name correctly.

Hello, I'm Shawnee Perkins. I've been working for SOS for four or five years now. And there was homeless people in the area before we moved there. And now that we're there, we didn't bring them there. We're helping the people that's there. We were pulling them out of the street and giving them hope again that they can go do something instead of stay right there where they are. Because homelessness is hard. And people that's housed, they don't see that. They say that we're bringing them there when we're not. The ones that come there, they come there and they learn something and get what we have to offer. And that's what we do. The people that come there, none of them come there drunk. None of them come there and throw rocks at people or anything like that. When they come there, they get hope again that they're going to get out of homelessness. And that's what we do. We have the computer lab. We have core there. We have all these other agencies there to help. You know, we don't, I mean, I'm there. I don't see any, any violence. There's nothing going on crazy there. We're there to help the people and the people that come there want help. You know, that's what, that's what we do. Thank you. Thank you.

If there are any members of the public online who wish to speak on this item, please indicate so by raising your hand. Seeing none.

Okay. Cordell went back. I guess he wasn't going to speak. All right. I think that's all the speakers. I guess I'd like to offer the applicant a chance to respond to any of these comments if they'd wish before we go into our deliberations.

The beautiful thing about having our team is that they know how to speak for themselves. They just did. They said that folks have been on McDonald Avenue and Harbor Way in the neighborhoods of Coronado and Santa Fe and Iron Triangle and up north and of course in between all the time. in Point Richmond, in north and east, RVs up and down. We know this. We know that we've seen encampments more than 100. And then when we abate those encampments, folks end up on the streets, or they go on the tracks, on the creeks, on the freeways, and our parks. But they got someplace they need to go. And let's make it real here. Folks have become homeless because of intergenerational poverty generated in this city, in this economy that has utilized people as tools for running programs, There has been a separation between those who have and those who do not have. And they've done it by zip code. And we know that those folks, like three of them right here from North Richmond and San Pablo, have been downwind from a refinery and from a whole corridor, a northern waterfront of poverty. And so when we start blaming unhoused individuals for being on the street, let's keep it real. Folks are on the street because of the economy. And they're there needing to be repaired. And a transition needs to be supporting them. And any trauma that we experience on the streets, any addiction or mental illness that some of us, including myself, might have experienced in our past, needs support so that we can walk into our rightful places as talented individuals. And that's what we see here. So of course we see people on the streets. And they may act any number of ways, like housed people I know act certain ways as well. So here we are trying to respond to an issue that is a public health emergency. It is a public safety crisis. And it is most of all a problem of our housing inequities and racial inequities. And so let's do this work together. And we know that it takes all of us being in this one together. So when we, in central Richmond, on the main corridor of Harbor Way, residential down the block on the other streets, that is a main corridor of commercial services, as Randy was saying. All those services on that corridor And the reason why, and I apologize, the reason why we walked into that, I thought by right we were able to provide social services. I made a mistake. And so here we are repairing that mistake, coming for a conditional use permit. The frank of the matter is, is that if we didn't have a center like this, there wouldn't be support services for folks who aren't going to be able to make it to places like Catholic Charities or to Lifelong Medical Care or even to the Reentry Success Center or the Safe Return Project and all the other services up there because we're the ones bridging With our relational talents, folks who feel like they have no options, the hope that my staff here were talking about is the hope is delivered through the peer accompaniment. And so let's have a central place. I can find no more natural place for us to be than in that facility. And I hope you agree.

Could I ask a question? Yeah, yeah, please do. Before you go, So one of the points that was made by the opponent was that your project brings people in from encampments and gives them services. What happens after that? Or do they stay in the neighborhood? Is there a way for them? to get back to where they were? Or is it the case that people then are looking for something to do after you close?

Well, it's very interesting. So Randy is a shuttle driver right now. And he has been a health ambassador in the past. So his job is to get calls for service on our neighbor care line. So if you happen to get my card, and I'm happy to give you one, you'll see on it a neighbor care line, which is a warm line for you to call or for a neighbor to call when they're concerned or want to complain about a situation. And we don't want to elevate it to a public health, excuse me, to a public safety nuisance or worse. That our goal is to arrive to see the person, whether it's our future mayor who calls and says, hey, I see someone over here on 30th and Garvin who needs support, then I'll go up there. And I will, one of us will go up there and talk with that individual. And sometimes they will come back with us. And when they come back with us, they're being shuttled in, supported, and brought back. It's always a two-way street. Some folks walk in the door and walk out the door. BUT EVERYONE HAS ACCESS TO THE TRANSPORTATION ON DEMAND.

MY SECOND QUESTION, FORGIVE ME, BUT YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE'S A HOTLINE OR SOMETHING. WE'VE HEARD OTHER VERY CONTROVERSIAL PROJECTS ABOUT emergency shelters and other uses in residential neighborhoods. And the problem really erupts when there isn't good communication between the people feel like they aren't being heard when they do come forward with complaints or issues. And I'm wondering, will you be available Or is there some way for people in the neighborhood to contact you if they think that there's issues that might be arising from your use?

24-7. Of course. So let me give an example. When we were under that freeway on South 2nd Street, we were in the adjacent neighborhood, Santa Fe. And if you talk to the neighborhood president and secretary, the Whitmores, you would have been talking with some individuals when we walked in who were very suspicious. But when we came in and we were inhabiting this piece of Caltrans land, we were permitted to do that. What changed in the neighborhood was very positive in everyone. No, I shouldn't say everyone. That the majority of opinion in the Santa Fe Neighborhood Council, for example, would say that what we did was we reduced the illegal dumping that was going on there. We were more responsive to the individuals who are living in that place. And now that we are not in that place, If you drive down South 2nd Street, you will see all the RVs. And if you look beyond the Caltrans land, you'll see on the railroad a whole bunch of people in an encampment there. I'm not trying to out them. But everyone knows that they're there who are paying attention to public safety issues because they are there less supported than they are when we were right there. Now, we will go out there, and we will bring them to us, and they will support us. And I see there's, as Tashami was saying just before our presentation here, Most everyone walks away with a smile. So it doesn't jive for me that we create the neighborhood disorder. We alleviate the neighborhood disorder. And we welcome the opportunity to talk to, like we did to the to the senior housing across the street, made a presentation to their organizing group. We welcome the opportunity to come to anyone and to discuss the issues that they have. So that's why I was standing in the back wanting to give to each of my neighbors my card. I live on Chancellor Avenue. So I'm a neighbor, too. So let's work together. That's why it says here neighbors helping neighbors. It's a two-way street. They're actually the ones who are helping more than getting help from the neighborhood. And that's the truth.

I would like to follow up on that. Up till now, I guess, you've been operating in good faith, but without the proper permits. If this is approved, one of the conditions of approval is that you need to manage this outside activity so that we don't have the problems that these neighbors have experienced.

And if those problems do occur, you recognize that

this permit, your permit can be revoked. So I'm wondering though, how do you proceed? How do you foresee yourself dealing with those kinds of issues, even though you feel they may not be happening in your mind, they are happening in other people's experiences. So what, what do you plan to do to manage your uh,

clients when they're outside of your building so folks who are unhoused in the neighborhood when we did our account in 2024 we counted 293 we did our own count 293 unhoused individuals on the mcdonald avenue corridor on both sides of harborway 293. Now, we don't get 293 walking in our door yet. But when they walk in our door and walk out our door, we're going to make sure that around our door it's pretty orderly, just like I was using the example of the Santa Fe neighborhood. The Santa Fe neighborhood recognized the difference when we came in. And they recognized the difference when we left. Now, we cannot support neighborhood order when we don't have our boots on that particular corner. But we happen to have our boots on that corner every single day of the week. And we stand up. And I know, for example, and so is Randy, very doggedly aware of every single thing that happens on out there, and we will address those issues. We are stewards of the neighborhood, and I welcome us to work together on that. Sincerely, I welcome us working on that.

Okay, thank you. I'm sorry if I might make a point of clarification there you people that you had your opportunity to speak and we really he's really he is responding as the applicant to and I There's not an opportunity. This isn't a dialogue.

This is a He was giving opportunity twice to speak that's because he's the applicant right but I forgot to mention to couple couple of safety issues, please safety issues and Well, our first issue the harbor way is that two lane each direction and one lane is constantly blocked by this mobile shower and this presents public safety vehicles cannot basically they when there's a traffic they. forced to be stuck behind this trailer until the red light turns on behind and then go back around this trailer. So that's a public safety issue. Another safety issue is when after hours these facility closes. Sir, are we really... BECAUSE THEY PUT THE NATIONAL SIGN.

IT ISN'T APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE SPEAKING TO US AT THIS TIME.

THE SIDEWALK IS BEING BLOCKED BY SHOPPING CARDS LOADED WITH TRASH BAGS AND I'M FORCED TO GO ON THE STREET WHILE THERE ARE CARS ON THE STREET BECAUSE THIS PUBLIC SIDEWALK IS BEING BLOCKED BY DONATIONS OR WHATEVER, TRASH BAGS AND SHOPPING CARDS. THIS IS ANOTHER PUBLIC ISSUE.

Public safety issue. Thank you, sir There are time limits to public speakers Where there is a party in opposition? They are allowed a rebuttal, but they would have to claim that ahead of time just just to know No, but we don't hold over time, I'm so sorry ma'am we don't Miss we don't hold over time we have we don't hold over time miss I'm so sorry the agenda rules are posted the agenda rules are posted you could see time limits on on page four specifically paragraph four on here it'll be numerated one through six you can actually see the time limits that are allocated to each of the parties but we don't hold over time miss.

At this point if you can't please chair I would ask that you direct the audience to come into an orderly fashion or I would ask that you take a recess and that I would then ask for the Richmond Police Department to become present if necessary.

So we would appreciate it if you would take your seat. I think the city attorney has made it clear what the rules are for speaking. We followed those. And it's time for you to take your seat again.

Thank you.

OK, I guess I can close the public hearing at this point and bring it back to the commission for a discussion.

I have a question for staff. There's a joint use or shared use agreement with the parking lot next door. There's some storage of the shower facility and so forth in there. We haven't seen it here, but are you satisfied? Are you aware of it or maybe perhaps you are? And is it is it for a set period of time or what is the shared use agreement? It does seem as though that's an important aspect of the approval that that be in place. So do you have any insights on that?

I would defer Savannah if we have a if it's a private agreement between the two parties that they've signed that we Don't have a copy that will receive a copy I'll start with that question Correct.

We do and I do apologize that it was not in your packet. We do have a copy of the shared use agreement It's a private agreement between the applicant and the property owner next door allows them to use to store and use the shower trailers to park their vehicles and TO STORE THEIR EQUIPMENT THERE. I DO NOT RECALL OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD THE DURATION OF THE AGREEMENT. PERHAPS THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE INSIGHT INTO THE DURATION. I DO RECALL ALSO THAT THE APPLICANT IS IN THE PROCESS OF FINDING A DIFFERENT OFF SITE LOCATION TO STORE THEIR VEHICLES IN A MORE SECURE GATED FACILITY. SO EVENTUALLY THEIR TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT WILL MOVE OFF SITE BUT THE SHOWER TRAILERS WILL REMAIN.

And I would add, I think it would be reasonable if the commission would like to include a condition of approval that the applicant have that agreement recorded and deed trust against both properties for perpetuity for the purposes of ensuring that going forward that is always going to be in place but could always be removed at such time when both property owners choose to mutually remove that requirement. That would be the ideal way to ensure future security of that agreement.

I think that's a good suggestion. So we'll seek to add that condition if the project is approved. Okay. Any other questions or comments from fellow commissioners? I guess I have a question for staff. We went through discussions like this a couple years ago on a project in a similar situation that it was near or in residential. And one of the problems with that was what was happening outside the property on the sidewalks and so forth. And that seems to be, again, going to be a concern in this situation. And it's very clear there's a condition of approval that The applicant is responsible to manage that. I don't know if that expense extends just to their property line or do they need to be they need to engage with the community in terms of making sure that their clients depart the area when they once they receive their services. How do we if if the applicant isn't going to enforce that that the city is going to have to enforce it and that means that the place would get shut down. So what do we do.

It would be you know at this point our recommendation You know yes There is a condition of approval that the applicant has agreed to that does talk about the maintenance of things off of their site that is an Obligation that they've agreed to adhere to I think in terms of comments or questions or concerns that do come up raised by the public raised by the neighbors I think the applicants made it clear that they're able and available to be contacted in those instances and Outside of that, yes, the City of Richmond has our ROC program, which would also kind of serve similarly in terms of a need for immediate services that don't need to be escalated to the Richmond Police Department. And in terms of concerns regarding, you know, trash or debris, we would defer to our Code Enforcement Department Division within Community Development where, you know, residents through the My Richmond app could submit YOU KNOW, PHOTOS AND EVIDENCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S TRASH OR THERE'S DEBRIS JUST LIKE THEY WOULD IN ANY OTHER PORTION OF RICHMOND. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AN OPERATOR CANNOT CONTROL THE UNIVERSE AND THAT GOES THE SAME WAY FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY OF RICHMOND WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT USE PERMITS WHERE THAT IS OPERATIONALLY bound to the site I think the applicants done their best in terms of agreeing to our condition to to do their best to manage to that extent off-site things for which are outside of their control just like they would be for any business in the city of Richmond or operator.

I'd just like to clarify also that Avery is correct that the condition is meant to cover only the space in front of their building within their property lines as they can't be held responsible for the things outside of their control throughout the neighborhood but they might want to talk to people i think that correct i think they do their best but as far as putting their use permit at risk the condition is meant only to address the front of their business okay

Any further discussion, or are we ready to entertain a motion? Don't know if to speak at once.

Well, I think the project is good, but also neighbors have legitimate concerns, but it doesn't seem that we can do anything about it, right? Because once someone leaves the property,

It's outside of the yeah, I did just concerned it behooves the applicant to Educate their clients on proper behavior when they're not on the client site so that there can be an operation could continue because if Even though the applicant can't control what's happening off their site, they are going to suffer consequences, I think, in terms of setback for their business if they don't work with their clients. So I think they've gotten the message here tonight. I hope they have gotten that message that they ought to think beyond the four walls of their property in terms of maintaining relationships with their neighbors.

I just would add that this project is different from some other projects that we've seen in that it appears to be a well-managed organization. It has support from other social service organizations. Many are listed. It has a support letter from the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council. um it seems that it's and it and it's a incredibly important use to have in the city of richmond um so these are always really hard projects to decide whether they move forward or not but i think i feel that this one should move forward

Would you care to put that in the form of a motion?

I could make an emotion, an emotion. I'll make a motion to adopt. Oh, I have two conditions again. I think there needs to be a condition to have a shared use agreement in place prior to issuance of the use permit. and on record with the city. And the second is to that the applicant must make contact information available to neighbors to for discussion around issues.

I would also

I encourage the neighbors to use the Iron Triangle Neighborhood Council as a way to interact with the applicant. Intermediary. But contact information available and shared use agreement, two conditions. And I will make the motion to adopt a resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond approving planning application PLN 260004 for conditional use permit to allow social service center at 32 Harbor Way.

I'll second that. Roll call.

I'll take roll. Chair Harrison.

Yes.

Vice Chair Burbaker. Yes. Secretary Timmons is absent. Commissioner Golovitz.

Yes.

And Commissioner Shahid.

Yes.

The item is approved.

And just to remind everyone that if they wish to appeal this decision to the city council, they must have filed their appeal by the 5 p.m. on June 15th. And I guess that includes some kind of a filing fee as well?

Yes, it includes a $500 filing fee for the planning department and a $129 filing fee with the city clerk, and that appeal would need to be made to the city clerk.

Okay. Thank you.

Staff would also like to note that we would like to request an amendment to the agenda and to move Transmontane, which is currently your last item, up to being your next item, and swap that and have Cascade Homes go second if you are amenable to that.

Sorry, I didn't quite catch that.

Do we need to approve that change?

Yes, I would ask that you approve a change to the agenda to rearrange the last two.

Just flipping them. Okay. So let me, I didn't quite hear you.

Yeah, just asking that we swap the last two here, just reverse them. So we'll do five and then three, yep.

Very good.

So I just ask for a vote of ayes.

Do you need a vote or just? I do need a vote. Okay, do we have a motion to make that change?

I so move.

Is there a second? I second that. Is there any opposition? Nope. Motion carries. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? THAT'S HOW I USED TO DO IT.

CHAIR PERSON CAN DO IT. YOU NEED TO SAY IT FOR THE RECORD.

NO OPPOSITION. I'M ON THE HOOK.

THANK YOU, CHAIR. NEXT WE HAVE PLN 230306. being presented by Dana Ayers with MIG, a consultant staff that supports the City of Richmond. I will turn it over to Dana.

Okay. I have the staff report then on this Item 5 for the rail transit. Are we ready for the staff report?

Yes. Great. Thank you. Thank you for your patience. Members of the Planning Commission, my name is Dana Ayers. I am a planner with MIG, also a contract planner for the City of Richmond. I'm here presenting two items for you this evening, but the first of the two is the Transmontane Richmond Terminal Truck Rack and Improvement and Rail Project. THE ACTION RECOMMENDED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING IS TO REVIEW THE PROJECT, ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT, AND TO APPROVE THE USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND DESIGN REVIEW REQUESTS WITHIN APPLICATION PLN 23306. SO JUST TO BEGIN, TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THE SITE IS ON WRIGHT AVENUE AT 488 WRIGHT AVENUE. It's an existing marine terminal that's been in operation since 1951. The site was previously used as part of the shipyards, shipbuilding yards, but was subsequently filled and has been in use for about the last 75 years or so as a marine terminal and storage facility. The property is 11 and a half acres onshore. It does include acreage within the water, but as far as terrestrial acreage, it's about 11 and a half acres. It is in a neighborhood of existing industrial uses, including the CEMEX, Eagle Rock Aggregates, and the Levin Marine Terminal. The zoning of the property is IW, or Industrial Water Related District. General plan designation is Port. It's also in the Port Priority Change Area 14. So the zoning and general plan of the site are water-oriented industrial uses. Surrounding uses, as I mentioned, are industrial, other industrial businesses. The operation that is there now was previously entitled with use permits that were issued back in 1991 as well as in 2017. Currently, Transmontane is an operator of engagement of storage and transfer of petroleum and renewable fuels products. This includes oil and marine fuels, diesel fuels, denatured ethanol, as well as renewable feedstocks, which includes new and used vegetable and animal oils. The facility receives product via third-party pipelines, ship and rail, and distributes it out via, not by pipe, but by ship and truck. There's an existing rail spur on site that accommodates six tanker cars for importing products. And those cars are switched out, what they call switches, which is the exchange of empty cars for full cars. Those switches happen about typically three times a day. As you saw from the aerial photo, there are a little over two dozen very large above ground tanks for storage of product on site. It is a 24 hour daily operation. There are 18 employees currently full time that operate in shifts. And at any given time, there are three employees on site in a shift. Current operations are overseen by a variety of state, regional, county, and federal agencies, including the Department of Fish and Wildlife, San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission, the Bay Area Air District. All of these agencies have various responsibilities, including obligations for permitting for security, incident prevention, and response planning, as well as permits related to demolition OPERATION, ONGOING OPERATION OF THE FACILITY. FEDERAL AGENCIES INCLUDE U.S. EPA, THE U.S. COAST GUARD AND OSHA OR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION. AGAIN, ALL OF THESE HAVE TO DO WITH SECURITY AND INCIDENT PREVENTION AND RESPONSE PLANNING OF THE FACILITY. THE PROJECT PROPOSAL INCLUDES OPERATIONAL CHANGES TO THE OFF-LOADING STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION THAT THE FACILITY IS CURRENTLY ENGAGED IN. THERE ARE ALSO PROPOSED PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE SITE THAT WOULD MODERNIZE EXISTING FACILITIES AND ALLOW GREATER THROUGHPUT OF PRODUCT TO FLOW THROUGH THE SITE. THE BASE OPERATION IS NOT PROPOSED TO CHANGE. IT IS STILL PROPOSED TO BE A FACILITY ENGAGED IN FUEL STORAGE AND DISTRIBUTION. But the proposed operation and physical changes would accommodate an increase in the volume of renewable fuels and petroleum product that's stored and processed, not processed, but transferred through the facility. Physical changes would include extension of rail lines so that they could store more cars on site at any given time and potentially reduce the number of switches that they have to do each day. WOULD ACCOMMODATE AN INCREASE IN THE THROUGHPUT OF ETHANOL AS WELL AS RENEWABLE FUELS AND FEED STOCKS IT WOULD RESULT IN AN ESTIMATED 98 TRUCK TRIPS ADDITIONAL TRUCK TRIPS PER DAY AGAIN TRUCK TRIPS OR TRUCKS ARE USED TO BRING IN FUEL PRODUCT AND TO TAKE REMOVE IT FROM THE SITE AN ADDITIONAL TWO SHIP TRIPS PER MONTH currently there are two so there's an estimated additional two ship trips per month to transport renewable feedstocks and then there would be an additional three employees that would facilitate this increase operation the proposed physical changes are shown here on this image on your screen the expansion of the rail or extension of the rail is shown here along the western property line of the site There is an existing underground tank that is used as part of the stormwater quality system that would be brought above ground and moved next to the eastern property line that's currently located here underground. Bringing it above ground would accommodate better access for maintenance ongoing. And then currently there are two truck canopies that provide coverage for different fueling stations. Those would be demolished and replaced with a single 5,440 square foot truck loading canopy. The image on the left of the screen shows the existing canopies in place. The images on the right side reflect the proposed canopy that's proposed to replace the existing structures. In addition to City of Richmond, use permit and design review approval, approval of the project is also required from San Francisco BCDC, the Air District, the County Health Department, and the Regional Water Board.

I'm trying to go through this rather quickly.

Sorry. I know it's late. The project is subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. I will note that I am joined virtually by Shanna Giler from LSA. LSA conducted the environmental analysis for the project. They prepared an initial study that identified the potential impacts of the project, and impacts that required mitigation measures were identified in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soil, and tribal cultural resources. I'll note that air quality actually has a mitigation measure that's more of a best practice. Actually, the initial study did not identify a significant impact, but still recommended that best management practices for dust suppression, controlling vehicle speeds on site during grading, practices that would reduce air emissions and fugitive dust, that those be implemented, even though there's not a significant air quality impact.

Excuse me, could I ask a question about that? Sure. It seems that the mitigation measure in the table is actually for construction measures. Yes. Is there also a mitigation measure for ongoing operations?

No. And the reason for that is because based on the analysis that was done in the initial study, the ongoing emissions of operation for the project fall below the air district's thresholds for the various air emissions that are analyzed okay but you mentioned best practices watering and so forth are those then not a mitigation measure but some kind of other agreement well we are recommending we're recommending that they be conditions of approval of the project regardless

Sorry to interrupt.

No, no apologies. Thank you for the questions. Um, so, uh, the initial study identified several resource areas that do not have significant impacts, um, including aesthetics, energy greenhouse gases. You can read them all on the screen here. I won't list them off, but for the resource areas that, um, do have potentially significant impacts. Again, air quality is the special one in this list because it has a mitigation measure, but actually doesn't have a significant impact. The initial study identified and recommended mitigation measures to reduce the severity of each impact. It includes the best management practices I mentioned for air quality during construction. Pre-construction surveys and avoidance and mitigation measures for sensitive, particularly bird species and bats. On-site monitoring during construction. for cultural resources, similarly for tribal cultural resources, pre-construction training, and onsite monitoring during construction. And, oh, excuse me, the geology and soils is incorrect. Sorry. Oh, yes, I'm sorry. It has to do with paleontology, not, it's also related to potential finding of resource. The public review process for the initial study included preparation of a mitigated negative declaration, which summarized all the findings of the initial study, including the potential mitigation measures and impacts. As was required by CEQA, the initial study MND, I'll call it ISMND, was available for public review at the end of 2025 for a minimum of 30 days. The Planning Commission as part of your decision making process on the use permit needs to consider the initial study and determine whether the analysis in it is adequate before you move forward with a decision on the project. So there are two entitlements before you this evening. The conditional use permit amendment, which is treated like a new use permit, so you still have to make the same findings for a use permit, which are listed here on screen, include general plan consistency, compatibility with existing surrounding properties in the surrounding neighborhood, avoidance of nuisances and dust and other nuisances. compliance with the zoning regulations and adequate accessibility to utilities and public facilities designer view findings also include consistency with general plan as well as consistency with designer view criteria and any applicable design guidelines which there aren't really any specific to this site beyond the city's general guidelines briefly talking about general plan and zoning consistency the Proposed use is consistent with the general plan land use designation It is allowed as with a conditional use permit in the IW district and The proposed development is consistent with the district the IW district standards including height and setbacks Although there is sidewalk missing which I'll mention that in a moment In the staff report, staff makes reference to recommended statements of findings which are listed in the draft resolution attached to your staff report. In brief, staff believes that the findings can be made that the project is consistent with the general plan and zoning of the site. and that as conditions, site modifications would be consistent with the IW district standards, particularly with respect to construction of a sidewalk. And again, I'll mention that in a moment. And with the finding that severity of potentially significant impacts would be reduced with application of mitigation measures. Recommended conditions of approval also include the mitigation measures that are recommended in the initial study. which I summarized earlier. There was also a recommendation from your design review board that the street facing wall of the canopy have some graphical image or some element to it to reduce the massing of it. There are also standard conditions for public art in lieu fee, encroachment permit for public work in the right of way, and then a term limit on the design of re-approval. The one thing that we did want to talk a little bit more about is that there is a requirement in the zoning code for the property to have sidewalk. Currently there is not sidewalk in front of the site. There is a paved area. It's basically a continuation of the street surface. This is not an area where we necessarily want to encourage pedestrian traffic, nor is pedestrian traffic really happening there. This is not a site that is visited by the public generally. So our recommendation is that the applicant have the option to contribute to an off-site improvement. There are a couple of capital improvement projects with regard to rail crossings and safety and pedestrian facilities within half mile radius of this site, and we think it makes more sense for those resources to be committed to support those efforts and help those projects to advance. So that is our recommendation. As far as consultation and public engagement, we did engage with Native American tribes, as is required by state law. And the mitigation measures that came out of that consultation have been included in the initial study, the mitigated NGDAC, as well as your recommended conditions of approval. project was presented to the marine and bay neighborhood council and was noticed to the public as of last friday's posting of the agenda there were 30 public comments in favor as well as opposed to the project there have been additional comments received since the agenda postings which the planning commissioners have all received copies of um I'll just back up for a moment. So there have been letters of support received. There have also been comments and emails of concern and objection to the project and opposition to the project. Those who have opposed the project have expressed concern about safety, noise, transportation, and air emissions generally. Those that have supported the project have expressed the operations contribution to the LOCAL ECONOMY AND TO, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL OPERATIONS THROUGHOUT THE AREA, THROUGHOUT THE REGION. OKAY. IN CONCLUSION, RECOMMENDED ACTION THIS EVENING IS THAT THE PLANNING COMMISSION ADOPT FINDINGS AND THE RECOMMENDED STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDINGS AND THAT YOU APPROVE PLN 23306, APPROVING THE USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND THE DESIGNER VIEW PERMIT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.

Thank you. I wanted to clarify one thing. Do we need to take a separate action approving the initial study, or is that incorporated in the... That's incorporated into the draft resolution.

The findings that are necessary to adopt the negative MND, as well as the actual statement of adopting the MND, is all folded into the language of the resolution.

Okay, thank you.

And I did want to just note for the record, there was a typo in the staff report in the conditions of approval that makes reference to mitigation measures and conditions three through 12. It's actually four through 14. So my apologies.

Any questions of the staff before we move into the public hearing?

I DID HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. SINCE THERE WILL BE AN INCREASE OF TRAFFIC, WOULD THAT AFFECT ANY TRAFFIC FLOW PROBLEMS MOVING FORWARD? AND SECOND, IN THE INCREASE IN NOISE AS WELL? A LOT OF THE RESIDENTS DIDN'T SEEM CONCERNED ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

Okay. So first question about traffic. There is, under CEQA there's not a requirement to identify impacts from delay or increased congestion from traffic. So that was not analyzed as part of the environmental analysis. The other question about noise. So in the initial study, Noise measurements were taken in September of 2024 over a 24-hour period to get a sense of what the noise environment is like. What the initial study concluded is that noise basically at the site is very loud, but when it's measured at the point of the nearest receptor, which nearest sensitive receptor, which typically is like a school or a residence, The distance from the site to those sensitive receptors in that distance and with all of the buildings and whatever else may be in between, the noise generated at the site dissipates enough that it doesn't exceed thresholds at the point of those sensitive receptors.

Okay, thank you.

I also did have one more question. Since the facility is increasing its capacity, wouldn't it be increasing the emissions that it's producing as well? And is that still low or below the threshold that you guys determined?

Yes, it is going to increase emissions. It would be below the threshold of significance.

And what is that significance?

It's in the initial study, and I'm sorry I don't have page numbers, but I can probably find it very quickly if you need me to. But in the air quality section of the initial study and the greenhouse gas emissions section of the initial study, there are tables that... LIST EACH EMISSION, FUGITIVE DUST, TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS, REACTIVE GASES AND THEY INCLUDE THE AIR DISTRICTS, THE BAY AREA AIR DISTRICTS THRESHOLD OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR THAT CRITERIA POLLUTANT. IN EACH CASE

the additional emissions from this project fell below or were below those thresholds of significance from the air district got it okay thank you okay go ahead um i was by the site today well there's going to be longer rail car i mean there's going to be more rail cars and longer i guess units of rail cars I was by today and wondering, it's very difficult to figure out where the trains go from the Trans Mountain site. So the question for you and if you don't know, maybe it's for the applicant. Do the trains cross Cutting at second in that crossing, or do the trains move in a different direction and cross Harbor at right? It seemed to me that those are the two potential routes that the trains could take. Doesn't show on the site plan.

Okay. Can I ask for the PowerPoint to come back? Okay, so.

You should be able to use your mouse to drag over to that screen to be able to identify things. Yeah, okay, it's kind of small, but it's there.

Okay, great, thank you. I was looking at the wrong screen. So the applicant can add to this as well if I miss a detail, but So the project site is here, right? Yes. Richmond Pacific, which is a contracted company, is next door. They run a short line that runs along Wright Avenue. They pull cars down this line. TO A STAGING AREA HERE.

I SEE. OKAY. SO THAT'S A RICHMOND PACIFIC LINE CROSSING OF HARBORWAY SOUTH, WHICH IS SOUTH OF THE VIENNA SOUTH LINE, IT LOOKS LIKE.

YES.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THAT WAS CLEAR.

OK, let me open the public hearing. Does the applicant wish to address this on the project? No obligation.

Good evening. In effort of not being too repetitive, I'll go fairly quickly. My name is Justin Raines. I'm with Transmontane with part of the commercial and project team. Dana highlighted a lot of what we want to speak about already, but want to share a little bit about Transmontane as a whole. So we are a bulk liquids terminal, 50 facilities across the country, five on the West Coast, and two of those are in the Bay Area, one in Richmond, one in Martinez. We have owned and operated those facilities since 2018 and together they support roughly 50 combined jobs directly and as well as part of the couple hundred jobs in the Port of Richmond. We Our core business, I want to describe, we're bulk liquids. So we're part of a complicated supply chain that's dependent upon transportation services such as rail and marine. So we're the warehouse. So we receive, store, and distribute. And that's the core of our business, 24-7, 365. So the other component that we want to make sure is highlighted is this group of assets is really important to the energy transition effort. So we are a large player in not only renewable diesel, but ethanol and renewable feedstocks. And investment in this type of infrastructure is really critical for market supply, reliability, and safety at the end of the day. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Michael Brandes. I was I'm the applicant for the company originally a couple of years back, and it's been a long time coming. So appreciate it. But Dana did a did a great job. We've worked together a lot through over over the last couple of years. So she knows this project inside and out. And just again wanted to stress that this truly is, you know, our site's very old and it's a modernization project truly for the site that we do feel will help make things not, we're not adding, as she stated, we're not adding new storage to the site. But we do feel that it'll, with the modernization, it does help things get safer. Not that it's unsafe, but also more efficient. And we do feel that it will help things in the area. Thank you.

Thank you. So there's no I'll get it right this time. Nobody has registered to speak in opposition. Is that correct?

Yeah, that's right.

All right. So I'll just open it up to public comment.

Yeah, the procedures. created distinction but that would require us to know ahead of time who's for and against.

I'd forgotten that part of the procedure but now I recall.

We just take public comments as they come.

So yeah at this point are there any public comments?

Yes we have eight public speakers. We will start with Richard. And you will have three minutes as there are only nine to eight of you and if anything over ten would have been reduced to two just for clarification.

good evening chair and commissioners my name is rj i've worked with transplantain richmond terminal for just over four years i'm a rail car operator and this project will help create jobs in both our terminal and our local economy i've been able to build a career with transplantain and i feel like i'm part of the richmond community this project will also help local jobs in our community, the terminal has been around for decades and this project will help improve our existing facility. Thank you for your time and we hope that you approve this project. Thanks.

Thank you. Next I have Vincent Clayton Francis Jr. Felt like fun to give you your full name there.

Oh, my bad. Good evening, chair, commissioners. My name is Vince, and I worked at Trans Mountain Richmond Terminal for about three years. I'm involved in offloading rail cars and believe this project will be a great investment for our terminal and both community and me personally. Trans Mountain has allowed me the opportunity to build a career so I can support my family. And here are a lot of opportunities to grow with this company as they invest in their workers. This project will also support local jobs in our community like local restaurants, contractors, and maritime workers. I appreciate all your time tonight and we ask you guys please approve this project. Thank you.

Next we have David.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Dave and I've worked at Transmontane Richmond Terminal for about four and a half years. I began my career at Transmontane as a rail car operator and have continued to learn and grow. This project will open new jobs in the community, such as more rail car operators and maritime workers in a terminal that has been in Richmond for many years. Thank you for your time and we ask that you approve this project.

Our next speaker is Garrett.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. My name is Garrett and I've worked at Trans Montana and Richmond Terminal for just over five years. During that time, I've built a stable career that allows me to support my family. I have been given plenty of opportunities to grow in this company. I'm currently enrolled in our terminal management development program, which involves traveling around the country to learn all aspects of the industry, including environmental safety and business training. I've been able to grow immensely in my role, and I know that I am invested in a company that wants to continue investing in its employees. I am proud to work at this facility that has been a part of the waterfront for many years. Like any longstanding facility, it takes a lot of ongoing maintenance and upgrades to keep operations safe and reliable. This project is focused on improving our existing infrastructure so the terminal can continue to operate responsibly and efficiently in the future. Projects like this also help support jobs for people who work at the terminal and throughout the waterfront, including operators, maintenance workers, contractors, and maritime workers. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight and I respectfully ask for your consideration and support. Thank you for all of your time. We ask that you please support this project.

Our next speaker is Justin.

Good evening. My name is Justin Franzen. I'm actually the area manager of the two transplanting facilities in California, but specifically I'm the terminal manager of this Richmond facility. since i started in 2020 we've actually doubled the workforce i hired four of the six of these guys and i'd do it 10 times out of 10 again if i could i've been in the maritime industry about 18 years now and uh transmontane is definitely the best company i've worked for it has a you know we take ownership and responsibility in the safety aspect but there's also a family feel that It makes you feel as if you're a part of not just the company, but a part of the community. Like I said, in 2020, when I started, Michael Brandes, who was one of our speakers here, started a major renewable feedstocks project, where instead of turning crude oil into gasoline and diesel, we're turning cooking oil and recycled waste from fried food and soybean oil into renewable diesel, which is the future green energy. In bringing those projects in, we doubled the workforce. So in doubling the workforce, not only did we add nine very well-paying, honest jobs, we've also brought dozens of my employees to Richmond, who we run 24-7, 365, every holiday, no matter what. Obviously, you get your time off, and we cover each other where we can. But it's an honest living. And we eat locally. We shop locally. We're here locally. We have a beer after work locally. So we are part of the Richmond community. And like I said, this will promote the greener footprint of renewable energies that we need in the future. And as Dana talked about, we are heavily regulated. It is a very safe, but strict, stringent line that we walk. And, you know, I'm happy to say that, you know, we don't prepare for audits. We stay audit ready. Garrett, like Garrett said, he's in the manager's development program where we promote our succession plan from within. So, you know, he will it's not an if it's a when he'll be the terminal manager. And, you know, the past two years, He's not just been by my side in the audits. Sometimes I take a back seat and let him take the front seat of the audits to learn and be ready for those. And I'm happy to say we have zero NOVs and zero findings. And we've successfully had dozens of audits that have been successful with state, local, and federal agencies over my six years. And I had a Statelands audit two days ago that went great. planning for more to come so i hope you guys will review and see that this is great for the community and improve our plan thank you for your time our next speaker is jason good evening chair and commissioners my name is jason

I've worked at Trans Montana Richmond for 18 years. During that time, I've also built a career that allows me to take care of my family and live in this area. I'm proud to work at the facility that has been a part of the waterfront for decades. Like any longstanding facility, it takes ongoing maintenance and upgrades to keep operations safe, reliable, and up to current standards. This project is focused on existing infrastructure, improving existing infrastructure so the terminal can continue to operate responsibly and efficiently for more for many more years to come. Projects like this also help support jobs for people who work at the terminal and throughout the waterfront, including operators, maintenance workers, contractors and maritime workers, along with revenue for the city. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight, and I respectfully ask for your consideration and support. Thank you for your time and consideration. We ask that you approve this project.

Our next speaker is Jonathan.

Good evening, Chair and Commission. My name is Jonathan Nehme, and I've worked at the Transmontane Richmond Terminal for 26 years. I started in this industry as an entry-level employee and what began as a job turned into a career. This work has allowed me to support my family and build a life here in the neighboring area. When I hear discussions about projects like this, I understand that some neighbors may have questions or concerns. If you live nearby, things like noise, traffic, property values matter. They would matter to me too. From where I sit, though, this project is about improving and modernizing an existing facility that's been a part of the Richmond's waterfront for a long time. Facilities don't stay safe and efficient by standing still. They need ongoing investment, updated equipment, and improvements to meet today's standards. I see firsthand how much responsibility goes into operating a facility like ours. The people I work with take safety seriously because it isn't just where we work, it is also our community. Many of us live nearby, raise our families here, and want Richmond to continue to be a great place to live and work. This project is also important because it helps protect good paying jobs. The waterfront supports operators, maintenance workers, contractors, maritime workers, and many other skilled trades. These are careers that allow people to support their families and stay rooted in the community. At the end of this day, I support this project because I believe modernization, good jobs, and responsible operations can go hand in hand. I hope you'll consider supporting this so facilities like ours can continue investing in the future while remaining a productive part of Richmond's working waterfront. Thank you for your time, and we ask that you would approve this project. Thank you.

Our final in-person speaker is Mike.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Mike Irwin and I'm the California Port Captain for Bain Brothers. Bain Brothers operates tugboats and barges that support maritime transportation and fuel logistics throughout California's waterfront and port communities. Bain Brothers has provided maritime transportation services for more than 125 years and serves major ports across the United States. I'm here today in support of the initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the Trans-Montane Richmond Terminal Modernization Project. California's clean fuels future depends on more than production facilities. It also requires modern marine terminals and transportation infrastructure capable of receiving, storing, and distributing renewable fuels, renewable fuel feedstocks, sustainable aviation fuel components, and other lower carbon energy products. Vane Brothers itself transports renewable fuels and renewable fuel feedstocks as part of our operations. Modernizing existing terminals helps improve efficiency, strengthens supply chain reliability, and supports environmental goals while continuing to utilize established waterfront industrial sites that have served maritime commerce for generations. The environmental review demonstrates that this project can move forward with impacts reducing to less than significant levels. I respectfully encourage the Planning Commission to approve the mitigated negative declaration and support continued investment in Richmond's working waterfront. Thank you.

Are there any speakers online who wish to speak this evening? If so, please do so by raising your hand. Seeing none.

OK. So that means I get to close the public hearing and bring this back to the commission. And what any questions, comments before we look at a motion? I think those ones have been fairly thoroughly studied. So I don't see anything to pursue. Would someone like to make a motion?

I would like to make a motion. Where is it? Can I just read it off of this? I would like to make a motion to adopt Planning Commission Resolution 26-13, accepting the findings therein and approving an amendment to a conditional use permit, CU91-35, as amended by PLN 17266 to allow on-site rail extension, a new truck loading canopy, and associated stormwater and product piping improvements at 488 Wright Avenue. PLN to 3-306 subject to the conditions of approval Would anyone like to second that I?

Hope so. I will second Okay, we have a motion and a second. Could we have a roll call?

I'll take roll chair Harrison yes vice chair Burbaker yes secretary Timmons is absent Commissioner Golovitz yes Commissioner said yes Commissioner Benitez is absent the item is approved I

Great, thank you.

Just a point of order. In the past, I've seen that EIRs and initial studies need to be certified before. I know that's kind of rolled into the resolution here, but it feels to me like that's an important step that needs to be stated as we approve a project. So I'm just talking about this is for the future.

Thank you. Yeah, I think we'll work this into your office to continue to ensure that the motion that's in front of you is, you know, not just reflective but inclusive of all the actions that you're taking in a meeting. Thank you.

And if I may, I just want to make just a statement for those who might be watching or might be present that wrote comment letters about the initial study and had concerns. Anytime an industrial project comes forward that you live nearby, it's a concern. I would say that in my experience, this has been a very well-studied project. I thought the staff report was excellent. And I think that the overall presentation was good as well. So it was a very convincing project moving forward. I would also state that it makes it easier to approve this because there's not an expansion of storage here. It's just more of a motion, you know, additional movement. So anyway, I'll stop there. Thanks.

Thank you all very much, and good luck with getting your project through the next hoops. I'm sure you've got a few more to go Okay, I guess we can move on to item What was three is now five? Yes.

I will again present Dana Ayers with MIG who will present on Cascade Townhomes. I will note for the Commission that your meeting can run up until 10.30 p.m. at which point you would then be asked to make a motion to either hold over the item to another date if necessary to continue.

We'll move fast if we can. Is that 10.30?

10.30.

Good job.

And, Dana, is there anyone online for this project? No. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Hello again. Still here. Okay. So the next item before you this evening is the PLN 24350, 5620 Central Avenue, Cascade Town Home Project. There are a lot of slides here, but I'll try to go through them rather quickly because it is late. The recommended action this evening is to review the project, accept public comment, and to approve PLN 24350, approving the designer view tentative map and zoning waiver requests subject to conditions. So the project proposal consists of a request for a tentative parcel map, essentially to create 47 townhome units with 100 parking spaces, 92 spaces, excuse me, 94 parking spaces, that's an error, 94 parking spaces, two for each unit, and six parking spaces shared amongst the facility, all of the units. There's a 17,000 square foot landscaping area in a central location as well as around the site and a central recreation area with a top lot. OK. So just highlighting a few statutes regarding this project. The project does apply. Senate Bill 330, which is the Housing Accountability Act, essentially says that only objective standards can be applied to the project. The project also is subject to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. However, it is eligible for an exemption from CEQA pursuant to a recent state law that was adopted in July of 25. The project is also allowed to, entitled to compliance or the provisions of density bonus law, which allow it one concession and 10 waivers. We'll discuss that more later. And it is also subject to compliance with the known as no net loss provisions of California government code. Again, I'll talk about those later. The required permits for this project include the designer view permit, the tentative map to subdivide the site for condominium purposes, as well as the zoning waiver for a Creek setback. The project site is about 2.6, just shy of 2.6 acres. It is vacant. It has frontage on Central Avenue and is east of Interstate 80. There is a concrete channel that runs along the eastern border of the site and other frontages on Central Avenue and San Mateo Street to the west. Zoning of the site is split between two. And the reason for that is because the portion of the site that is highlighted in red is in the city of Richmond. The portion that is in white is actually a city of El Cerrito. So the property spans two different zoning districts and two different municipalities. Within the city of Richmond is on CR, regional or commercial. And within the city of Richmond, it is zoned transit oriented, high density mixed use because it is proximate to the transit BART station. Within the city of Richmond, the general plan designation is regional commercial. Surrounding uses are residential, commercial, and public and recreational, consisting of a park across the street to the north, which you see in green there. The project is also a pipeline project site within the Richmond housing element, which means the site is identified as a potential housing opportunity site. IT HAD PREVIOUS ENTITLEMENTS FOR MANY MORE UNITS. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ABOUT A QUARTER OF WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ENTITLED AND ASSUMED IN THE HOUSING ELEMENTS. AGAIN, WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT WITH THE NO NET LOSS DISCUSSION. OKAY. SO THE TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP WOULD CREATE TWO PARCELS. ONE FOR PURPOSES OF DEVELOPMENT FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES AND PARCEL TWO WHICH WOULD REMAIN UNDEVELOPED. LARGER PARCEL SHOWN IN THIS PEACHY COLOR, AND PARCEL 2 IS THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL. THERE IS ALSO PROPOSED A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION ALONG THE FRONT EDGES OF THE SITE, ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE AS WELL AS SAN MATEO STREET, AND THIS IS RELATED TO THE I-80 CENTRAL INTERCHANGE PROJECT. I WON'T GO INTO A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT IT, BUT THE INTERCHANGE PROJECT IS A MULTIJURISDICTIONAL TO IMPROVE TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY AROUND CENTRAL AVENUE NEAR THE I-80 INTERCHANGE. THAT INCLUDES STREET WIDENING, THERE'S A BUS PULLOUT AND BUS STOP ON CENTRAL AVENUE AS WELL AS SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS, WIDER SIDEWALK AND STREET TREES FOR A SAFER AND MORE COMFORTABLE PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT. THIS PROJECT, THE I-80 INTERCHANGE PROJECT IS SEPARATE, IS BEING managed, performed, conducted, overseen by the public agencies. But because the site is within the sort of parameters, the boundaries of this THE I-80 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, THEY DO INTERFACE WITH EACH OTHER. SO I WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS SLIDE JUST TO IDENTIFY HOW THIS DEDICATION RELATES TO THE I-80 INTERCHANGE PROJECT ON THE CENTRAL AVENUE AND SAN MATEO STREET FRONTAGES. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT PURPLE AREA ACCOMMODATES THE BUS PULLOUT AS WELL AS THE PEDESTRIAN IMPROVEMENTS ALONG THE NORTH AND WESTERN PROPERTY LINES OF THE PROJECT SITE. That's just a little bit of context there. Another entitlement that the applicant is requesting is a zoning waiver. There is a requirement in Richmond Municipal Code that any building that's within 30 feet of the centerline of a creek has to have a conditional use permit. Richmond Amnesty Code also allows for applicants to request a waiver of up to 10% reduction of a standard. In this case, the applicant is requesting that 10% reduction of a standard so that the 30-foot setback is reduced to 27 feet, so a three-foot difference. The reason for this is because the site is impacted by the dedication of right-of-way staff believes that it is appropriate in this case to Allow that because of the dedication affecting the footprint the develop ability of the site So we think it makes sense for the zoning waiver to be allowed Again the site plan includes construction of 47 townhome units across eight buildings five of the units would be affordable to moderate income households which makes the project eligible for a density bonus and and the concessions and waivers that are entitled through density bonus law. One comment I do want to make note of while we're looking at the site plan is that the tentative map that was submitted with your planning application, planning packet, your staff report packet, states an incorrect amount of fill. It's actually about 1,000 cubic feet more than WHAT IS ACTUALLY INTENDED OR ACTUALLY ESTIMATED. SO INSTEAD OF 16,500 SQUARE FEET, THE APPLICANT EXPECTS THAT THEY'LL NEED ABOUT 15,500 SQUARE FEET OF CUBIC YARDS OF FILTH. SO JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT IN THE RECORD THAT THERE'S THAT TYPO ON THE PLANS. GETTING BACK TO THE LAYOUT OF THE SITE, IT DOES INCLUDE INTERIOR DRIVEWAYS WITH ALLOWING TWO-WAY CIRCULATION THROUGHOUT ALL OF THE, BETWEEN THE EIGHT BUILDINGS. and two proposed driveways from San Mateo Street into the site. The residential units would all be three bedroom, two and a half bath. And I'll scroll through quickly the elevations here. These are all in your plan, your planning packet, so you've seen these. Colors and materials, there are three different schemes that are proposed for this project. The architectural style for all of the schemes and buildings is very modern and contemporary styling. Materials include stucco, lap siding, metal finishes. And again, there's a variety of color schemes, which I'll scroll through very quickly here. Scheme A, B, and C. Parking is provided at two spaces per unit inside of a garage, one per each unit. Six parking spaces would be shared spaces unencumbered for use of all residents of the development. And they would be located near the central taut lot area. Landscaping is proposed throughout the site. There are two bioretention areas proposed adjacent to that creek area. Landscaping is also proposed along the frontage of each unit. This rendering, I wanted to make a note, is in your plans but is incorrect in the sense that it shows some trees that are there's a few more trees that are actually proposed given the additional right-of-way dedication along central avenue but nonetheless landscaping will be provided in the front of each unit throughout the site there would be about 93 trees including some trees along street frontages A SHARED REFUSE ENCLOSURE IS PROPOSED NEAR THE SOUTHEASTERN CORNER OF THE SITE. I WOULD NOTE THOUGH THAT EACH UNIT IS ALSO PROPOSED TO HAVE ITS OWN SET OF TOTERS THAT COULD BE STORED IN THE GARAGE AS WELL. LIGHTING IS PROPOSED TO BE DISTRIBUTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE. IN ITS DISCUSSIONS of the project, the design review board did suggest a revision to the lighting style so that it is a little more modern. I should also mention they also suggested some changes to the colors as well, which the applicant is receptive to.

Residential would also be on the buildings.

Okay, so density bonus incentives. As I mentioned, the project proposes to include five units that would be affordable to moderate income households. that entitles them to a number of concessions and waivers. The difference between the two, concessions are exceptions to local regulations that allow for the project to move forward. They address a financial limitation of the site or an economic constraint of the site. Waivers, by contrast, address a physical constraint of the site. The various incentives, density bonus incentives, concessions and waivers are listed here. This first one in gray is the concession that is requested, which is a request to waive the requirement for commercial uses on the ground floor. This would allow the ground floor to be occupied by residential space and garages. This again is necessary to make the project financially feasible. The other standards that are listed here in this table in blue are all waivers, which are physical constraints that the applicant is requesting to accommodate the development, including setbacks of individual lots, length of building, ground floor transparency. All of this is enumerated further in your staff report. OK, so the project is subject to a variety of standards in the zoning code, including multifamily standards, condominium standards, regional commercial standards, bicycle and parking standards, and creek setback standards. And the project is compliant with all of these once you account for the exceptions and waivers that are also requested through municipal code provisions and density bonus law. The project is consistent with general plan designations that allow compact and pedestrian friendly environment. These buildings are pretty close up to the street, which makes for a pleasant environment for the pedestrian. Also allows higher density residential development and proximity to transit. As was required by state law, staff did engage with tribal nations. and recommended conditions by those tribal representatives are included in the recommended conditions the project was also routed to neighborhood councils within the project area and to date we have not received public comments on this project the project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to the state law that I mentioned earlier that was adopted last year the site is less than 20 acres it's surrounded by urban uses and meets all the other criteria that QUALIFY IT FOR A CEQA EXEMPTION UNDER THAT NEW STATUTE. FINDINGS FOR DESIGN REVIEW INCLUDE A FINDING THAT THE PROJECT IS CONSISTENT WITH GENERAL PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN, DESIGN GUIDELINES, OTHER ENTITLEMENTS AND THE CRITERIA IN MUNICIPAL CODE. FINDINGS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP ALSO INCLUDE A FINDING FOR CONSISTENCY OF GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING. as well as findings that the project will not result in significant environmental damage or public health problems and that it is the site is served by public utilities and services. The required findings for the zoning waiver for the channelized creek setback I spoke to a little bit earlier but basically the findings are that it's necessary because there are physical characteristics of the property and the proposed use. I explained again that the The site is reduced in area because of the dedication of right of way. Because the project includes 10 or more units, it's also subject to the requirements of transportation demand management to reduce trips as much as possible. Again, staff believes these findings can be made as is enumerated in your recommended resolution. Your findings for no net loss. Okay. So net loss is a statute of California law that basically says that if you cannot reduce the density of a site without finding alternative sites somewhere else. So in this case, this particular site was identified in the housing element as accommodating 393 units, I believe, because that was the entitlement that was effective when the housing element was prepared. obviously 47 is less than 343 which means that the number of units that are actually going to be built here is less than what was anticipated in the housing element and so because of that loss the city has to make an additional finding that with that loss there are other sites throughout the city that can either be rezoned or all are already currently zoned to cover the deficit between THE CURRENT PROPOSAL AND THE PROJECTION OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. IN THIS CASE, STAFF BELIEVES THAT THIS FINDING CAN BE MADE. THERE ARE IN YOUR HILLTOP AREA, THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF UNITS PROJECTED WHICH WOULD COVER THAT GAP BETWEEN THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROJECTION AND THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED PROJECT. In addition to the recommended statements of findings, staff does recommend several conditions of approval which are listed in your staff report. There are also conditions of approval that are required pursuant to statute including performance of a phase one environmental analysis This is because of the exemption tribal cultural more resources monitoring and tribal monitoring that's also requirement of the CEQA exemption language the right-of-way dedication and construction of public improvements and The applicant has already proposed the right-of-way dedication. Staff recommends that a condition be imposed on the project that requires the developer to construct the frontage improvements if the city's process lags behind the construction of the development itself. If the city's process happens first, the city will construct those improvements. If the development occurs ahead of the city's schedule, then the developer would be required to build the improvements but could request credit against payment of their traffic mitigation fees. So, okay, recommended action is to adopt the necessary statements of support as recommended in your resolution and to approve PLN 24350, approving a design review permit, tentative map, and zoning waiver requests for the cascade townhomes.

Great, thank you for that. Are there questions of the staff at this point? You have questions.

Anyone else?

I mean, I don't want to monopolize here.

Does this project need to be approved by the city of El Cerrito?

No. There is language in, I forget which document it is. I may look at your planning manager for that.

We have a joint resolution between the city of El Cerrito along with all the other cities that we border that in the event that a project straddles both cities that the project that has more than 50% of the land area will complete the entitlement building permits and everything else.

So you have more?

Yeah.

Okay. What is the timing on the Central Avenue interchange? Do we know timing?

I spoke to Public Works this morning. Their current projection is to secure all approvals for construction by the end of this year to be able to begin construction in the spring of 2027. They're currently on track with those plans, and this project and the dedication is critical to the success of that I-80 interchange and the relocation of that bus stop with AC Transit.

So is that Richmond Public Works?

It's Richmond Public Works. It's the city of El Cerrito. It is Caltrans. And it is more agencies than I know.

So it's some sort of joint venture between all those. There's a lot of dedication. A lot of right-of-way dedication because there's San Mateo Street as well as Central. So it's really hard to try and exact anything else out of this project because they're already providing a bunch of land for these major infrastructure improvements around. But I do want to kind of focus in on the park or the, not park, but the creek restoration. There's a complicated condition about how the applicant is going to apply for grants to improve that area and so forth. And so I'm wondering, simple question, what is the worst case scenario for the Creek Channel for this development? Is it that nothing happens there?

effectively yes one option would be nothing happens it maintains its current status other than general maintenance and upkeep the alternative would be through partnership with the city and you know potentially other organizations with the applicant we would seek to apply for funding to you know do continued daylight work within that Creek which would also require other subsequent permits from like the Army Corps of Engineers also again continued collaboration with El Cerrito as well

Yeah, that seems problematic for this development that it's at least possible that nothing happened there because there's a whole building that has units facing, the front door is facing that muddy channel that's filled with trash. I don't know what to say about that. I guess it's the developer's prerogative, but that doesn't seem like a good way to move forward. So I really hope that there's some resolution found to make that, because it's going to be their front yards, really. I mean, the site plan is strange. Much of it is good, but in that case, the project the buildings face away from the center, which is where they park and the doors are face or lined along that channel. So anyways, I'm, I'm just bringing that up as a concern. I don't know what we can do about it, but, uh, I think it's an issue. Thank you. Okay. Those are my questions. Okay.

Uh, let me open the public hearing then and we can hear from the applicant.

And Jean, we also have Kimberly who's on the Zoom. And I don't know if there's anyone else. I think Doug is also here if you promote him.

OK. Good evening, planning commissioners. Yeah, as Avery had mentioned, we have Kimberly Kalika from our office on the line as well who did a lot of the planning on this project, and Doug Cummins, who's the architect, if you have any specific questions. But happy to answer them. Thank you, Dana, for the presentation. I appreciate it. You know, I've been with AMG for 20 plus years. I've worked on this project for 10 of the 20 years. It's just unfortunately one of those projects that has morphed through the years. I think I first got it approved in 2015 and then, again in 2019 as you saw in the staff report like three four different times and so we're just trying to evolve with the times it's bay area mud there so it's difficult from a structural foundation standpoint that's why you kind of see a lot of the imports it's four feet into the flood zone there's the channel there's the water board there's this ongoing dedication so there's like a lot of constraints with this site that have been kind of a challenge for us and so we're hoping that in the strange condition that you see which I agree it's you know it's written in a unique way for a resolution is kind of just a negotiation that we did with the city previously and kind of now probably in addition because the additional dedication that we're giving you know I we're not asking for city money there is a credit I'm a bit concerned that the credit that we're asking for that we would be asking for if we had to do it is not enough to offset it so hopefully THE CITY PROJECT DOES HAPPEN THE CITY PROJECT DOES HAPPEN NEXT SPRING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE NEXT SPRING BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE GREAT FOR EVERYONE. city and all the various agencies have been working on it um you know we did review the conditions i was kind of reviewing everything line by line again i just had a question probably for for dana and avery is there's a there is a condition in the resolution on page 9 of 19 that says uh cross jurisdictional review where the first application for a building permit for the project must be routed to the city of el cerrito for conformance review and just my question on that is you know, building plan check is quite expensive for any project. And I just want to make sure it's like there, would there be any fees or just like a cursory review or just want to get some clarity on that?

It would be a cursory review. Again, the goal is just to give them the opportunity to see it. It's not like an official building code analysis that they would be providing, but just to ensure that they're aware that they're aware. Yes.

Okay. Yeah, that's great. Thanks for the clarification on that. But yeah, I'm here to answer any questions that you may have about the project and, you know, Thank you for your consideration.

Great. Any questions for the applicant? All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any other speakers, Avery?

Yes, we have one speaker in the audience, Cordo Handler.

so i'll try to keep this short because we're approaching almost 10. so good evening chair harrison commissioners for the record i am cordell henley and i'm a richard resident so thank you dana for that presentation that was wonderful so as i was looking at the project and i'm like as far as like public comment um from the neighborhood councils um i had i did attend the RNCC meeting monthly and every time when projects come forward it's like that was one of them the uh ah just cascade townhomes I was just about to blank on that so I do like the project but I think that um as I spoke with the president of Richmond Attic's neighborhood councils they had similar concerns similar and I'm like if the project is Feasible I'm thinking like it's wonderful and it would generate revenue into the city So I'm thinking a part of me says go for it. Another part says yes, but you also gotta figure out Get the input from both neighborhood councils, which I know I speak with them on a monthly basis So I do like the project and hopefully we'll get some Some get this done because it's been it's been long overdue. So that's it Thank You Cordell

There are no other speaker cards and there is no one online.

Okay. I'll close the public hearing. What's the wish of the commission?

Seems like we're ready.

There's no other questions for staff or the applicant. I'm exhausted. I have no comments.

Already for a motion? We are. OK. I can make a motion to adopt resolution number 2614, approving planning application number PLN 24350, subject to conditions. Is there a second?

I second that.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Can we have a vote, please?

Chair Harrison? Yes. Vice Chair Burbaker? Yes. Secretary Timmons is absent. Commissioner Golovitz? Yes. Commissioner Shahid? Yes. Commissioner Benitez is absent. The item is approved.

Okay, thank you for the presentation and good luck with the project. Okay, next is Commission Business. I don't think we have any.

No commission business at this time. There will be future items around training for compliance with HR and some of the trainings you probably receive. They'll be later this year. We do have a number of upcoming items. There'll be housing element updates. There will be a number of general plan consistency updates for the environmental justice element, the noise element, and the safety element. And we'll continue to bring projects forward to the Planning Commission. So thank you very much for your time this evening We appreciate it.

Could I just ask you something? That's kind of been on my mind a lot as you know where projects are zone or General plan designation for a bunch of units develop come in and do a half or less number of units. This is one and Marina Point's another, Terminal 1, I don't know what's going to go on with that, but whatever that wants to do that. And the solution to the housing element is to just push everything onto Hilltop.

No, not necessarily. Currently, for any of our sites where there's a no net loss, the solution isn't necessarily Hilltop. For Marina Point and for this project, the city will be undergoing a no net loss analysis. TO IDENTIFY WHAT NEEDS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR AND THEN IDENTIFYING SITES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED CURRENTLY OR SITES THAT WE THINK ARE RIGHT FOR REDEVELOPMENT. THE CITY HAS INTENTIONALLY NOT INCLUDED THE HILL TOP SPECIFIC PLAN AS A LANDING PLACE FOR ANY OF THE MOST RECENT PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD NO NET LOSS RESULT OF THE PROJECT APPROVAL BECAUSE THE HILL TOP ALSO HAS SHARED RESPONSIBILITY AND DEDICATION FROM THE HILLSIDE ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A NUMBER OF UNITS TO BE BUILT THERE AS WELL. SO THE CITY WOULDN'T INHERENTLY PLACE THEM THERE. BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THE UPDATE AND THE AUDIT OF OUR HOUSING ELEMENT AND OUR SITE INVENTORY WOULD RELEASE AN UPDATED SITE INVENTORY IDENTIFYING THE NEW SITES THAT HAVE BEEN SELECTED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE DEFICIT. But currently it is not our intent to just dump things on Hilltop. It is important that we conduct our audit for which we will have six months to do and then report back to the state for compliance with our housing element to maintain certification.

And you said housing element update is going to be? That's a ways away, right?

Housing element update is a ways away but we recently you had the housing element phase one that you had heard from Kylie with EMC and so that was recently adopted by council. which really laid the foundation for a number of the code requirements that we needed to complete. So phase two of the housing element update will be really more focused around programmatic updates, programs, and offerings of services that kind of blend between the housing authority, the ROC, and other community agencies. So there's still more to come in terms of implementing and making that actionable.

But that's not an update. That's just cleanup.

Yeah, that's just cleanup.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody, for being here. It's good to have a quorum for these meetings, and they aren't all going to be as fun as this one, but I hope you all continue coming because we've got a lot of work to do. So with that, meeting's adjourned at 9.49.