Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Called meeting to order at 06:31. What

do we

So do we need a roll call of the commissioners?

Chair Harrison? Here. Vice Chair Brobaker? Here. Secretary Timmins?

Here.

Commissioner Gullivitz? Here. And Rachel Lockhart is absent.

Okay. Next is the approval of minutes. We have minutes from which meeting is it? Our last meeting. Our last meeting. Did we have a chance to review them?

I have.

Their motion to approve? I move to approve the minutes

from second our last meeting. The motion.

Okay. So move and, second to approve the minutes. Do a roll call? Alright. Yep. Chair Harrison? Yes.

Vice chair Brabaker? Yes. Secretary Simmons?

Yes.

Commissioner Golovitz? Yes. Lockhart is absent.

Okay. Next item is the, Brown Act. Opportunity for anyone here who wishes to address the commission on an item that is not on the agenda can do so at this time or anybody on the Zoom meeting. Cordell, it looks like you're waving your hand.

Just can you can you grab the slips?

No.

What timer do you want me to I see it.

Three minutes.

It's there. It's just taking a second.

Thank you. So good evening, chair Harrison. Commissioners, for the record, Cordell Handler, a Richmond resident. So I do wanna thank the commission for denying the the the office space in on the South Side Of Richmond. We were very happy because I had mentioned it to the Pullman Neighborhood Council, and we was like we were ecstatic that the Planning Commission denied the project. So it was very it was it was we it was a well fought effort, so I must commend you for that. It was long overdue. So one. And I bring this up every meeting. Every time when projects are being proposed to come forward, the applicant must talk to the community first.

Because I've been getting a lot of feedback, and it's like, I don't see where the project why the project didn't come to us. So and it's funny because you got two projects on the agenda. So and I'm here for both of those items. So I'll save my comments for when those items come up. That's it.

Thank you, Cordella. Anybody else here this evening that wishes to address the commission on something not on the agenda? Okay. I don't see any some come anyone coming forward. Is there anyone on Zoom that wants to?

If you are online and you'd like to address the commission regarding items, to the Brown Act, please raise your hand, and I will allow you three minutes to speak. If not, there will be a time later in the meeting to address comments on items one and two. Seeing

none. Okay. We're golden. Okay, we're ready to move on to the new items. First is item one is PLN20Five-eighty7, Chevron Food Mart Beer and Wine Sales. It's a public hearing to consider a conditional use permit to allow beer and wine sales at this location up in the 2900 Hilltop Mall Road. And if we can have a staff report, please.

Yes. We have assistant planner, Pete Sibram, here this evening to present on this item. Go ahead Pete.

All right, thank you for the introduction Avery. So this project is the Chevron Mart beer and wine sales, which is a conditional use permit to add a type 20 alcoholic beverage sales, which will be only for off-site consumption of beer and wine. This project site is located in the Hilltop area. It is a 1.5 acre parcel. The existing site has a Chevron gasoline station and an existing convenience market, which is where the proposed alcohol sale will be.

The adjacent uses to the gas station is the Hilltop Mall to the North, residences to the West. To the East, there is a religious assembly use as well as numerous small scale retail. And directly to the South, there is a fire station. This area is zoned as CM5 as it is for the entire Hill Hilltop area. The general plan for this site is the high intensity mixed use major activity center.

Some adjacent zonings are residential uses in the PA plant area and RM1 residential mixed use zone as well as PCI for the fire station. So the proposal for this project is to add a type 20 alcohol license. And what it is is it allows for the sale of only beer and wine, which are low ABV drinks. They're only for off sale. No on-site consumption is allowed.

And in addition to these restrictions, the city laws would also prohibit small containers and individual bottles and cans from being sold. The proposed hours for these stores are from Monday to Sunday, 8AM to 10PM. And the alcohol sale would also be Monday to Sunday from 10AM to 10PM. And as you can see in the illustration, the areas where alcohol we sell would be in the four existing refrigerated displays. There would also be a new display gondola as illustrated in the top.

The applicant has stated that they would restrict alcohol sale to start at 10AM and the cashiers will be trained to not sell alcohol before 10AM, the permitted time. The total display area of the alcohol would be less than 5% of floor area as required in the Richmond Municipal Code. The only exterior improvement that's proposed is one bicycle rack in front of the convenience market which would provide parking for up to five bicycles. As for the operations of the store, the clerk will be trained in a licensee education training provided by the California Alcoholic Beverage Control Department which includes age verification at checkout and the prevention of loitering to prevent on-site consumption. The applicant will install an electronic ID verification machine at the register.

There will be signage displaying the permitted hours of alcohol sale. And there will be interior and exterior security cameras with a two week retrieval function. The zoning requirements in the municipal code requires that any off sale retails of alcohol are required to be at least 600 feet away from other liquor stores, convenience markets, schools, recreational centers, and public parks. There are no liquor stores or convenience markets nearby. There is a school and park in the area.

However, it exceeds the minimum distance requirements so it meets the distance requirements in the Richmond Municipal Code. The proposed hours of store operations will be cut down to 10PM to align with the hours of alcohol sale. The standard hours of alcohol sale under Richmond Municipal Code is from 8AM to 8PM daily. The applicant is proposing to exceed the hours of sale to 10PM which is contingent on the approval of a planning commission. This project is consistent with three policies of the general plan.

With the land use policy, it would further support residents' daily need, which would provide alcoholic sales at a small scale local retail, which is within walking distance of residences. It would support the economic development policy by enhancing a typical commodity that's provided by a convenience store. And since the closest liquor stores and sources of alcohol are located in San Pablo, permitting the CUP would also encourage spending tax dollars in Richmond. The adding of bike parking would also satisfy policies for circulation 1.1, which would encourage balanced modes of travel such as walking and cycling. We have received a comment letter from the Hilltop Neighborhood Council which is attached to your package in Exhibit B, concerns have been raised regarding the proximity to schools and residences.

However, it does meet the minimum requirements as stated in the municipal code. A notice has also been sent out to all property owners within 300 feet of the site and there has been no other public comments received. The Richmond Police Department has also been contacted for comments. They stated that this site is not associated with any significant call for service or public safety concerns and they also support your proposed hours which is again ten a. M.

To ten p. M. Monday to Sunday. The use permit and alcohol sale are subject to the following findings. First, which is applied to all use permits.

The first finding is that their use will enhance a good and service that's provided by convenience stores. Since it is in proximity to residential uses, it will provide a small scale local retail that's within walking distance to residents. This use will reduce long distance driving trips since residents in the area will be able to access alcohol a bit easier without driving to other areas, to San Pablo or the areas of Richmond. And the conditions of approval would prohibit on-site consumption and also the restricted hours would reduce community impacts associated with alcohol sales late in the night. The police department indicated that there is no concerns to this neighborhood that would be created by the approval of the CUP.

And again, there have been many conditions of approval as required in the municipal code that would ensure that this project would not create any more nuisance. As information provided by the ABC staff as well, this site is not overly concentrated with alcohol licenses and is not in a high crime district. This site also meets a minimum parking requirements and the applicant is also proposing installing five parking spaces which would encourage a variety of travel mode in order to exceed this requirement and meet the general plan's vision for a variety of walkability, bikeability, and transport. These are the specific findings for alcohol sales. The first of which is that the police department expressed that there's no existing problems in neighborhood that would be exacerbated by the sale of alcoholic beverages and listed here are conditions of approval that would further ensure that there would be a less impact to the neighborhood.

What I want to highlight is number six. The site will be subject to inspections by city staff and the Richmond Police Department at any time. Small containers which are associated with on-site consumptions would be prohibited. There will be signage posted inside the store that would prohibit underage sale, loitering, open container, public drinking, sales of cups outside their customary packaging would also be prohibited. And a complaint response community relation program may be required at the discretion of city staff.

The subject site also meets distance requirements from sensitive uses. Are Since there are residences and religious assembly in proximity to the site, these conditions approval have been aimed to address that which number nine requires illumination of all parking sites during business hours. Number 11 prohibits access noise and promotes a good neighborhood policy with the adjacent residential uses. And number 19 would ensure that the site would be kept free of litter and graffiti at all times. So this project would not affect any kind of circulation along a public right of way and it also would not affect the visual quality of the area because the conditions also prohibit the visible advertisement of alcoholic beverages.

Lastly, the site is not located in a census tract where there's an over concentration of alcohol licenses. It is not in a high crime district. As you can see in the illustration here, these stars are the existing alcohol retail licenses. There are two existing one and three are permitted at a maximum in this census tract. This proposal will be the third license in this tract.

So staff is recommending that the commission hold a public hearing and adopt a resolution number 2503 approving PLN 25 dash zero eight seven subject to the conditions of approval as listed in the resolution. And for the community's information, the Planning Commission's action on this item is subject to city council appeal.

Okay. Thank you for that report. Before I open the public hearing, does anyone have a question for staff at this time? If not, we can hold them till the public hearing. No? Okay. Let me open the public hearing then. And I we haven't had one of these in a while, but I believe the next would be the applicant to present their, project. Is there a representative for the applicant here?

The applicant I believe the property owner is here and then the applicant is online. So Pete, you're welcome to introduce your applicant. And he's now been allowed to speak.

Yes. So just the applicant is here on Zoom. His name is Ron Cole. He is the agent for the property owner. Ron, if you would like to speak, we can unmute you. And if you have any comments, I spoke with Ron earlier today. He stated that he might not have any comments regarding the project, but he's available to answer any questions the board may have.

So there won't be any presentation right now? Did I get that right? The applicant's not gonna make a formal presentation. He's just available for questions? Very Okay, think next is is there anyone who wishes to speak in opposition to this project?

I don't see anyone, but they might be behind the pillar. I'll

start here with Riley.

No position well, sorry. Let's just

let me see if there's

Cordell. We'll start with Cordell Handler, who has opposition against this project.

I thought I would give it ten minutes, but I'm like, okay. Start the clock. I I messed up. So good evening again, chair Harrison, commissioners. For the record, I am a Cordell handler, I'm a Richmond resident.

So thank you, Pete, for this presentation. So one one of the things that I was thinking of was, like, I do support the Chevron market itself, but the concerns that I have was and I read the Neighborhood Council's letter, and I do kind of agree with it. It's like, I mean, there's close proximities to schools. And I'm like and it's gonna I don't know what the terminology is, but it's like but it's a concern that it's like, you know, this it's like during, like, school time, like, you know, eight to whatever time it is, but it's like it's gonna bring more concern. So I'm thinking it's like, Chevron convenience store?

Yes. But selling alcohol? I'm like it's something it's been like, you know, has a it's concerning me because it's like and I shop at Chevron every so often, but it's like but but you have to ask yourself, do you really want to see beer and wine in a in a convenience store? Let's just think about that. But you also gotta think about, like, you know, the parents have to, like, come through there and it's like, that's just food for thought.

But one of the things that I don't think it was mentioned, like, you know, the traffic. Because if you go up to Hilltop Marlboro on any given day, as soon as 3PM hits, traffic would be backed up. And it's like, it's a concern. So I do like the Chevron convenience store concept, but the idea of alcohol and wine is kinda like it scares me to death because I'm like, I've seen a number of people getting hit over a over of alcohol. So you have to think about it, though.

Think about it, though. It's like it's gonna do we wanna bring some quality of life or do we wanna see an accident with alcohol? So I'll let the I'll let the Planning Commission think about that for a second. And want you to hear the other speakers about this item. So just let it all sink in, and I'll yield my time.

Thank you.

Next, we have Bhavan.

Good

Bhavan evening. Kachri. I'm the president of the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council. Really wanna first thank staff for the excellent report that they have generated on this. We oppose this.

We actually had a vote during our neighborhood council meeting a while ago and the residents of the Hilltop District are opposing of this. There's two reasons. The staff said that there's schools there, two schools there and they're not within 600 feet, but it may be six zero one feet away. So there's two schools out there. Elementary school is the closest nearby.

And staff also conveniently left out that there is a dispensary like 100 feet within this site. Green Remedy as well. So we see this as a nuisance and we don't support it for that reason. There's a lot of cars, parents that come to pick up their kids and there's a line, long line on the Hilltop Mall Road that goes all the way to this gas station as well. And so that's the reason that we don't support it. Well, thank you commissioner for listening to our concerns and I'll yield my time. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker against the project is Jacob.

Is the microphone on? Okay. Good evening. Thank you so much for listening and allowing public comments. My name is Jacob Schroth and I am a resident also of Hilltop District and walking distance to the Chevron.

And I guess I'll say in addition to what the two gentlemen were saying, agree with those comments and I'll add that, you know, in our area we're working really hard to try to create a community that is positive and brings people together in positive ways and, you know, there's not a lot of opportunities, not a lot of amenities out there as it is and to just bring alcohol as, you know, as a priority, it doesn't make sense to me and is something I'm just really against. And, you know, if we had more of a vibrant community with restaurants and, you know, more businesses, maybe that would not be such an isolated area where you're attracting a certain type of person. And the other two things I want to say is that it's not an area with high crime now, but you know, you're adding an element that isn't there before that could enhance that possibility. And we also have a problem of sideshows, right, where a lot of people will come out there and drive recklessly and I don't want to add alcohol to easily accessible to activities like that. I'll yield my time.

Thank you so much.

Next I have Arto. No position.

How's Avery?

My name is Arto Rinceela. I'm the chair of the RNCC, the Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council. We oversee all the neighborhoods in Richmond. There's approximately 31 in Richmond. I'm also the president of the Fairmead Hilltop Neighborhood Council, which is next to the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council. I'm here in support of the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council. I think that we don't have enough police as it is right now, and we have a representative from RPD that's gonna speak later on the next item. And we just simply don't have enough police. It's a bad idea to for people to sit in their vehicles and drink. I don't know who's going to shoo them away.

But as as the previous speakers said, there's an elementary school and another school nearby. So I'm here in support of the Hilltop District Neighborhood Council. Thank you.

Thank you.

And I also have a a miss O'Reilly.

Good

My evening, name is Corey Riley. I wasn't planning on speaking on this item until I saw a picture of that bike rack. So I do live in Hilltop and the position of the alcohol is not why I'm up here. I work for the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission and also five eleven Contra Costa, which is a county wide transportation promoting program. We have various incentives to encourage biking in transit and all that.

And I run the West County bike rack program. So we've been able provide bike racks all over West County, the ones at Unity Park, the ones around Kaiser, just some examples. And anyone that's looking, if they have a spot around town that they're interested in having bike rack, we have a forum on our website and you can apply there. We would recommend not using the style of bike rack that was shown as the example in the slide, the wave style of bike rack. That's kind of an outdated mode.

We encourage using bike racks such as the omega shape or u shape where you can have two points of contact when you're locking your bike up. You want to be able to lock your bike up at either two points on the frame or be able to lock. You know, a lot of bikes have removable front tires, so you want to have two different points of contact. And so I'm just speaking to say I would not recommend using the the wave style. I would use omega or use or something like that where you have two points of contact. Thank you.

Thank you. And I have

one member of the public online, an O'Neil. You are free to talk. I will Carl, if you're available, I can start the three minutes when you begin speaking. I will move on. We can come back

to you. Hello?

There we go. Yep.

Okay. Thank you. My name is Linda O'Neil. I'm the wife of Carl O'Neil. I am a resident of Hilltop.

I've lived here for over thirty some odd years, and I've lived in the city of Richmond my entire life, and I happen to be 75 years old. There has never been, a place of alcohol purchased within this area, which I consider to be a residential area, even though we have commercial based upon the fact that the mall was located here in the plaza. I find it very upsetting that we would even consider, having alcohol purchased in our area in that within the last ten to fifteen years, we schools have developed all around this area. It is not a good it it's not a good area for alcohol consumption to be purchased and and whether you leave the the place that you purchased it or not to have it sold in our area. So I agree with the opposition, based upon a lot of the things that they've stated.

And as a resident of the area, I just wanted to make my feelings known. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, one more person on line. I have, a miss or April Roy from Hilltop Village. You are free to speak.

Hi. Thank you so much. April Roy, I am, in Hilltop Village, which is catacorner to Chevron. And I just want to reiterate the statements from Bob and Jacob and Arto and Linda that we just heard. Loitering at the Walmart facility is kind of an issue, but I can see loitering becoming a much bigger issue if alcohol is, there.

I'm really concerned with the proximity to our homes, the low crime that we have been thankful to have, and the, schools nearby, our residents who walk. We've heard of traffic with people wanting to get there to get their alcohol. We've seen how that works on Fridays to get beer and wine in other locations. Very concerned. And I'm on the Hilltop Village safety committee and communications committees for the Hilltop Village Homeowners Association. So, very concerned on behalf of our residents. So thank you so much.

Alright. I do not have anybody else online. Are there any other speaker cards? More speakers. Chair.

Okay. That's the last of the speakers. I think protocol is to allow the applicant to respond to the comments that were provided. If the applicant wishes to do so, this would be your opportunity.

Yes. The applicant, you you now have the ability to speak. You I believe you're joining us via phone.

Yeah. Can you hear me?

KCRT, could you turn the volume up? Yes. We can hear you.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I I heard these, the comments, but I'm just wondering why these people didn't contact the applicant in the very beginning if they had had these issues. I reached out.

I got the phone number and email for Bavin Pantry, email him before we even filed the application. I didn't get any response back. Nothing. So I'm just I'm a little confused why at this late hour now these people are all upset about this, and it these these issues maybe could have been resolved early on if they have any issues. I don't I don't think they understand exactly the process of what's going on here.

This is not gonna be a liquor store or anything like that. It has very limited amount of beer and wine, limited hours. It's a nice area. I just don't understand these issues. They they sound like it's gonna be a turned into a some kind of a dump where people are out out in the front loitering around, drinking, and that's not the issue at all. And I wish that I I wish they would've contacted us early on if they had issues like this.

Okay. Thank you for your comments. At this point, I will close the public hearing to the audience and open it up to the Planning Commission for questions and comments.

I have a question for Pete. Hi, thanks for your presentation. I wonder if you could go to the aerial photograph that shows proximity and specifically proximity to the schools. And I wonder if you could just point that out and describe.

Yes, so these are the nearest school and park, which would fall under the distance requirement in the municipal code. The closest school is the Aspire Richmond School. There are no other schools that are closer than this. And it is 900 feet, which does exceed the 600 foot requirement.

So a question about the thank you. A question about the requirement is, is that requirement Richmond City ordinance? Is there some is it kind of a rule of thumb? Is there some police preference on the number of feet from sensitive uses like this?

Yes. So this is stated in the Richmond Municipal Code. So any project that doesn't meet this requirement would even be brought to the planning commission. It would just be denied even before the project is accepted.

Okay, thank you. Another question I had was, if you don't mind, Is this the Chevron station is in place and all the improvements on the site are already in place and that includes the car wash. So there's no change to the physical structure of the building?

Not at all. The only thing that would change is adding one display gondola for unshowed beer and wine and also placing alcohol, chilled alcohol, beer and wine only, in four existing refrigerators. The only exterior improvement would just be to add bicycle racks.

I see.

Other than that, there are no other improvements.

Okay, thank you.

What level schools are they?

So I looked it up very quickly. It seemed that there are there's a Summit Public School and Aspire Richmond College Preparatory. I believe that they are K to 12. I believe there's an elementary school up to a high school level. Closer to this. There are see, there are some other schools in that area as well, but it is further than Aspire and Summit Public Schools.

Any questions, Alec?

I just wanted to confirm conditions that are proposed, they've already been agreed to by the applicant?

Yes. They are the standard conditions of approval. So every single alcohol beverage license that are approved in Richmond are subject to these same conditions of approval. So whether or not the applicant picks up is not really a choice. It is required by the code.

Thank you. I had a follow-up. Okay.

Only thinking about the change in hours. So the alcohol sales would be ten to ten. But the store hours, did you say that the store hours would change from current which is 12PM to 10PM? Will the store close at 10PM?

I'm sorry. So the store's hours as of now before they sell alcohol would be from 8AM to midnight. And the store is proposing to reduce it down to 8AM until 10PM because they would stop alcohol sale at 10PM. So they wanted to align that.

So the store would close when the alcohol sales stopped So in the the opening hours of the store would change from midnight to 10PM.

And so, no, the opening hours would not change. The opening hour is 8AM. The stores close from midnight to 8AM. The opening hours would not be changed, it's only the closing hours. So as of now, the closing hours is midnight and they'll reduce it to 10PM contingent on the approval of alcohol sales.

Wait a minute. I'm still confused.

I'll go back

to the hours.

But they're gonna just stop the alcohol at ten.

Right. The store's open till midnight is what you're saying.

No.

No. So I just went back to the slides if you would like to look at it again. Okay, so they are reducing it from midnight to 10PM.

Oh, operation. Okay.

Yes. And since the closed hours of alcohol sale is up until 10PM, they would just close the store at 10PM.

So one could imagine that that is a benefit to the community that currently this store is open till midnight. And if this item passes, then the store would be open until 10PM. So it could conceivably be thought of as a benefit to the neighborhood that the store is not open late, as late as it is currently. I'm just trying to think this through. So

Right. Yes. So instead of closing at midnight, they would close earlier at 10PM. The 10PM was actually suggested by the Richmond Police Department as other liquor stores in the same area, in the same census tract area and the other liquor stores in San Pablo also close at 10PM, it would better align with that so that basically all alcohol sales in the vicinity would all close at 10PM. And for any concerns about loitering at night or side shows, since the store would close at 10PM, that would reduce any potential nuisance since they wouldn't be able to access it at late hours in the night.

Okay. One other question I had was Walmart, do they sell beer and wine?

They do not. They do not have a ABC license. So if I go back to the presentation, the census track shows that the only other alcoholic beverage sale permits that are allowed by the state right now, there's one at another gas station convenience store that is closer to Richmond Parkway and the other store that's on a close way is the I believe it's the Dollar Tree now. It was formerly the 99¢ store.

And the sales are in that store?

Right. Yes, so Walmart does not sell alcohol. There's no record of their sale of them ever selling alcohol there. So the stores that would sell alcohol are pretty spread out throughout the census tract.

Do you and I think I probably know the answer to this but do you know if there's issues with the other gas station that sells alcohol?

So I have not contacted the police department regarding the other gas station. However, they specifically looked at this subject site? And they determined that it's not an issue there that would be exacerbated. And since it is pretty far apart, I believe they didn't raise the issue because of that.

Okay, thank you.

Well you asked my question so

I'm off the hook.

If there are no further discussions I guess we are in a position to deliberate.

There's somebody from the police here, it looks like. No? I thought maybe he could address that issue. Can you address that, whether or not there are issues at the other licensed convenience store?

So I'll open up the public hearing for this just to be on the correct side.

For clarification, were you the officer that we contacted through assistant chief who did the analysis of this? So I reviewed it. Yes. Perfect.

Just to make

sure that we were talking about this And

to answer your question, sorry, I just didn't want to yell from the back of room. My name's Captain John Lopez. I'm the patrol captain for the Richmond Police Department. I don't know what liquor store you're referring to is the only problem.

So I believe they're referring to the Arco gas station convenience market that's located on Richmond Parkway Richmond Parkway and Atlas.

So I don't have stats to back up anything that I'm about to say. I do know that we have, from time to time, issues regarding loitering and the houseless that are at that area. And we have had some deep projects regarding that specific gas station regarding that.

Is the occurrence of the sideshows fairly frequent into that area or is it like random all over town like other parts of town?

Sure. Sideshows are very frequent in Richmond in general. And they do go from the South Side to Central and then all the way to the Northern District. They're hard to predict on where they're going to be specifically. So it's very random on where, what area. A lot of sideshows are going to happen either in a big intersection or sometimes even the very, I would say, intersection that no one ever uses. So it's varied throughout the city.

Are there any sites that are more frequent than others? Like, there like hotspots for that in Richmond?

Typically around our freeways.

And so Richmond Hilltop is not one of them?

Oh, no, it is. We will have side shows at Hilltop.

Okay. Thank you very much. We close the public hearing again. So what's the wish of the we don't have to talk to anybody else, right? We've covered all the bases for for this. So let's decide what we wanna what we wanna recommend to the city council on our decide and then let the council follow-up if they need to.

You're not making a recommendation to city council? You are the final decision in

this? Correct. It can only be appealed

It can only be appealed to council.

Okay. Does anybody I hate the pressure. Anyway, have interest in making a motion?

Do we want to consider giving applicant more time to talk to communities since it looks like he was saying, well, why wasn't I approached before? Or do we want to make a decision today?

If Or that something that the applicant feels that would benefit them, I'm happy to suggest that we continue this item. We need to hear from the applicant if they think that will be of any benefit to them.

Would you like to open the public hearing to allow the applicants

to I'll do that. So I'll open it up to hear from the applicant.

All right. You are now able to speak. And pardon me for not knowing your last name first or last name, sir.

Yeah. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah. And I I didn't I can hear you, but I didn't hear what the question was. Did you have a question for me?

Yeah. The question that was raised by one of the commissioners is whether or not you feel you would benefit from an opportunity to discuss with the neighborhood council the issues that were raised this evening, or would you prefer to just move ahead with a decision by the commission tonight? Or if if you'd like to talk to the neighborhood council further, we can continue this item to a future meeting meeting. So which what is your preference?

Well, you know, what what I heard, the people that testified, they I don't know that they understand what what's going on here with this license. This is a this is gonna be not a liquor store. It's not a a a big convenience store that has a full cooler with beer and stuff. There's gonna be minimum incidental sales, minimum sales in this just for the customers that are asking for it. I did not hear these people, and I don't know.

They they never contacted me. I reached out to them, sent an email at the request of the the first planner that I talked to, Sarah I mean, Nora. And I asked her. I said they never they never responded back. And and she said, well, that's that's what it is. But yeah. I I don't know. I don't know what to tell you. I I I'm just saying if they understood what was going on here, they might not object, you know.

I'm not to continue the item. I'm inclined to make a decision this evening. Thank you for your input. I'll close the public hearing again.

Okay.

So I'd like to go ahead and move forward with this item this evening. Does anyone wish to make a motion? If not, I'll make a motion. That way, get the ball rolling. So I move that we adopt resolution number 2503 for the approving of the conditional use permit for a type 20A ABC off sale beer and wine license for the Chevron mark subject to the conditions contained in the staff report. I'm if there's a second, I'll go further into my thoughts. If there's no second, it'll die. Okay. I mean, that's fine. I'm just

Perhaps we can go to discussion, a little bit of discussion.

We need to have either we need to have a if the motion's on the table, you need to second it or it'll die and we can go back to discussion. Yeah. So if there's no second, then that motion dies for lack of a second and we are back to discussion. Anybody?

So I think this is really hard. We have a group of residents that live nearby that are against the project. We have an applicant that, for whatever reason, tried and didn't succeed or didn't try enough, I don't know, to get in contact with the neighborhood. We have an analysis by staff that says that all the findings are met for approving this project. I'm trying to think if there's a condition that we can add to the conditions that might allow us to approve this project and still respond to the community concerns but I'm not thinking of one.

I'd love if somebody else had a proposal. Yeah, go ahead.

I don't know if you can do this but the primary concerns expressed were when people were coming to pick up their kids. Can you shut down the sale of alcohol during, you know, an hour and a half or an hour when that is occurring as a compromise? Go ahead. Planning people, is that something that works within what we do? Yes,

that will be possible to amend the hours. You could propose to close it from say when school was let out. We can do more research on when the school's in the area or they let their kids out, close them perhaps at three to five or sometime that would fit best with the schedules of the school in the area. That way, possibly, they could sell from, let's say, 10AM to 3PM and then back up again from 5PM to 10PM.

That might be difficult to enforce. I'm not sure how we're gonna get a police officer out there to enforce that in a timely manner. And I don't know that who else would enforce that kind of a approach.

They've done it for a million years in the state of California having gone to UC Davis when we had were those blue laws? Is that what we called them? And they would basically just put a piece of canvas over all the alcohol at 07:00 at night or whatever it was or all day Sunday. I forget.

No. I'm not familiar with those but I can see what you're talking about.

Yeah. That's what we did for years in California because there are a lot of places where if you were around a school for years around the UCs, you could not sell alcohol during certain hours and on certain days around any university I think. Because you know we were out of control. It was the 70s,

come on.

But yeah, I mean I think there's ways to do it but it really has to do with the owner enforcing it more than anything else and somebody occasionally sticking their nose in and making sure that he's respecting the agreement and as a compromise if that's what they're interested in.

Well, I mean that conceivably would work. Is that the window that we see needing some kind of a control on the alcohol sale during that window when parents are picking up their kids? Was that the most was that the essential period of time where we're having would have the most likely problems with the sale of alcohol. I'm not sure if it is, but That's what they call it. Well, that's true. Well, that was one of the issues that was raised.

It seems impractical to me. This is a K through 12 school. What are pickup times for kindergarten and what are pickup times for high school? And does this put the onus on the store operator to understand what the pickup times are? It just doesn't really seem practical to be able to do it to me.

Another option would be to have this, if we were to approve this project as submitted at a condition that would require it to come back to the planning commission in one year's time with a report from staff on whether issues that had been raised by the neighborhood indeed manifested themselves and that there is a problem. That was another approach I'll suggest that we consider.

I actually think I'd like to make a motion. I like Commissioner Golovitz's that the applicant should be talking to the community. I think it has benefits above and beyond this particular issue. There should be communication. And so I'd like to make a motion that the commission does not approve this and instructs the applicant to reach out to community members, have a discussion, and reschedule a commission hearing.

You're just to continue the item?

For clarification, if you were making a motion to deny this application and you move forward with that, the application would die and you would not be able to return.

You'd have Yeah. To have a

Then it's a motion to continue Okay.

With the request that the applicant contacts the neighborhood council and engage in some dialogue and then return at a later date to have a report out on said dialogue.

That's right.

Not to speak for the chair.

You second to that motion?

Yeah, I'll second that because I think community can be creative about proposing some solutions to the safety issues. So I think it's a good idea to give an opportunity to talk.

Okay, so we have a motion and second to continue. Do we wanna put a timeframe for this to come back to the council, or do just want to leave that open ended up, Avery?

I would say, I guess my first question is going to be, and now the public hearing is not open, when is the next

Well, I would suggest to keep the public hearing closed.

Okay, I'll keep the public hearing closed. What I would then say is we'll connect the applicant to the Neighborhood Council and have them coordinate during their next Neighborhood Council meeting to have the applicant come and discuss. I can certainly attend that meeting on the behalf of the city just to understand and listen to the concerns that are being raised. And then from that meeting, both the community and the applicant can come to maybe some conclusion or a decision of what conditions may or may not be suitable. And then from there, we could return the next Planning Commission meeting to provide a report out on that meeting itself.

It wouldn't necessarily be staff changing the recommendation in front of you, but just simply reporting out. And then it would also be another opportunity to hear from the community at that time and the operator or

would we would continue this to a either a date uncertain or a date based upon what the staff comes back with. I'm just trying to figure out how to word that.

Go ahead, Jim.

Well, I would suggest a couple of things. One is to keep the public hearing closed and then, I mean, it's obviously your discretion to, if there's a need to reopen it, but I think the default would be to keep it closed and subject to the report back from staff. And then you could figure out which And one want receive then it's up to you, you know, staff and the timing, but it could be the first meeting in October. That'd be the most reasonable

I think that would be reasonable.

To go to a date certain if we can, I think?

Right. So that's October. Second?

October no. It would be October 16.

Unless there's a unless the eighteenth is

doable? September?

In September?

Oh, September. September 18?

Is there a September date that works?

Given today's date

Oh, maybe it's too too soon. It's too soon.

It's not too soon. I wouldn't be required to re notice it.

Okay.

It's already been publicly noticed.

You would not be.

I would not be required to re notice. Right. It would be a continuation to a date certain I'm looking at my staff. Do we have anything else going on that evening?

Possibly.

I think that it would be reasonable to continue this at least to a date certain the next meeting of September 18, and then staff will provide a report out. I will also then ask my commission, will you be here for a quorum for said meeting?

I'm here. I'm fine. You're here.

I'm here. I'm not.

I'm here on the eighteenth.

So you've got a quorum. I would have a how to move the item to, or continue the item to September 18, or the next scheduled meeting thereafter?

That sounds good. Works for me. And this is my motion, I will add that to my motion. And

the second is agreeable, I assume? Okay. We have a motion and a second. Should we have a vote?

All right. Just for the clarity of the community, so the motion on the floor by Vice chair Burbaker is to continue the item to September 18 or to the next meeting thereafter.

Correct.

And I have a motion by Burbaker and a second by chair Harrison? No. Nope. By Commissioner Gulitz. I will now take roll. Commissioner Timmons Simmons? Yes. Vice Chair Burbaker?

Yes.

Chair, Harrison?

Yes.

Commissioner Gulitz? Yes. Thank you.

Staff will be working, reaching out to the applicant and the community neighborhood council to facilitate the meeting. Appreciate that. It's an extra burden on you guys. Okay. We have dispensed with that one until the next time it comes up.

I want to take a five minute break, and then we'll start item two. Is that agreeable to everybody? Sure. Okay, I think we're ready to get started again. Okay.

I will reconvene the Planning Commission meeting for August 21. Next item on the agenda is the study session for PLN twenty three-three forty four, the Hilltop Horizon specific plan. And I will turn this over to staff so you can guide us through this session.

Thank you, Chair, and good evening. I would like to introduce Michelle Morris. We have Woody Hanson. Thank you. Then joined online, we have Bev Choi and Ethan from ESA supporting the city in its plan for the redevelopment of Hilltop and the Hilltop specific plan. I will turn it over to Michelle to start our presentation. Thank you.

Good evening, Chair Harrison, commissioners, and community members. I'm Michelle Morris, the senior planner for the Hilltop Horizon specific plan. I'm joined by our consultant team, Beverly Choi of ESA, as Avery mentioned before, Ethan Wynauk of ESA, and Woody Hanson, who will also be presenting. And Beverly Choi will also be presenting today. Together, we're presenting the draft land plan concept for the study session.

I'll start with setting the framework for our discussion. This aerial photo shows you an outline of the land plan area, 143 acres encompassing the mall area and peripheral land to its south and east. The city is leading a team of consultants, including ESA, SightLab, Urban Studio, and other policy and environmental planners, traffic consultants, engineers, and economists. So the plan area is outlined in orange in the slide. We're offering a mission statement and vision for a land plan concept to get the Commission's comments and input during this study session.

The mission statement is to reestablish Hilltop Horizon as an active and productive destination that supports a high quality of living, diverse experiences, and a new area era, excuse me, of economic prosperity. The vision is Hilltop Horizon will be a vibrant mixed use community that blends innovation, commerce, and culture. Incorporating sustainable design, diverse housing, and green infrastructure, Hilltop Horizon will prioritize connectivity, inclusivity, and mobility and serve as a model for equitable and resilient growth. Building on North Richmond's legacy as a vibrant destination, the plan redefines it as a dynamic and welcoming place for all. The Hilltop Plan area is discussed within the general plan as having key roles in economic development and land use policy and land use goals for Richmond.

The work of creating a specific plan for Hilltop Horizon aims to fulfill the general plan's intention that Hilltop remains a major activity center. The general plan envisions the Hilltop Plan areas as a mixed use regional destination with retail and employment along with higher density residential development. Creation of the specific plan is funded by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission's Priority Development Area grant quite a mouthful and the state's Department of Housing and Community Development Local Early Action Planning grant. And the goal of the plan would be to re envision zoning and promote mixed use development in housing. Also, as recently as this summer, the legislature has enacted housing legislation to encourage housing creation and remove obstacles for more housing throughout the state.

We now have legislation that further streamlines the housing approval process and limits down zoning, or in other words, limits jurisdictions' ability to reduce maximum housing densities. And some changes to existing laws further enable by right residential development on commercial sites, including mall sites like Hilltop. So we've received quite a few Senate and Assembly bills that affect housing in the state. Project timeline and updates. As many of you know, this Hilltop Horizon project began way back in 2021.

And during 2022 and 2023, the city conducted analysis and discussion of the existing conditions at Hilltop and concept alternatives. At the end of 2023, concept alternatives were presented to the advisory committee, the community, the planning commission, and the city council. And then the city council directed staff to do more scenario planning for the site in 2024. Since then, city staff has been interacting with the mall property owner and their evolution of their ideas for developing their property within the Hilltop Horizon Plan area. More recently, city staff has worked on and produced the land plan concept for Hilltop Horizon, and we're excited to show it to you today.

We intend to finalize the land plan, conduct technical analysis, draft a specific plan and an environmental document. Which brings us to forthcoming Hilltop Horizon analysis. There's quite a list here. We plan to work on several reports and studies, including the work products listed here, for example, parking strategy, design guidelines, development standards, permitted uses, affordable housing, and anti displacement strategy, and fiscal impact analysis, just to name a few that you see listed here. So commissioners, the recommended actions we offer are for you to receive a presentation on the draft land plan concept to be used as a basis for the preparation of the draft Hilltop Horizon specific plan and environmental analysis, and then provide Planning Commission feedback on the study session questions to the city council.

So today's focus questions and they're pretty meaty, so you'll get to see them again, but I'll read them aloud for you to consider as you review the land plan concept, which will be presented after I speak. Do you support stepping down residential density at the West and East Plan area edges to create a mid density residential buffer, such as townhomes, multiplexes, and stacked flats adjacent to existing homes? Do you support establishing a compact urban gateway district near Close Way and Garrity Way, an area with strong I-eighty access that allows a mix of higher density housing and active people oriented uses, such as shops, dining, and public gathering spaces. Do you support creating transitional districts between the mid density residential areas and the higher density gateway district that allow a flexible mix of housing, retail offices, medical uses, and other potential economic drivers. And lastly, beyond the proposed elements such as continuous bike and pedestrian pathways, a centralized open space area, an improved transit hub, and enhanced access to Hilltop Lake Park, what other features would you like to see included to further enhance connectivity, health, and recreational opportunities?

And now to continue, Woody Hanson of SITE Lab will present the land plan concept.

Good evening, commissioners. I'll walk through some of what Michelle just described and talk a little bit about how we got to the land plan and where it sits today. So one of the starting points of our process was to look at the existing general plan and zoning and understand how we can improve the land use relationships and development intensities to be more supportive of project goals and deliver near term development considering market conditions. What you're seeing on the slide is the existing zoning for the site with CR located on the East Side Near 80, and this is to guide low and mid intensity regional commercial zoning. You'll note that the residential density in this area is limited at maximum to be 50 dwelling units per acre.

Then on the west side of the plan, including the entire mall site, is CM5 zoning. This is a higher density zone that notably has a minimum density of 40 dwelling units per acre, which has been raised as a potential concern for near term market driven housing potential. So our first primary move for the land use plan is to rearrange where the low density is today, which is on the east side of the site, to split that into two zones that buffer existing lower density residential to the center of the site. This strategy holds overall density, which is guided by the general plan and the state bills that Michel mentioned, but becomes more context sensitive about the arrangement of where lower density housing is located. Then we implemented a more incremental transition of densities from between the east and west edges into a mixed use gateway zone, which is shown there in the middle in red along Bloom Drive.

This ensures the center of activity is located along primary roads and in proximity to the freeway to enhance access and create transition from existing residential communities. It's worth noting that while these figures are showing a generalized intensity band of where uses can be, there is an expectation that connecting streets to support walkability would also be included, particularly near the gateway. This gradient of densities is represented here in a cross section cutting from east to west across the site. You're seeing a stepping relationship of residential heights from two to three stories along the perimeter to mid rise and high rise development in the Gateway, which is anticipated to be a later phase given market conditions. You can also see here the impact of the major elevation change across the site, which mitigates visibility to those taller buildings in the center.

The four zones support a wide range of building types. Starting from left to right, the mid density zone accommodates 15 to 40 dwelling units per acre for residential. This allows for two to three story attached townhomes, multiplexes, row homes. The transitional density, which would be the next one over, allows for 30 to 80 dwelling units per acre. This allows again for two to three story row homes that are higher intensity, as well as three to four story stacked products such as apartments and condominiums.

The high density or intensity designation is next, which accommodates 50 to 135 dwelling units per acre, the current maximum of that CM5 zone, and generally supports housing between three and six stories, so apartments and condo buildings. And then the Gateway Zone accommodates 60 to 200 dwelling units per acre, generally allowing mid rise to high rise product of five plus stories in height. Commercial development is also supported in the transitional high and gateway zones with intensities to support employment opportunities and drive use intensity and activation closer to the core of the site. This slide and the next shows some of those examples of the residential and commercial development opportunities that we have envisioned here at Hilltop. Here you can see the top row would be examples of housing development that would be enabled in the mid density and the transitional zone, and the bottom row represents the high intensity and gateway zones.

These commercial development examples show the support and general consensus around employment uses and activation opportunities for the site, particularly for a walkable experiential retail zone which is encouraged in the Gateway. My colleague Bev, who will speak next, will describe the public space and transportation improvements in a few slides, but the plan is to take advantage of the distant views that you gain from being in the Hilltop Mall area while also connecting to Hilltop Lake Park, and also providing new opportunities with paseos or greenways that connect through the site and urban plazas and gathering spaces within the high intensity and gateway zones. I'll pass it over to my colleague Bev.

Great. Thank you so much, Woody. Good evening, chair and commissioners. Hope everyone can hear me all right. Bev Choi, with the ESA planning manager. If we can go to perfect. On that slide, As you saw earlier, the image on the left again is the existing zoning. This is the general plan's vision for the Hilltop area, which is, again, a major activity center. And we heard that in item one, can want to point out here that there are only a small handful of these types of designations within the entire city of Richmond. There's Hilltop.

There's Marina Bay by the waterfront, and there's downtown. And so in other words, these are very rare sites. These are high value locations that really don't come up often. And so how we plan for them now is really going to shape its long term success over time. To provide the commissioners with some context, we'll share that after our first study session with city council in 2023 on directed the city team to revisit the Hilltop land plan and work with the mall landowner to refine the land plan approach.

And so we carried out that direction throughout 2024. And so with the image on the right, this is a reflection of the city's interpretation of the mall landowners' most, recent concept that was shared with the city team. And over time, the mall landowners ideas have evolved, in response to feedback, first considering, more industrial uses, then a more residential centric project and more recently moving towards a mixed use concept. And you can see here in this proposal, it does show a mix of uses and intensities, as you can see through those colors. But the the lighter colors, that that light orange, that yellow, indicates that densities may be reduced compared to what the general plan envisions for hilltop, which is that dark orange you're seeing on on the left.

Next, please. So this slide shows a comparison of those three proposals from left to right, existing zoning. You have the city plan in the middle and again, the landowner concept to the right. And the intent of the city concept, that middle plan, as Michelle noted earlier, is to translate that general plan vision into an implementable framework. And from what Woody had described, this land plan concept will provide these gradual transitions where at the edges, it would allow for lower density mid scale housing to match the existing neighborhoods like Summer Lane.

And then as you move inward, it steps up to mid rise, these higher rise, housing and intensities that can support shops and employment opportunities, and retail. And this is really going to help overall the city meet its housing goals that we talked about earlier. And, as many of us know that jurisdictions across the state are struggling to achieve their arena. I want to share too that the city's land plan, again, the middle is going to provide predictability. And what this means is for the community, it's going to provide a clear picture of what's coming where, like new homes or commercial and the intensities, by zone.

And for developers, it means having a clear framework to work within. And overall, this predictability is going to reduce surprises and delays later on. Next. Now, the key difference on this slide is the concept on the right. If you take what had been proposed by the landowner as is, and if you were to try to achieve a comparable development scenario to the city concept in that middle column, what it does is really push much of the intensity onto the mall site parcels to the south and to the east, and you can see that, dark red band, in that southern and eastern area.

And the city concepts in the middle instead looks to distribute uses and intensities more equitably across the entire plan area. So as an overview, the city's land plan concept, considers near term development while preserving long term potential so that some development can happen now or in the near term because the market is ripe, but also sets aside areas for future opportunities. And as many of us know, markets go in cycles. There are factors like interest rates and tariffs and construction costs that shift over time. And so keeping options open for later, ensures the site can adapt later when those conditions change, which they do.

The city concept adjusts plant edges to mirror surrounding neighborhoods as we talked about. Again, that notion of stepping up, of building up as you move towards the core so you have this nice transition of development across the site. The city concept expands housing choices and makes room for a variety of products that include apartments and townhomes, stacked flats, among others that Woody had shared earlier so that people have more options in this community, where there are schools and businesses and services already in place, which is a great thing. And even as, again, the city is working to meet its housing requirements, Hilltop won't just be about housing. It's going to accommodate a flexible mix of commercial, including employment and medical uses.

The land use concept creates a gateway hub with vibrant and engaging spaces. So that goes back to that gateway core shown in red that can really give Hilltop the strength and identity and help make it a destination once again. The concept plan will integrate green linkages, Central Park, connections to Hilltop Lake Park, which is just due north of the site, and a mobility hub. And together, what these features do is allow people to move more easily through the site, whether this walk is walking, biking, using transit, again, within the site to and through the project area as well. And in summary, the city's land plan concept is about balance, And it's about creating the flexibility within the zones where they make sense, and it's going to provide this predictability on those matters that really matter.

And for the community and what we've heard through our engagement process, this is about the open spaces. This is about those, the connectivity, diverse housing, quality jobs, safety. And for landowners and businesses, it's clear entitlements, flexibility to respond to market conditions and certainty. Next, please. As for the next steps in September, we plan to bring this presentation and the, city's land plan concept to city council.

At that session, we'll we'll plan to share any input provided by the planning commission to council and obtain council direction on the preferred plan. We'll then, with that direction, conduct technical analyses by our team in 2025, which will feed into the specific plan and environmental document in 2026 with the goal to adopt the plan, the specific plan and environmental document that year as well. Next. So to close, we've brought back here those four questions Michelle had talked about earlier in this presentation. These are generally framed as yes or no to get, clear direction and of course certainly welcome any additional feedback the commission has to, provide.

So I will go ahead and read each of these one more time, and we can go back to these these questions. The first is, do you support stepping down residential density at the west and east area edges to create a mid density residential buffer adjacent to existing homes? The second question is, do you support establishing a compact urban gateway district, that area in red, near Closeway and Garrity Way, an area which has strong I-eighty access that allows a mix of higher density housing and active people oriented uses like shops, dining, public gathering areas. The third question is, do you support creating transitional densities? And that's in the middle, that light and deeper orange, those districts between the medium density and higher density, intensity gateway district that would allow a flexible mix of housing, retail, office, medical uses, and other potential economic drivers.

And the last and fourth question is beyond the proposed elements such as continuous bike and pedestrian pathways, a centralized open space area, an improved transit hub, and enhanced access to Hilltop, lake Park, what other features would you like to see included to further enhance connectivity health and recreational opportunities? That concludes our presentation for this evening. I appreciate your time, and we look forward to hearing your input.

Thank you very much for the presentation. Let's see. I guess before we kind of deal specifically with the questions, I wanted to know if any of the commissioners have some general observations or comments they'd like to make before we get into their specific questions. The four questions that they've

I know, but I have another question.

Then that's what we want to hear.

Okay. What's the population impact?

I'm sorry, Commissioner. I'm not quite sure what you're asking about.

How many humans would this add to that space?

I think it depends on what kind of development actually happens over time. So it's not exactly something I could give you an estimate on. It depends on property owners and how much development actually occurs.

So you're just talking about changing the zoning to allow people to build these things in this way.

Correct. We're reframing the zoning across the full site, full plan area, hopefully to encourage and promote development whether it's housing, commercial, or a mix of all of the above.

So in your experience, because you have far more of it than I, ask me about lipstick sometime though. What would you envision being the time frame that it would take for people to begin to, you know, sort of start to fill this in and develop these these residences and these businesses and what kind of I mean, I look at it and I go, oh god, we're gonna need another school and we're gonna you know, that's where my brain goes.

So I think it's important to remember we're at the very, very beginning of creating a specific plan. So this is a framework for thinking about how the community envisions development to occur. So I couldn't give you a concrete amount of development that might happen. I couldn't predict the future, of course. No one can. But this is a way of starting to figure out how the community wants a major activity center to be developed. Whether it would be in the short term or the long term, who knows? Hopefully, all of the above. But we need to think about these things so that we can encourage and promote some development.

If I could follow-up on Gay's question. So you're looking you have this concept, but what she's pointing out is this concept will drive a need for uses other than those that you are showing, the different kinds of residential. So are you planning to accommodate for those additional schools or what have you that are going to ultimately be needed because the population will drive the need for them? It doesn't show up on the plan. I guess what maybe Gay is seeking and I'm seeking is assurance that, yeah, as this thing moves along, if there's going to be a need for schools, that will somehow get built into the more detailed plan.

Cause it's very easy for somebody to wanna do a development and they develop and develop and develop. Oh, gee, we didn't build the school. Well, over there are gonna have to build the school. And you don't want that to happen.

Can certainly chime in. So in regards to the development of schools, so one, the city of Richmond does not build schools. We do not operate schools. So we, the city, would not be the developer. But what happens is on an annual basis, I meet with the demographer of the school district and the demographer of the state, and we look at all of the potential residential development that's going to occur.

They tend to spend a lot of time looking at residential development to understand the impacts it will have on student population and whether or not the school district would endeavor to build a new school. We also have existing private schools and charter schools in those neighborhoods, and they may see that as an opportunity in the future to expand. The land use itself would allow for a school, if a private developer or a charter school or a magnet school was to choose, or a public agency, being the school board to produce a school, they certainly would not be stopped from doing so. The goal would be that organically, as we see beginnings of a plan and beginnings of construction, and as we meet with the demographer and we talk about those population growths, and they look at their existing schools and the number of students enrolled, whether a new school is warranted, right? And there does come a time where that happens.

In my previous career job in Milpitas, that was part of my almost a decade there, was a new high school got built over the process of fifteen years building out of BART Station. Right? So it it does occur as a relationship to the development of a site, but it is not something we directly influence, but it is a conversation that has already begun. We discussed this with transportation groups and different agencies that provide service to the city of Richmond that are along with us for this development.

You know, I guess you're you're showing a floating transit hub, but you're not showing any floating schools, for example. You're showing floating parks, but not any floating other amenities. And what assurance I'm seeking, and perhaps Gay is as well, and I think this is what you said, that as things evolve, those things become less floating and more precise locations and more of the specific things that need to be provided will start showing up on this plan. It may not be in the 2026 plan because it's still pretty conceptual, but it they and so the question for me then is the language of this plan that comes out in 2026 make it clear to whoever does development that those considerations are gonna be part of what you as a city are looking at. That, well, yeah, you're gonna put a lot of people here.

We've talked to the demographer and he says we gotta get some kind of language needs to be in the plan that assures the community that all these other needs are gonna be accommodated.

Absolutely. And as we get into the development of the plan and the language around specific goals and policies and standards that are in place, there would be a section on education and the policies that would be supported. So as we look at a land use plan and zoning, zoning that would allow for it would then be supported by policies and or other considerations within the document that guide the development of a school.

Because when I look at this it's not just schools at all. It's just infrastructure as a whole. I think about, you know, hospitals, schools, everybody who has to grow with this sort of burgeoning project. So that's and I honestly have no idea how that works.

That would that would really be a discussion as part of kind of phase two as we move through. Like, this is, again, the concept. We haven't gotten down to where those things might be on a map or where they wouldn't be on a map. I don't know if if Woody or or Bev or Michelle would want to add anything to that, but it would be too early to precisely pinpoint those locations. But the services that support a healthy growing economy and a healthy growing community would entail those services being things that get added.

It would be very natural and sometimes quite organic. There might be a need for an apartment building that's going to have a retail space on the bottom, and someone's like, well, I'll open up a dentistry practice, or now I'll open up a spa. Those things happen and are driven by buildings being created and people living there. So this is to have the framework in place so that people who are interested in developing within Richmond know, Okay, this is where we're going. So if I opened up a childcare facility or a high school or an emergency clinic, for example, or a hospital or whatever retail use you might think, there's an understanding of the population growth that's going to occur that will also feel the economic growth of those uses and those operators.

Thank you.

Any other

Thank you, Avery. This is

Go ahead. Ahead.

I apologize for for interrupting. I wanted to add to what Michelle and Avery had mentioned and specifically address the question on schools. And so absolutely that as part of the specific plan, the process would include, an analysis of understanding what the development potential would look like and therefore what the impacts to the population based on, you know, residential units. We do conduct a full student generation calculation to determine, you know, what impacts there would be to surrounding schools and if it would trigger the need for a new facility. So that is certainly true in in terms of additional analyses.

The team would conduct in, as Eri mentioned, the next phase of work, everything that would include looking at police and fire, certainly infrastructure. There was a list that Michelle had shared earlier, in this presentation where our team would look at a variety of technical analyses to ensure that we understand what the impacts are to, from the project.

Thank you. Any other general question? Go ahead.

Yeah. I it's more probably of a comment than a question. So and I think we're struggling pretty much with the same thing. Like, the the question the questions are pretty specific, especially as the distribution of density. But but I'm having a hard time to think one way or the other when we don't know what the density is gonna be related to and how I'm assuming the project is gonna be in phases.

And we don't know if the phase is gonna be or the way the phases are gonna be planned. Are they gonna be kind of targeting this the self sustainability of the project? Like, you know, fellow commissioners mentioned, like schools, but then there's, an idea of the hospital. And I kinda like that idea well, it was pretty broad here as a medical. But for example, if the construction of the residential is, like, of certain phase aligned with construction of a hospital that generates jobs for the people that are gonna be leaving.

So it it it's gonna affect the traffic. So I don't know. Like, the the the question was about, like, shifting density from one place to another, but I don't think that's what we're really worried about. I mean, we worry, like, well, how is it gonna affect the overall community around it? And I don't think we care so much how high they're gonna go. It's just like, well, is it gonna support the neighboring community, whatever infrastructure is gonna be built? Or is it gonna burden the existing the existing infrastructure at certain stages? So

Okay. We'll see how it goes.

Well, we'll give them some input. We'll provide our input and then we'll hear back in a few months and see how miraculously it's reflected in the new plan. I have a question, Avery. This isn't called as a public hearing, but I believe you have speaker slips for this item. Is this the appropriate time to do those? Okay. Why don't we do that, and then the commission can get into responding to the questions.

All right. Thank you, chair. And for anyone who is online who would like to speak, please just raise your hand, and I will address you after I address members of the audience who are here in person. I will start with O'Reilly, who is in favor of the project.

Evening again commissioners my name is Corey Riley and I I I come at this particular project from many different angles as I mentioned before I work at the West Contra Costa Transportation Commission We are on the technical advisory committee for this project, come at it from that angle. I'm also on the Richmond Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee and have been for a very long time, so I'm looking at it from a bicycle pedestrian type of perspective as well. Was also involved in the general plan update back when this project was being envisioned in the early 2000s in the early teens. And I'm sure a lot of you in the room were also very involved in that. At that time, I was directing a community based collaborative that was doing community organizing to get a lot of input into the general plan.

So this is a project that's been a long time coming, and I'm really excited to see it sort of coming to fruition. And then just to add to that, I live right next to this project too. Live in Hilltop. You can see my roof on the maps of a lot the aerial photos that are used for this. It's a project that's near and dear to my heart and I've been watching for a long time.

With my WIC tac hat on, you know, we can often we we hear the concerns that we will likely hear tonight about the project, about the density and the traffic impacts and all that. And I can say that our agency has been a partner on this project and we will continue to be a partner through the implementation working with our transit partners who are on the WCAG board as well such as Bart and Westcat and we will be able to work through a lot of these issues as we move towards the implementation project process and we hope and like to be involved in the development of a further specific plan as well. I'm also particularly interested in exploring developing a transportation management agency for this project, TMA. It's a project we're actually working on a similar project with Richmond and El Cerrito right now to examine the areas around the BART stations and stuff. So I'm excited about potentially that.

You know, as someone who worked on providing input for the general plan, This really is the next step in the vision for the entire that the entire community worked on for five years. It was a very long general plan process, if a lot of you all worked on that and remember. So I'm really hoping that we can use this opportunity to make this happen. As a neighbor, I just want something cool in my neighborhood. I know you're gonna have naysayers out that say that that are are afraid of density and and then traffic impacts and all that, but I I just want something cool that me and my wife can, walk to, you know, on a night out instead of having to drive somewhere else, which is what we currently have to do.

I I think that this is really a big opportunity for the city. I think this is a once in a lifetime, really, opportunity for the city to develop something that can be a great amenity that can grow over time. I appreciate your time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next I have Arto. Good afternoon. Good evening. My name is Arto Rintilo. Once again, I am the chair of the RNCC. I actually sit up there once a month and lead the RNCC in meetings. We have a planning commission department heads come and report to us. And so we've been listening to planning this project for quite some time. I'm also the president of the Fairmead Hilltop Neighborhood Council, which is the oldest hilltop neighborhood. And I've been there since 1965.

It was a field when I grew up. I used to run around. And so that being said, I'm here in solidarity with the Hilltop District and the rest of the hilltop working group in asking you to reject this project and give Prologis an opportunity to present their own project. With all due respect, I know you've worked very hard on this. And I think Prologis, being the owners of the property, should be allowed to present their own project.

Also, there's a lot of community members that are really disappointed in all the density that's been discussed. They feel like their voices weren't heard, and this was a bait and switch. The city did a lot of work in surveying neighbors and and community members, and they feel like their voices weren't heard. One thing I did hear is that schools, I asked about schools early on. West Contra Costa Unified School District was never invited to the table or they were never, as far as I know, they were never there.

I was at every meeting. I've been meeting with ProLogistix and the Hilltop Working Group since they got here. And we also have I'm also the president of West County Wastewater District, and I spoke to our staff about the density issue. And we have a brand new $87,000,000 plant that we're going through transition with, and we can't sustain that type of density. We'd have to ask the developer or the city to put in possibly millions and millions of dollars to expand our brand new plant, and that's gonna be an issue.

So I'm not gonna spend much more time with this. I just want you to know that we are asking from the Fairmead Hilltop Neighborhood Council and the Hilltop Working Group to reject this this project and have prologistix present their own. Thank you.

Next, we have Cordell.

So good evening again, chair Harrison. Commissioners, for the record, I am Cordell Henland. I'm a member of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council. So first, I do wanna thank you, Michelle and Woody, for this presentation. And some of the things that Arturo just mentioned, was part of the working group. I was outside of the boundaries. But I do like the concept of this, the project. But and as Corey brought up, I say, about the the bike, we want something that's more livable. I do like the idea of transportation. And I'm on the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Committee.

And one of the things that we looked at and was like, Okay, this is a good concept for transportation. But one of the things that was not mentioned was retail opportunities. So you look at Hilltop. It's like you try to bring it back to life. But what about affordable housing? So you got a lot of new families that are going to be moving into their neighborhood. And they there's no there's no opportunity. There's other cities like Pinal, San Pablo. We want something that's come to Richmond. So I do agree with Arto regarding the the other groups that were not involved.

What about the school district? Why weren't they not at the table? So that's just something for food for thought. So we should they should the district should have been invited because they want their input on this. So, I mean, not reject the project, but you also gotta add, you know, what's gonna bring in more property value? You know, more retail? Yes. What about the parks? Everybody in this room goes to parks, you know, like for recreational, you know, purposes. So think about that. Just let it marinate for a while. So would you rather see parks or other opportunities? So I'll let you all to figure that out. So I'll yield my time to the next speaker.

Thank you.

Alright. Our next speaker will be as Bhavan.

Good evening. I'm Bob and Kachri again. Hilltop District Neighborhood Council president, and I live right across the Hilltop Mall site. Throughout the three years of the development of this plan, the city staff has been working with the community as well as the developer of the land of the Hilltop Mall. Our land has been working with the community, and we have considerably said that we want housing, retail, entertainment, and open space.

This plan does not support the community's vision or even the developer's vision. Some of you asked some valid questions about school and infrastructure. And Citi hasn't thought about all of those things. They are putting a plan that does not think about other things. Hilltop has five apartment complexes with over 1,600 units within one mile radius of this site.

And we're having a hard time filling up those existing existing apartments. And we are here talking about putting in more density in this area without That's all we have in this area. The mall is dead. Obviously, it has been empty for five years, over five years. But the issue is that we don't support high density. Want housing. We want housing that is consistent with that's in the area. Medium density housing, that's what's feasible. That's what the developer has also said that's feasible. In fact, I also read a report by the city's own consultant that this area is not designed for like a high density housing.

So I'm not sure why they decided to go this route. The community has expressed the retail entertainment piece. I mean, I go out of my neighborhood to shop and dine. And that's what's missing here. And that's really what we need.

The other thing is that through various forums, and including the held top, the advisory committee, we have notified the city is that this is what we want to see. But city has completely ignored that and put in a plan with extremely high density that any developer would look at it and not do anything. So this is not a fifty year plan. We want a development here in within next five years. And that's what community has expressed that to as well. And if we adopt this plan, this site is going to sit empty for next fifteen years. That's all. I need my time. Thank you.

Thank you. Excuse me. Thank you. Next

we have Janet with Prologis.

Hi. Good evening, commissioners. Can you guys hear me? Sorry. Short. My name is Janet Galvez, I'm an investment officer for Prologis. First and foremost, I wanna thank city staff for their work to date. I particularly wanna commend their community engagement as well as our community engagement with the local community like Arto and Bobbin. We understand how important it is to be transparent and gather input from those closest in proximity to the project. Not only are we transforming the site, but we're also transforming their neighborhood.

So we want to be respectful of that. We own Hilltop Mob, which comprises 55% of the plan equivalent to 78 acres, so we are the majority owner of that Hilltop Horizon specific plan area. I'm here today with the rest of my colleagues and the development team responsible for development sitting behind us. We acquired the site in April 2021, so the same year that staff began the specific plan. Since then, as mentioned by staff in their report, we've had various design iterations of the site from industrial to residential, and now we're in the process of identifying the right mixed use concept that is feasible from a physical standpoint, from a market standpoint, and from a land use standpoint.

At the same time, as mentioned earlier, we also want the project to fit in within the existing neighborhood character and be respectful of the existing residents. With that said, I want to reiterate some of the comments that we submitted yesterday, which should be in front of your desk. We submitted a letter stating that we need visibility. Redeveloping this hilltop mall is a once in a generation opportunity, and it's a highly complex project to build out. I think I want to dispel one of the comments that was made by ESA.

The market is not ripe right now. It's actually one of the toughest markets to do new business in today because of interest rates, tariffs. As Bobin mentioned, there's a lot of residential units currently vacant. There's not a ton of new residential high rise construction going on. Interest rates for construction loans are higher, so it's hard to finance projects that are expensive.

And so it's not ripe yet, but we understand that that can change over time. Areas of alignment and concern that we have with staff are neighborhood connections, maintaining the CM5 zoning flexibility, and a residential program that averages a blended 40 DUs per acre, which is consistent with the current zoning. We also want short term activation and long term success. We were responsible for bringing over Glideways, which is currently on the site. And they're an interim use that's R and D ing autonomous vehicles for transit.

So we want to make sure that uses similar to that are supported in the short term while we come up with a conceptual plan that makes sense for the site. I'm going to run out of time. Apologies. But thank you for the time. And we're here in solidarity with the communities that are here to support us today.

Thank you.

Next speaker card is for Jacob.

Thank you. My name is Jacob Schroth again. I'm a longtime Richmond and Hilltop District residents, and I wanted to say I'm in support of the prologues plan. Hilltop already has a large concentration of housing, but very few places for residents to connect, shop, or enjoy community life. Without retail, open space, and cultural amenities, Hilltop risk becoming only a bedroom community rather than a vibrant destination.

At prior public presentations, the majority of community members consistently asked for more amenities and a stronger mix of uses, not simply more high density housing. People want restaurants, entertainment, open spaces, and services that bring life to the neighborhood. We all recognize the importance of meeting state housing goals, but blanket density requirements shouldn't override what is appropriate for Hilltop. Richmond deserves a plan that reflects its unique needs, not just a numbers game. Medium density housing can still contribute to affordability and transit use while keeping the character of the community intact.

High density housing without matching infrastructure, public safety, and amenities will only strain roads, schools, water, sewer, and police. A balanced plan with a local police presence, open space, and retail creates a healthier, safer, and more sustainable Hilltop. Hilltop sorry, Hilltop should be planned as a destination that brings people together with shops, cultural hubs, parks, gathering places, not just stacked apartments. Let's build a community where people want to live and not only where they want to leave, which is what we have to do currently for any sorts of entertainment or other activities. So I urge the commission to scale back the push for very high density housing and instead prioritize balanced growth with amenities and services that our community has clearly asked for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker is Don.

Good evening. My name is Don Gosney. You know, with all due respect to the work this community this committee does, not enough has been done to engage more than just the Hilltop community. This is not a neighborhood project. It's a regional community endeavor that extends beyond the Hilltop community, beyond even the Richmond community and since it will have a significant impact on the entire community, why has Richmond done so little to advance the discussion of this project outside of that area?

For instance, with four online newspapers, of which I own one and have never heard from the city of Richmond about this, and numerous social media sites that might they might take advantage of, why has the city done so little to reach out to the general Richmond, San Pablo, Pinole community to engage them in this? Why, for instance, has was there nothing attached to this agenda that we might peruse before arriving tonight? Nada. Zip. A lot of words.

That's it. Just numbers. Okay? As an extremely long term Richmond resident, one that recalls Chevron's tank farm hill on this site, I would suggest that the city embrace a policy of transparency that might better educate the community about what's going on here, what your plans are and what is being considered. This plan has largely been a secret being being hidden from the Greater Richmond Hilltop community.

I do a lot of work with the the school district's school sites and I have to ask you what your plan are to do with the many hundreds of new students that will surely be an issue. Unless this is gonna be a senior, senior, senior housing complex, you're gonna have a lot of kiddos. The school district has $0 available to expand their school capacity. So what do you plan to do with these kiddos? You wanna put in a new elementary school?

The taxpayers of all of West Contra Costa County will be on the hook for well over a $100,000,000 for an elementary school right now. 100,000,000 out of our pockets. This is not one of those if you build it, they will come scenarios. You need to plan for this now. I hope this Planning Commission is not leaning towards being a charter school shill as we kinda heard from staff just a little bit ago. And by the way, why does Richmond ignore all the many vacant lots, some big, some small, that can be used for residential reuse? Thank you.

Thank you.

We have one member online. It is Hope.

Hi. This is Hope Dixon. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. I just wanna read a couple comments I've received from students. I work at Contra Costa College as the basic needs coordinator, and I just wanna read you a couple things. I need help with housing because I'm going homeless by the end of the month. I'm living with a family relative and helping my mom with rent. My mom is unemployed. I'm the only one working currently. Housing for student coming out of foster care, please. I'm currently in a shelter, and I'm seeking more permanent housing.

I would like further help on my on house situation. Regarding the housing, I am interested in reduced rent programs or subsidized housing opportunities. Student housing, please. Thank you for being so friendly. I appreciate that, but the truth is I don't have housing for college students.

And, in the last, year, our most recent data shows us that twenty three percent of our students at Contra Costa College, were displaced from their housing, and more were housing insecure. We desperately need housing, affordable housing for young adults, for students, for single parents. We need housing. And I'm happy to say we need, like, the green spaces, and we need the transportation. Oh, I love hearing the transportation folks there.

Oh, shoot out. Shout out because, you know, I'm a public transit friend. And I just you know, like, I used to live in Westridge, and, my rent was 1,800 for a one bedroom with walls so thin that I could hear the folks next to me, and they had the Finding Nemo, and they had, wrestling on at the same time, and it was great. And then I had rats and more rats and more rats. And so I moved out, and now I live in Point Richmond in a 25 bedroom boarding house. I have my own bathroom, and it's a shared kitchen. Very nice. Now it's $1,200 rent. I'm a a professional. I love my work.

I want to be in Richmond. I am passionate, about this place and my students and this community. I also sit on the council of homelessness, as the community representative. I agree with what one of the earlier folks said is that this is a gonna be a change, for this entire community, not just, Richmond. But what I will say is in the point of time count, for 2025, Richmond had over 208 on house folks on our streets who could use housing.

We are in desperate need of housing. For youth, 16 to 24, 18 to 24, there is only 15 houses, soon to be 30, yay, tiny spirit houses. And so I just really wanna encourage affordable housing, more of it a lot, quickly. Thank you.

Thank you. I

have no more public comments online and no more speaker cards.

Okay. Well, thanks to the community then for that input. Let's bring it back to the commission then to begin to, I guess, address the four questions that were provided. One question I had before that is you had the proposed plan, the existing zoning, and the prologistix plan. On the prologistix plan, there was an area that was white or not colored up. It wasn't one of the oranges. What was the intended use in that area?

Chair, I'm going to go ahead and let Bev Choi answer that question. Is Bev unmuted?

Happy to.

Okay. Good.

Thank you, Michelle. I appreciate the the question, chair. The image you're seeing on the far right, which is the mall landowner concept, as you noted, there's an area in white with other areas colored. And the reason why it's shown as white is because Prologis does not own that area in white. And so the concepts that we've seen from their team, only emphasizes and focus on is on the land that they own.

Thank you. That makes it very clear. Okay. Is everybody ready to dig in? Let's start with the first question about supporting the stepping down of residential density at the west and east edges to create mid density residential buffers. Should we just go left or right?

Is it possible to bring the question up onto the screen?

Yeah.

No, I know.

It's good for

the community to have the question What's your preference? One at a time, answer each question and then the next question.

Yeah, we'll do question one, all four of us respond. Then question two, all four of us respond with whatever your thoughts are on that question. So is anybody ready to go on number one? I could go. Okay.

Do you

want to go?

Yeah, go.

General statement, I totally support the city's proposal for this project. I think when you look at the previous general plan, which was just a dumb diagram actually of a lot of density on the mall site, and you look at the prologistix scheme, which is a fairly low density scheme for all of their property and putting any kind of retail or investment on other people's property, I think the city's scheme is the right direction to go. It's got a transition. So to the question here, it's got a transition to the east and west that will create an edge at existing residential community that will allow it to fit gracefully with the existing community. And it builds up in the middle where there's not residential units.

And that increased scale in the center is going to allow for many of the things that the community said that they wanted entertainment, retail, additional employment uses. I think it's a really good scheme. And I love the section that was drawn that shows that the height rises from low to high in the center. So I have some other maybe issues about how it's done, but I'm totally in support of this question number one, residential density stepping down at the west and east.

Gay, do you want to I agree with Bruce.

Okay. And Alex, do have any thoughts?

Well, it's hard like I've mentioned before, it's hard for me to form a conclusive opinion. I am not objecting to it, but I would like to understand how is that going to be. If it's a balanced development and they need more density in the middle, I'm not opposing it, then that's fine. But I want to see the balance of you know, like residential, commercial use, some business entertainment, all that stuff.

Yeah. Respect to question one, I also feel that stepping down the density as you get towards existing residential makes sense. Wasn't part of the creation of the city's general plan, so I don't know why so much high density is here. Maybe there are other places in Richmond where you're indicating that as well, or maybe this is like the main place where you can put more housing. But regardless of how this became the location for these higher density uses, I think having it lower as you get closer to the existing residential will make it fit in better to the community and enable some connectivity from existing neighborhoods into the new neighborhoods, whether it's open space or residential uses or plazas that are set up to be the centers of new neighborhoods in the development.

This one, I think, enabled that to happen. Okay. Question two. Do you support establishing a compact urban gateway district near Close and Garrity to allow a mix of higher density housing, active people oriented uses such as shops, dining, and public gathering places.

I wonder if it's possible to bring up the diagram. Maybe yeah, that's a great diagram. But maybe the diagram with the green dash line in Microphone. The center Sorry. Perhaps you could bring up the diagram with the green dash line. Yeah. It's just a concept.

Yeah. I'll give my 2¢ here. I think that you do need to have some focal points. If these are the ones you feel provide the nexus for further growth and expansion, then by all means, that would be a good place to do that. To get this whole thing going, you're going to have to have something that is a starting point.

As I was thinking about this, if one of these nodes were to become like a focal point for a senior community, then you could get some of the housing in. You could get some of the amenities that would serve that community. And those same amenities would then be available to other neighborhoods, existing or future. There's got to be something that kind of brings a population. There is no employment base here at the start, and I don't know if there ever will be or not.

If the employment's going be from the region around here, not this mall site, then you really need to be thinking about how are you going to get people out of these higher density houses to the employment. Or if you're going to focus some kind of employment here, then that needs to get going early on as well. But these making nodes make sense to me. And maybe one could be around the medical. It sounds like that's a need.

I don't know if you can ever get a hospital to pencil out anymore. It seems like those are kind of that's a medical use that just doesn't make you need it, but it can't pay for itself anymore the way insurance companies take all the money. So that's my input on number two.

Yeah. I'm looking at it with reference to the retail aspect. And so, yes, I support it. I think as long as you have sort of focused retail spots where there are other areas that are more residential, and removed a little bit from some of the retail activity.

Yes.

Should I go? I do have some issues design wise. I think that and here we're talking about the red area, which is the gateway zone. It seems like the major transportation corridors, Bloom and this green dashed line, are on the edges. And I feel if this gateway zone is gonna work, it needs a main street.

It needs some kind of easy access to get to the center. And by putting the main access points on the edges, I'm just not convinced that it's There's nothing here in this diagram that's making me think this is gonna be a great place to visit. I like the transit mobility hub. I have no idea what that is. I have a feeling nobody knows what that is.

It'd be great to hear that there's going to be a BART extension here. There's going to be a street car going down to San Pablo Avenue. I just want to hear something. But what I think it's going to be is a bus stop. We could hopefully do better than that. And I hope there's some thought put into getting people out of the cars and to this place without having to drive. So those are my comments about the gateway.

Why don't we follow-up if anyone on the planning team has any further clarity on what your current thinking is about the transit hub or lack thereof?

So my understanding is the transit hub, that is a suggested site. So it does say location may vary. I think that's one site. I think over time, keeping in mind I've been here since January, that big t has moved around a little bit. And even in speaking with the mall owner mall site owner, everybody seems to have their own idea of what where it might be.

Do they have any clarity on what it might be?

No. I mean

Not yet?

We just I think I think it's fair to say most people know that transit needs to be up on Okay. In the plan area. But like I said before, this is a framework. So, you know, we want everyone's contrary to popular belief, we want everyone's input so that it makes sense when or if that happens.

Okay. Did you have any thoughts on number two?

Yeah, just briefly. I mean, I like the idea and I like that that part is closer to IAT, which means that people who need to access it that who do not reside in the community, they they can just kind of take a short shortcut from I 80 and use it, and then the rest of the community doesn't need to use a freeway. They can take streets to access it. And I like the listed use, like people oriented shops, dining, public gathering. I mean, I like the concept.

Yeah, if you don't create some nodes, none of this will ever get off the ground. And I don't know how exactly you're going to do that. But you've got to have create one destination. Like I said, it could be senior housing. It could be student housing, although I don't know where The U where the college is relative to this. You need to put in some senior housing.

Affordable housing. This would have been

Yeah. Affordable. Put in some pickleball courts for the seniors.

Oh, yeah. Sure. Yeah. We need another pickleball court. In just sort of common, I used to live in Santa Clara County, and I have a friend who works extensively on affordable housing because I lived in Los Gatos, which nobody could afford except people who'd been there for a long time. And she was trying to get financing for teachers and firefighters and police And I was able to do that. I would assume we have some sort of program like that in Contra Costa County.

I would imagine.

I don't know.

I mean, I've has that been integrated into this whole concept?

I mean, when we get to the discussion of particular housing types and the funding that supports that housing type, no. We're not there in the sense that we're at a 10,000, 100,000 foot level. Right? When we when we talk about the plan's ability to to facilitate that type of housing, yes, that's allowed. Right?

Generally speaking, through the state and through our own efforts, this will have a housing component. The type of housing that's provided is, again, something that our goal is to remove the barriers and and find ways to either help support the funding, help ways to encourage the developer, or to encourage the organization that may want to develop that type of product within the city of Richmond. But to get into the details of who would be living in those homes at this point would be too hard to say. We're not at that point. We're not talking about a specific building being constructed in a funding source that would restrict or require a certain type of individual that's just there.

A percentage of, you know, if you if you said, okay. We've got the 78 acres and we're gonna have x number of units and some percentage of them. That's how I think we were dealing with it in Santa Clara.

Yeah. So I think the the idea of

of

prioritizing is a reasonable approach, right? You could place a priority on certain types of housing, certain types of accommodations for people. But to get into percentages as requirements gets a little bit tricky with the law. You start to prescribe something that we can't inherently control and would be otherwise maybe taking away from the ability for something else to occur on a site that we do not own. So in past practice, I think the prioritization of student housing, housing for teachers, housing for firefighters, can be policies that when you look at when a project comes forward to, say, the design review board, or if it's a project that's being, you know, administratively approved given different state laws that are in place, those are then the types of projects that people know the city has an appetite for.

Right? So you can set the policy as we look at the document in terms of looking at those specific end users in mind. But I think to put a percentage on the number of units would would be a bit tricky at this point. But understood.

Question, though, follow-up. There's no inclusionary housing policy in Richmond?

No. The city of Richmond does have an inclusionary housing policy, so we require 10% affordable housing to be built.

10%.

Oh, okay. And it depends throughout the city. It's broken into four major sections as to how the affordable housing, inclusionary housing works, and if a developer chooses to build that housing on-site versus if they were going to fee out in lieu.

But we can assume that there'll be at least 10% affordable housing as part of this project.

You can assume that the requirement is to produce, yes, 10%. Will an applicant choose to pay an in lieu fee? That is always an option. That in lieu fee then goes into the affordable housing fund that would then allow the city to develop its surplus lands in areas where we own. So for example, areas near the BART station, those four vacant sites that people are pretty common to seeing, those are owned by the city of Richmond. We are not in a place, right, to be the developer, but with the funds that may come as way of a developer not producing that housing, we'll be able to take that and help support a nonprofit organization in producing that housing somewhere else.

Okay. On to number three. Anybody want to start? Do you support creating transitional districts between the medium density residential areas and the higher intensity gateway district that allow a flexible mix of housing, retail, office, medical uses, and other potential economic drivers.

Yes, that's what you see.

For me, this question is not much different than question number one. It's just talking about how you that there would be a transition between different levels of intensity.

Other categories of use.

But Well,

they are asking about a flexible mix. So there could be housing other things.

I think my interpretation of this plan is if that's true of all of those orange blobs, that they all would be mixed up because they're all

Is that true? That's a good question. Is it is is it completely flexible throughout all the different districts?

Great question. I would I would one say the final list of permitted uses is something we develop in the next phase of work. But yes, as we were showing on the range of densities, when you see the bottom row of numbers there, that's suggesting the permitted commercial FAR. So the non residential floor area ratio that's permitted. So both of the orange colors and the red colors support non residential uses. The yellow is trying to protect that for residential only development.

That seems appropriate to me. But it's interesting that the question asks about transitional districts and says, should it allow flexible mix of housing, retail, offices, medical uses, and other economic drivers? And the transitional zone in this diagram says residential, limited, commercial. So it's not I guess the question is whether to go beyond this and say that more uses should be encouraged in this area or not. We're looking at the light orange.

It's not a really large area. It seems to me to be most important to have a mix of uses in the red and the darker orange than it is in the lighter orange. So I feel like this diagram is appropriate. And maybe the question, the way it's phrased, is not as appropriate. That's just my take.

I think that's a good observation on how to proceed. Did you have some comments, Gabe? I take it I didn't get the question quite right. Alex, did you have some thoughts? Okay, question number four.

Beyond the proposed elements such as continuous bike and pedestrian pathways, a centralized open space area and improved transit hub and enhanced access to Hilltop Lake Park. What other features would you like to see included to further enhance connectivity, health, and recreational opportunities? When I looked at the drawing, it's like you're connecting to the park with the lake in it, but you're not connecting in any way to the park to the other side. Can't remember the name of it. The Hilltop Park.

So I think as you've indicated, I'm assuming are kind of open space trap corridors for biking or hiking. There's kind of you're leaving out the southern quadrant, which should enable you to access also Hilltop Park. And I guess my overall thought on this, the residentialcommercial unit aspect of this is so loosely defined that it's hard to get excited. But if you could make a little stronger pitch for how these open spaces are going to begin to connect all this together so you can begin to envision this thing actually could hang together. Because there's nothing in my mind that holds it together right now.

But I think you could do that with open space and perhaps other elements like that. But you really would have to pop it out more than you have here because right now it's just sort of there not really sending a message to me.

Great point. Could I say anything about this? Absolutely. The question implies that these things are part of the plan. Continuous bike and pedestrian pathways, check. Centralized open space area, check. Improved transit hub, yeah, it'd be nice to know what it is, yes. And enhanced access to Hilltop Lake Park. Those things I mean, you're not asking about those things, but I support those things. Are there other features?

I think those are the ones that are important. So I don't have additional ones.

Yeah, actually I would like to know more about transit hub. What does it imply? Does it imply just somewhere where the existing routes are gonna connect or there's gonna be new routes developed to connect? Microphone. Oh. Yeah. What I was saying was that I wanted to know what what me what is meant by the transit hub. Is it just like a a point where the existing route is gonna be connected or there's gonna be new routes to be developed? So that would be probably my proposition to to have something that connects this new developed area faster to BART and to the ferry.

The other thought I have is while I talked about the green open space, it's also the urban corridor open space that needs to be connected. Usually when you build these buildings, you're going to have some kind of open space associated with them, a plaza or something like that. If you don't make those also work together, you just have a bunch of random items of where I can go drink a cup of coffee, but nothing that makes you want to travel through it, not just the green space, but also the I can't remember the planning term for the part in between the roof, the sides of the buildings. But anyway, you know what I'm talking about. You really need to again, this may be beyond where you're able to get yet, but you need to be thinking about it.

If you don't make these spaces that the developer puts around their buildings work with the spaces that the other developers put around their buildings, it's just gonna be hodgepodge. And you can really make it. You wanna make this place that people want to go to, you have to really think through not how individual projects as they happen over the next twenty or thirty years that they are cognizant of what was there and what's gonna likely be on the other side of them so that you create that that connectivity and excitement that people are looking for here. And that's that's something I would like to see. But I don't know where you put it in this plan or this concept.

Anything else from anybody? Not

on this question, but could I

Anything else on the whole?

I have a couple overall comments. Maybe a question and some comments. The question about the density here or the eventual build out needs to be determined before we do environmental review, which is our next step, right? So why don't we know how many units, how much commercial square footage, at least a range or some kind of I mean, what we heard is that we don't know at all what the build out numbers are. And we have to do that before we do environmental review.

And that's happening next. So I presume that you're gonna go to counsel, counsel's gonna give opinions, you're gonna regroup, you're gonna determine like the final concept plan and then you'll determine your numbers at that point and do environmental review. Is that true? Is that kind of where it's going to go?

So I'm going to go ahead and let Bev Choi answer that question.

Thank you, Michelle. Yes, commissioner. That that is absolutely correct. And that our team fully anticipates to, you know, collect the feedback shared today, collect the feedback that we hear from council in order to have more clarity as to what the densities and intensities are, being proposed within each of the zones so that we can firm up the numbers. We don't want to premature, share any of that information, until it's ready to be shared. And and so with those technical analyses that is going to inform what type of environmental document, we would be looking at. But that is absolutely part of the process for this project.

Thank you. I have a follow-up. The general plan had a minimum density, a maximum density, and another district with a maximum density in it. General plan had to be reviewed under CEQA. There was some assumption made about the numbers during the general plan process somewhere, just somewhere, MIG.

And here we have a new scheme where my understanding is we're spreading the density around in different ways. But did I read that we are anticipating the same density overall that we had in the general plan? Or are the densities potentially changing? I mean, overall additive.

At the end of the day, are you going to have higher density areas in the general plan currently or lower? Or lower? Do we not know yet?

I'm trying to get to a slide, just give me one second. I think this the legend here helps tries to help clarify where we are exceeding existing zoning on the site and creating space in the middle in between them. So on the left is existing zoning where you've got CR on the right side and CM five on the left side. So those orange and yellow colors are then moved and redistributed, but then we've introduced the layer in the middle and the layer the higher end, the higher end density layer above that. So to answer your you're asking, I think, a programmatic question which we're not at that point to describe, But you can see there is a higher end zone being added to accommodate a transitional zone in between that lowest density zone and the high intensity zone.

Yeah. Well, let me just make one comment about the general plan is the law right now. There's a minimum density required on this site given the general plan and zoning. Prologis is a developer that wants to do a lower density. That needs to be approved by the commission and council to allow for a lower density than exists now.

And so I hope that the city will expect to get some benefit from doing that rezoning to allow for pro lodges to have a lower density of housing there than they can do right now because clearly market forces, as been explained, makes it difficult to develop right now. So they need probably in early phases at least to have a lower density. So I think it's appropriate to have a lower density. Think the community is in favor of that. But I also think to have this be a significant project, it needs significant density in the middle of it.

And so I hope that all parties see that. I'm getting the sense that prologists in the city are in a tug of war here. There's a lot of vagueness about what the city is saying we're doing. And I just hope this all gets resolved favorably for both parties. That's my comment. Thank you.

And on that note, perhaps we're done for the evening. Is there anything more that you might want us to address? Well, then thank you very much to the staff and the consultants that have been doing this work. You're taking on what seems like an impossible issue, and you're making steps towards it, a solution, and we appreciate that. And we hope our thoughts help you a little bit further in that direction. And if there's no other comments, I will adjourn the meeting at 09:10.

Thank you, Chair.