Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay. I'm gonna go ahead and call the Planning Commission meeting for Thursday, November 7, to order. We'll begin with the roll call.

Chair Harrison? Here. Vice Chair Brubaker? Here. Secretary Timmins? Absent. Commissioner Golovitz? Here. Commissioner Lockett? Absent.

Okay. The next item is the approval of minutes. Given commissioners that are here now and whether they some of them some of these meetings were fairly not involved in. Do we wanna go ahead can we go ahead and approve them anyway? Mhmm. Okay. So we're gonna take them chronologically. Can I have a motion to approve the minutes of 04/04/2024?

I move.

I'll second. Just need a roll call or can we just just do a all in favor?

I'll do roll call.

You want a roll

call?

No. Okay. Good. Thank goodness. All in favor? Yes. Yes. Okay. Motion carries. The next, minutes are 04/18/2024.

Move approval.

I'll second that. All those in favor? Yes. Yes. Yes. Okay. Those minutes are approved. Next minutes are 06/06/2024. I move approval. I'll second that. All those in favor?

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Okay. Next is June 20. I move approval. I'll second that. All in favor? Yes. Aye. Yes. Okay. Motion carries. Finally, the minutes of 07/18/2024.

I move approval. I'll

second that. Okay. All those in favor?

Yes. Yes.

Motion carries. Okay. That is the minutes. Next is the consent calendar. I don't believe we have anything on consent calendar, so we will move to the Brown Act Forum. It's an opportunity for anybody in the public to wish to address an item that is not on the commission agenda. So if somebody wants to bring something up for a discussion, they're welcome to do so. We can't take any action on it, but we can certainly hear your concerns. Looks like we have at least one speaker.

Yes. Cordell Hendler. So

good evening, chair commission I mean, chair Harris and commissioners. I am Cordell Henley, and I'm bringing forth the comments that I had made at the last meeting. So number one, if you recall at the at one of the meetings that when we had the the expire group came and talked to us about the making ways expansion, one of the things that that I had spoken with Fairmead Hilltop about this, they had concerns regarding the the traffic impact on the the expansion. And so it it never occurred to them that I that the traffic has impacted their community. And it's like, it's terrible because as soon as you go up to that hill at 03:00, it hits.

And it's like, traffic would be backed up. So I'm like, I just had a concern regarding that and so did Fairmead Hilltop. They they were not aware of the project that occurred. They were not aware of it. So I commute I relay the information to their president and find out why they didn't applicant didn't come to us. So in the future, I'm a I'm a make this very clear, In the future, we have to make sure that that the neighborhood councils are are up to date on these projects that are that are being proposed because I get the list every month and it's like to see who's working on what and then then the applicant must talk to the community about this. Would you have an item on the agenda which you'll talk about later? And I will save my comments on that.

Alright. Thank you, Cordell. I think I'm sure staff will follow-up on the importance of meeting with the, neighborhood councils. Do we have any other people wishing to speak under the Brown Act? Nobody here in the room. Is there anybody online?

If you are in our virtual attendance room, please raise your hand if you'd like to speak on something not agendized on tonight's meeting, and I will promote you to be able to speak. You will have three minutes. Sabian Pan, I will allow you to speak.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you. Go ahead.

Okay. I am addressing I I sorry. This is my first time attending a meeting. I am coming to this meeting to address the emergency shelter with up to 25 beds on the Ma'am? Yes.

So there'll be a time during the presentation when the public hearing time has been opened for that item to address that. Would you Okay. This time is now only to address items not currently agendized on the

same Apologies meeting's for that. Yes. Okay. I'll wait for my time. Thank you.

Okay. No one else then for Brown Act. Okay. Then we'll go on to new items. Item one is the Chevron Modernization Project annual compliance report. Turn that over to staff.

Yes. Good evening, Terre Harrison, commissioners. Lina Velasco, director of community development. I'm joined this evening by Sarah Mazzano from Ramble who has been supporting the city in the evaluation of the annual compliance report for the Chevron Modernization CUP. So just as a brief background, the project was approved in 2014 by the city council.

One of the use permit requirements requires an annual report to be made to the planning commission regarding compliance both with construction related conditions, mitigation mitigation monitoring and reporting program, as well as operational emission, reports. And so we're here this evening to provide an update regarding the 2023 calendar year. So with that I'll hand it over to Sarah.

Great. So thank you. I am Sarah Manzano from Rambo and I'll be presenting on our review of the annual of the 2013 annual compliance report. Having technical difficulties. There we go.

Okay so the recommended action today is to receive the staff and consultant presentation of the modernization projects annual compliance report and receive and provide comments on the annual compliance report. So first I'll talk about the modernization project which is what this annual compliance report is about and then I'll talk about the requirements of the annual compliance report for framing and then the 2023 findings. So the modernization project consists of the construction of a new hydrogen plant and collection of new equipment improvements that remove naturally occurring sulfur contained in feedstocks processed at the facility including modifications to the refinery's existing sulfur recovery units. The project includes infrastructure improvements to facility piping, utility lines, and electrical systems. The project also includes project design features and mitigation measures to achieve no net increase in criteria air pollutants or CAPS and toxic air contaminants or tax and no physical increase in greenhouse gas emissions.

So here you can see the project site, Chevron

this is

the total Chevron Richmond refinery project site and here is a subset of the modernization project components so you can see the construction areas highlighted in black hatching staging areas and the various operational components that were part of the modernization project. So the annual compliance report, the city's so going into the requirements of the annual compliance report, the city certified the EIR and approved the conditional use permit

reporting in progress

in 2014. The conditional use permit or CUP, as I'll call it here, requires that every year beginning after the first construction, Chevron submit to the city an annual compliance report documenting compliance with the conditions of approval of the CUP and mitigation measures in the EIR. This is the seventh annual compliance report covering the operations and the minimal construction activities that occurred in 2023. And you can receive this or you can review this year's compliance report as well as previous years at the link shown here. So various agencies and individuals are involved in the compliance report to review the conditions of approval and mitigation measures.

The City of Richmond Fire Department, Contra Costa Health Services, City of Richmond Building and Planning Services, environmental consultants such as myself, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and City of Richmond Engineering and Capital Improvement Projects. And there are four phases of the project for purposes of compliance. There's preconstruction which is done, construction which is largely complete and preoperations which is complete and operations which is currently ongoing. So for 2023, there are minimal construction activities. The ongoing construction includes removal of instrumentation and electrical equipment located at the old hydrogen plant, which started in 2022 and continued into 2023.

And future potential construction includes modifications to the fluid catalytic cracker feed hydrotreater or FCCFHT. And so you can see here this is the same map as before but with yellow stars on where the current construction activity is happening. So, for construction, all obligations have been met and verified by the compliance team for 2023. Chevron will continue to submit quarterly reports until project construction is complete. Chevron tracks construction emissions using a tool that Ramble developed based on the actual activity of construction equipment.

Examples of conditions implemented during the of COVID-nineteen has been a COVID-nineteen NGHG The emissions from construction were 10 metric tons of CO2 in 2023 as calculated based on actual activity data and the emissions calculations tool Ramble developed. Moving on to operations, 2023 was the fourth full year of operations for the new hydrogen plant and the sulfur recovery improvements. This is the fifth annual report that includes operational requirements. There is an additional partial year. So it's the fourth full year fifth annual report with operational requirements.

All obligations for the 2023 operational year were met and verified by the city compliance team. So an overview of 2023, there's no net increase in criteria air pollutants. It's carbon monoxide, NOx, particulate matter, ROG or VOCs, volatile organic compounds, and no net increase in health risk from toxic air contaminants. And emissions are tracked through a similar tool developed by Ramble for operational emissions tracking. And emissions are verified by Ramble and by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.

There was also no net increase in greenhouse gas emissions from the baseline analyzed in the EIR, and emissions of greenhouse gases are verified through the California Air Resources Board. Facility utilization was 80% which is below the 93% utilization scenario in the EIR that would trigger additional mitigation. And so you can see now the emissions, the actual emissions from 2023 compared to the baseline emissions as analyzed in the EIR. The first column in the table shows the criteria air pollutant or greenhouse gas component. The second column shows each individual or the emissions from each pollutant.

The third column shows the baseline emissions as estimated and reported in the EIR and the fourth column shows the twenty twenty three emissions compared to the baseline emissions to see all emission there is no net increase in emissions. Compliance for ongoing limited construction activity is tracked and submitted quarterly to the city as previously mentioned and operations compliance is reported via this annual compliance report and review of mitigation measures and the conditions of approval on an annual basis. And the city contracted with Rambo, my firm, to verify compliance with which includes detailed reviews of the annual report, meetings with Chevron, cross checking emissions data, and reviewing the emissions calculations and reviewing of the flare monitoring data with BAQMD. A quick note on flaring. The refinery is required to notify the city of hydrogen plant flaring events over 500,000 standard cubic feet.

The city has verified that VAQMD also receives the flaring notifications as required under Regulation two, Regulation 12, Rule 12,405. VAQMD tracks all reported flaring activities on their flare monitoring webpage and the city concluded that the hydrogen plant flaring events are being monitored and regulated by the BAQMD including a review of the root cause and corrective action. Future actions will include submitting an annual compliance report by September 1 of each year based on compliance of the previous year. The report will then be reviewed and submitted to the Planning Commission as is happening now and certain applications have been fulfilled and thus are no longer applicable and will be removed from the report for clarity and succinctness. And again here's another link to where you can gather the full report.

And with that, I'll open it up to questions.

Do any of the commissioners have questions for staff? I have one question. It's pretty basic. Your presentation indicates that the actual emissions on all of these air pollutants or whatnot are below the baseline that was established back in 2019 or 2014. Have they continued on a downward trend over those years? Or do they sometimes go up and then come back down? Is it which is it kind of a continuing downward trend or variable year by year?

That's a great question. And what we've seen is it is variable year by year based on the activities that are conducted at Chevron. And so the emissions are calculated in apples to apples basis, and so it's based on on throughput and usage at Chevron refinery.

And they've never jumped up above the baseline. They've always stayed below it.

They have not jumped above baseline yet Just for

a follow-up because I had a question about that as well. It seems that especially there's some GHG is pretty close. It's only 4% below baseline. Is there ongoing monitoring that's done during the year? Is this one time a year that evaluation is made or the emissions are measured?

Yeah. That's a great question. We review the data once per year and it's the responsibility for Chevron to make sure they're staying below their emissions, the baseline emissions.

So and you're testing the emissions yourself, right? You're not getting that information from Chevron and just reviewing it?

We created a tool to estimate the emissions based on activity data from Chevron. So they provide their usage to feed into our tool which calculates the emissions which we then review every year See? During this process.

So but how is BACMA connected to that? Because you said that they also review emissions.

They also review the emissions through the emissions inventory. It's a slightly different process than the emissions reported in the annual compliance report. For this report, we have to do an apples to apples comparison to the EIR to fairly judge the no net increase requirement. And so if there's a change so we wanna use the same assumptions within that were used in the EIR so as to not get give unfair credit or change in terms of the emissions estimate.

So what does then happen with the BACMed measurements?

So BACMed reviews their emissions inventory on a separate scale. Some activity data is or activity data is the same, but some emissions categories are different and some of the the spheres are different. So they and some sources, we receive data directly or the data is directly from the emissions inventory from Chevron, but we review the emissions for the CEQA component separately.

I understand that. I was asking about Bachman, though. How are they collecting their data? Or are they also reviewing the same report? Is there any real world like measurement happening?

There is real world well, so to answer your first question, they review the data. We are not involved in that process for reviewing the emissions inventory with the air district. To answer your second question about real world emissions, there are some units have continuous emissions monitoring systems which monitor real world emissions which are fed into our tool.

Oh, so they are taken into account with your tool. Okay. Thank you. Just

to clarify, accumulative amount of emissions over the course of a year upon which these numbers are based, it's not a point in time that's then extrapolated to represent what it probably is for the year. It's an actual accumulation of GHG or whatever other pollutant it might be. Did I got that right?

Yeah. It's bay most sources are based on annual usage. So there might be an annual usage of a particular fuel as opposed to a snapshot and an extrapolation. So yes.

Thank you. Any other questions?

I actually have a question for staff and that is that in one of our minutes that we just approved I think it was April minutes there was a Chevron modernization report that we heard and made comments on. And this is the same year as that. So I guess I'm just wondering how that came about.

Yes. So last year, we were delayed because we found some, I guess, some inscription errors where somebody had entered an omission factor that had an extra zero. And so it threw the numbers off, and so there had to be a deeper dive. And so that delayed us in providing the report in 2023 as we had anticipated. So it was just that we were trying to figure out why the numbers what had happened, and so we were able to work through that.

We did report it to the commission in April and shared that we had found these emission factor errors. And so we had since corrected, but that had delayed the report coming to the commission.

So that was 2022.

That was covering calendar year.

This one's covering 2023. Correct. Mhmm. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah. And we do have Chevron is avail is here and would like to give some remarks to the commission when

Okay. It's appropriate.

We're all ears.

Okay. So Tom

Good evening Chair Harrison and fellow commissioners. I'm Tom Leeds. I'm an operations manager at the distillation reforming business unit. I'm joined here by my colleagues. We'll start with Chris Battleson, our health safety environmental manager.

Behind Chris we also have Brandon or Hakim Johnson, our public affairs representative. Next to Hakim is Brandon Sutter, our modernization compliance specialist and then of course we have Brian Hovinger, our public affairs manager. Thank you for the opportunity to be here with you tonight to provide the annual report on the modernization project which you heard from the staff has resulted in positive impacts in our ongoing commitment to safely operate a cleaner Chevron Richmond. As staff mentioned, the report being discussed today is based on the 2023 data. Although the 2024 data has not yet been verified, we continue to operate in line with the CUP and the MMRP and look forward to updating you again next year on that.

Just over ten years ago, Chevron and the city of Richmond found a common ground and a shared vision that included reliable operation, a mission reduction, job creations, economic development, and opportunities for the future. The modernization project was that common ground. We began construction in June 2016 and commissioned the new hydrogen plant and the sulfur removal improvements in 02/2019. Since then, Chevron has stayed well below the emission commitments and with with no net increase in criteria air pollutants, no net increase in the health risk from toxic air contaminants and no physical increase in greenhouse gas emissions over the baseline emission established for the project. The approval of the modernization project and the associated environmental and community investment agreement or ECIA has enabled a reduction in emissions from our Chevron facility while position while positioning us to safely and reliably produce energy needed by California families which includes about 60% of the jet fuel of the Bay Area refineries and about 20% of the gasoline in Northern California.

Notably, this includes about a 40% reduction in California in refinery wide particulate matter or PM emissions since 02/2018. It's also provided resources for the city of Richmond to achieve annual greenhouse gas reductions of more than 400,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents through energy efficiency projects for small and medium businesses. And we provided 3,300 scholarships through 35,000,000 in seed funding for Richmond Promise, 64% of those scholars were first generation college students and 91% are people of color. In total, 90,000,000 has already gone toward funding environmental, college scholarships, community programs and the community programs through the Chevron ECIA that supports the economic development, education and other Richmond community programs. We're proud of projects like modernization that allow Chevron Richmond to improve environmental performance and we believe this is also a great example how we can make investments in our facility that also reduce the carbon intensity of our products and reduce air emissions overall.

We're also taking steps to improve communications with the community. Last month we held our first community action plan meeting at the CoViz Richmond. These public meetings provide an opportunity to discuss operations and flaring performances and enhance our engagement with the community. The members tell us the issues and their suggestions on how we can better communicate. At the first CAP meeting, we shared that we have reduced flare duration compared to the previous year by 41% and through some other targeted efforts there's been an 85% reduction in flare gas volume at our hydrogen plant flare since 2019.

Looking to the future, we're also progressing technological improvements that will improve our flare performance and measurements. These community meetings will occur two times per year and we hope to see you at the next one. For over a hundred and twenty years, we've shared a proud heritage with our community. Our talented team of operators, mechanics, scientists, engineers and other professionals are thrilled to partner with the city to continue to safely produce affordable, reliable, and ever cleaner transportation fuels. I'm proud to say Chevron remains committed to operating in Richmond, and we look forward to partnering with the city, labor, and other stakeholders as we progress our shared future together. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any questions? I wanted to clarify, I think it would be with our staff. The emissions here are for their entire operation. It's not just for the hydrogen gas facility. I assume they have other petroleum activities going on there as well, or

am I because I'm not

that familiar with the facility. Is this just emissions from the natural excuse me, hydrogen production or is it also all activities at the Chevron facility?

The emissions reported here in this study are for all the sources that are affected by the modernization project. So there are other emissions within the facility that aren't replaced.

So it's more or less the total emission of that project site you showed?

Correct.

Thank you. Okay, if there are no other questions for Chevron or for staff, is there anybody I don't know if we have speakers that want to address this or, excuse me, questions from the audience?

Members online, if you'd like to speak on the Chevron item this evening, please go ahead and raise your hand, and I will promote you so you can speak. Seeing none, we have no in person speaker cards for this item. Thank you.

We have none. Well, thank you to Chevron for your continued working closely with the community. I think that's a really is a plus for both the city of Richmond and Chevron. So thank you, and we look forward to seeing you next year. Okay.

Next is item two, which is a holdover item, which is CPSA Emergency Housing Planning PLM 23 dash three sixty. It's a public hearing. I think we've closed the public hearing at past presentations before. Do I want to open the public hearing again as part of this one? Or do I am I do I need to open it again? We just

Chair Harrison, I mean, I think there's new conditions and comments that staff is bringing forward that the commission may want to consider additional public comment.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. Well, let me, call on staff then for their report on the, CPSA emergency housing application.

Thank you, commissioner. We're joined this evening, by Virginia Morgan, contract planner on staff with MIG, to give this evening's presentation, on behalf of Citi.

Good evening, commissioners. Are you able to see my presentation?

Not yet.

Okay.

I will also note commission we're joined by Dana Ayers also with MIG. We do have a city attorney. James Attensio is on virtually this evening.

All right. Good evening commissioners. My name is Virginia Morgan and I'm presenting today on the CPSA Emergency Housing Project. Staff recommends that the Commission review the project, accept public comment, and adopt the resolution to approve the use permit for PLN 23360. Today's presentation will include a review of the project site and background, previous direction from the Commission, data on calls for police service to the site, the applicant's statements to date, the response from the neighborhood, recommended conditions of approval, and a reminder of the required findings.

As a reminder and as detailed in the staff report, the project site is located at the corner of Bissell Avenue and 30 Seventh Street in the Pullman neighborhood. It falls within the t5 mso zone of the form based code and borders a residential neighborhood and a commercial corridor. The project proposal is to convert an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds. The majority of the proposed alterations are at the exterior of the structure, including adding windows for egress and redesigning the parking area to include a courtyard, refuse area, bicycle and vehicle parking, and a security fence. The project as proposed is compliant with all zoning standards with the exception of the parking design which may be addressed through conditions of approval to be detailed further.

To review the background of the site, starting in May 2023, the nonprofit California Portsmouth Square Association or CPSA assisted the City Of Richmond and the nonprofit's Ways to Love and the consortium of the East Bay in overseeing an emergency shelter on the premises. The shelter housed up to 15 people at one time and each resident had an individual lease agreement with CPSA. No land use permits were needed at the time since the city was involved with a three way arrangement to address an emergency situation at the Castro Encampment. Subsequently, in early August twenty twenty three, the Fire Department advised community development staff that the use could not continue because the structure was not compliant for a housing type use. The city discontinued its involvement with CPSA and the occupants moved out by 08/03/2023 at which point the use was fully discontinued the applicant on behalf of CPSA is now requesting a conditional use permit as a part of the proposed renovation to bring the building up to code and resume shelter operations.

The project was originally brought to hearing on June 6 with a recommendation for approval where it was determined that additional information and conditions would be required. The project was continued until July 18, where staff returned to hearing with clarifications on the project. Today, has been directed to bring the project with a recommendation for approval and added conditions, which have been informed by concerns for the community and a detailed analysis by the Richmond Police Department. At the request of the Commission, staff coordinated with Richmond PD who conducted a Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design Assessment or CEPTAD. The assessment includes data on the number of calls for police service within 300 feet of the project site, current site conditions, and recommendations for improvements in a variety of categories.

The report was used to inform recommended conditions for the project and has been included as an attachment in today's staff report. In addition to the subset report, staff requested that the data be broken down by month. The data shown represents the number of calls for service within 300 feet of the project site. In blue is the average number of calls per month from 2019 to 2023 and red is the number of calls per month in 2023. The number of calls for service was higher than average in the months of May, July and August during which months residents were present.

However, residents are reported to have vacated the site by August 3. The full data set has been provided as an attachment. Lonnie Holmes, the executive director for CPSA, provided a response to the Commission presented during the July 18 hearing which detailed the timeline of previous shelter use and proposed project details. CPSA provided a statement for today's hearing which is attached to the staff report and includes an email response to staff, a sample lease agreement from an individual residing at the shelter during the previous use, a copy of the business license for CPSA, a report from the Federal Bureau of Prisons for context on resident to staff ratios in other uses, Mr. Holmes' independent data requests to Richmond PD, and Mr.

Holmes' evaluation of the CPTED assessment process. An additional statement was submitted on November 1 after the finalization of the staff report which has been made available in hard copy for the Commission and the attendees tonight. The statement is an itemized response to the proposed conditions. The project received numerous public speakers at the last two hearings. Proponents of the project shared testimony for shelters as a vital need in the community and suggested they may deter crime by taking folks off the street.

Those against the project shared their negative experiences during the previous shelter operation and expressed concern over having a similar operation at the same location within close proximity to schools. At the direction of the Commission, staff coordinated with a spokesperson for the neighborhood to compile a list of considerations for the project. The neighborhood response was unanimous and then there in that there are no conditions that they believe would guarantee safety. That response has also been included. In addition to the standard conditions of approval and requirements for performance standards, the recommended conditions are as follows: a requirement for three management staff during daytime hours and two staff with one on call during evening hours.

Management staff must include at least two trained uniformed security officers at all times. At least one management team member must be designated as a community liaison with English and Spanish language capabilities, conduct regular community outreach, and be the point of contact for neighbors in the event of any incidents or complaints. Contact information for the shelter must be publicly accessible on the exterior of the building and any associated websites. Written complaints from the community must be addressed within forty eight hours. All new staff must be trained on best practices for the space and the surrounding neighborhood.

We recommend that the courtyard be extended to three seventy five square feet based on the California Fire Code standard for 15 square feet per person in a furnished assembly area. The proposed parking design as seen in the left image would require additional space to accommodate for van accessibility and for refuse. Staff recommends that parking be limited to two spaces, including one accessible space, and that the proposed fencing and vehicle gate be of compatible materials and of a semi open design for surveillance purposes. The image on the right represents an alternative configuration for parking which was presented by the architect at the June 6 hearing but which has not been fully formally incorporated into the plans. To accommodate either scenario staff recommends that condition number 1A be revised to state that any gate and fencing included in the required redesign should match in material and be of a semi open design.

Additionally, neither scenario is compliant with van accessible loading space. Staff understands that there are multiple alternatives for compliance with accessible parking in the California Building Code. To accommodate these alternative compliance options, staff recommends that condition number 1B be revised to require more generally that the applicant comply with California Building Code requirements for accessible parking. The proposal includes five short term bicycle spaces and a condition would require one long term space as required by the Richmond Municipal Code. A condition would require that the refuse area include a roof as required by the Richmond Code for the purpose of storm water quality management.

An updated parking design which meets all required standards would be required prior to submission of a building permit. Rules for parking conduct would be required to be posted in the lobby and staff areas plus additional signage at the exterior which prohibits loitering. Exterior lighting is required at all entrances and outdoor areas and must fully illuminate the parking area but be directed downwards to avoid unnecessary glare. The entry on 30 Seventh Street must function and operate as the main entrance and queuing must be monitored to ensure that it does not occur in the public right of way. Management must ensure that first responders are able to enter immediately upon arrival.

The operator must install and actively monitor a closed circuit camera system. At least one staff member must be trained to access the video footage and all footage must be available to law enforcement in the event of an incident. Considerations for public health and neighborhood compatibility include monitoring of graffiti and litter around the premises and proper sanitation and ventilation on-site at all times. Exterior improvements would include the removal of all existing metal and wooden screens on the exterior, replacing any wood in poor condition and applying fresh paint, and cleaning and or power washing the structure and site. The operator would give consent to inspection by an authorized representative with a notice of at least twenty four hours.

Lastly, beginning one month after the approval of a use permit and annually thereafter, the operator must submit and present a report to the Planning Commission which includes recent data and documentation of the site operations and any incidents or complaints and how they were resolved. Required findings for approval are met as follows: the project aligns with the general plan designation of medium intensity mixed use and aligns with general plan programs and policies which support the development of emergency shelters, as well as policies that support the development of underutilized parcels, especially near commercial corridors and with access to alternative modes of transit. The proposed use will be subject to provisions in the Richmond zoning ordinance including all performance standards with additional conditions to address ongoing considerations for safety and neighborhood compatibility. In summary, staff recommends that the Commission adopt the resolution and approve project PLN 23,360. Are there any questions?

Any questions for staff at the moment?

Yeah, I was confused. Could you put your show back up? I was confused by a couple of the slides you showed. If you could cycle back to near the beginning, when you were summarizing the previous events. So just to be clear, this was an emergency shelter up until May 2023?

No, sorry. That was the beginning. May 2023 would have been when the residents moved in based on that agreement with the city from Castro Encampment, and they were there for three months approximately until August 2023.

I see. And then the use ceased because it was not appropriate for housing and that's when the CUP application was required? Correct. Okay. Could you go to the next slide?

No, maybe I was thinking of the previous slide. So if you could just go back to I think there was one other question that I had. Go back one more. No, guess that's not it. Okay, thank you.

I had a

question. In the staff report, it talks about there are seven existing cameras with the need to maintain. And then it also talks about requiring four cameras. So is it four, seven, 11, which is it?

So I believe the existing condition is written such that a written a proof of where the cameras are located would be required for staff review prior to building permit approval. So that if there are as many cameras as required, which in the condition I believe says four, then that would be submitted for staff approval.

Does that mean they would remove the seven? Are we accumulating cameras or are we removing cameras here? We ending up with seven or are we ending up with four or 11?

I apologize. The number in the condition should be the final required number.

Which it says four.

Okay.

So even though it says they're gonna keep all seven, they're really not going to. They're only gonna end up with four. The staff report says they're gonna be required to keep the seven cameras that are there now.

I see.

Now but then so but they really aren't gonna be required to keep them? Or are they only gonna require to have four? You can see my confusion?

I do. I do. That that would be a typo a in the conditions of approval. It should match the existing number.

So we could adjust the conditions of approval tonight. We

we could seek more cameras or even increase. Yeah. And do we know anything about the resolution of these cameras? In other words, are they of a high enough resolution that you can actually identify faces in low lighting conditions? Or is it are they of such poor quality that they really don't would not be of assistance to either the staff there or law enforcement if they show up? Do we know anything about that at all?

No. I don't have that information.

Chair Harrison, if if the condition is explicit that it needs to comply with CCTV to have access to the from the police department, we can add the condition that it's subject to approval by Richmond Police Department.

I think we need to do that. We need to make sure we're getting imagery, one, that they can have access, and two, that it's of a quality that meets their their specifications or their needs. I mean, that's critical. Okay, other questions of staff at this time? We're gonna open up to public hearing that'll probably be your opportunity.

You had brought up the slide that you guys were asking about. Think

Sir, we're going to take public comment in a little bit. I think you are signed up. So during your public comment, you can ask your question.

So if you could bring up your comment at that point, I'd appreciate it. All right. Let me open the public hearing. And I believe we would begin with a presentation by the applicant of their project. Are there any concerns they have with the staff report? And is that how much time is ten minutes that provided Okay. With Is there a spokesman for your group? Thank you.

Mister Lonnie Holmes?

Can you hear me? Thank you, guys. Alright. Before we get started, I just want to go on a record. Previously, we're subjected to hate speech, which is disruptive of the meeting and the agenda.

Any person engaging in hate speech should be ejected. That is morally wrong, and it is preventing progress here at the planning commission meeting. It is also it also may be hate speech not protected by the First Amendment. I would suggest I would request a legal ruling from legal counsel overseeing the meeting to render findings regarding whether you can limit particular hate speech involved in this case and disruption of the meeting and inject anyone for such such behavior accordingly. And I'm sure commissioners do understand what I'm referring to.

You know, we're subjected to being called all kind of names and you have that information. Secondly, in terms of staff recommendations, I know staff have worked hard. We all worked hard. It's been you know, we all been kinda going back and forth. But with respect to staff recommendations on item number six, which refers to security staff. It talks about towards the bottom and b, at all times, security must make contact with person on the premises, which alright. No problem. Or in vehicles within the vicinity. And making contact with an individual on the streets or in the vicinity, you need probable cause. Even the police can't do that.

So just wanna make so we probably look at modifying that language. Additionally, on number 14, it talks about as to language, it should clarify that we are not responsible for trash, refuse, garbage items placed on the public sidewalk. Now granted, we'll do our best, but if people are dumping there and Richmond has a problem with dumping, you know, that is not our responsibility. As to item number 16, the language request we're requesting modification of language. As to BISSL, we cannot control parking on the public streets.

However, we will agree to post language requesting that staff avoid parking on BISSL. We have no authority to tell people where to park on the public street potential potential liability as to the acts of third parties are beyond control of the entity. As to item 23, the annual report, we're requesting that the language be modified, supplemented to include a compliance time frame of ten days if inadvertently missed or missed due to circumstances beyond control of the applicant. As to item 24, the consent of inspection, please note the following. Increased notice from twenty four to seventy two hours, possible HIPAA violations with turning over records.

There should be a compliance period before any revocation. City of Richmond will hold CPSA harmless and indemnify CPSA against any claims of improper release of records pursuant to a search warrant subpoena court order. As to item 26, the applicant requests that there be a notice and compliance time frame afforded to the applicant prior to revocation or modification. As to item 27, the applicant requests that the time frame regarding the administrative compliance required by Richmond city of Richmond not include not be included in the two year time frame for final approval. And as to item 28, the indemnification clause is overly broad and applicant requests that the indemnity clause be modified, supplemented, regarding sole negligence, negligence by the agency, etcetera.

We'll propose we can we will propose alternative language within fifteen days. I need to consult with my team regarding the appropriate modified indemnity excuse me, modified indemnity clause. And with that, you have the response that I had originally submitted on November 1, and that was based on recommendations that I had received that week a few days prior. And then since, some of that stuff has been modified to reflect some of the things that we had talked about. But, again, with respect to the supreme court ruling, Sheath versus El Dorado County, specifically dealing with a taking of our organization and specifically talking about further on down the line, inverse condemnation with in terms of over regulation.

But some of that has been cured by the the this latest iteration of the clauses that the city has come up with. But with that, what I need to do is yield to yield to our our architect, Greg, unless you have any questions.

We'll go ahead and hear the rest of

the Thank you.

Greg Van Mecklen, architect for the project. I have some just very simple ones, some of which have been addressed, think, by the report, which I wasn't aware of. In terms of the fence, as noted, the alternate plan, which has not been officially adopted, but there is no gate, so there is no gate to match. I would propose that we provide an enclosed wood fence six feet high on the west side to the side yard and four feet high on the south side north on side, rather, on the street side, which allows observation without changing privacy. So I would request that we make that modification.

And the gate, the person gate, obviously, would match that four foot high fence. In terms of the parking, I'm pleased to hear that just rather than trying to figure this out as a condition of approval, that we just work with the building department, enforces accessibility parking spaces. And so that's items 1A and 1B in the thing. Item 1D, which is a roof for the garbage containers or for the various containers, the Waste Management District has required 96 gallon rolling carts, the same that you have at home. You might have 64 gallons.

I don't think a roof is needed. A roof would inherently crowd the very small exterior space, whereas those elements are four feet, are less than four feet high. So they would fit neatly behind a four foot fence and would not be visible from the street. So we're asking for a change of that. That's not a hill that I'm going to die on, but I think it would be better for everybody for us not to build a roof in that very small outdoor space.

Item number 10, just a minor modification. Item number 10 is about the main entry and the limitations of use for the back entry for the courtyard entry. We believe the best place for the bicycle parking is withinside the fence rather than outside the fence where mischief will happen and bikes will get damaged. So we need to amend that clause to also say that the back gate can be used for people bringing in bicycles, and that would be buzzed in by staff. Finally, on item 11, ease of access, we've already installed a Knox box for the facility.

And that was at the fire department's request. So they have access to the facility. We can talk with them more about interior access to spaces. And then finally, item 16, parking conduct. Again, Lanny has addressed what the limitations are of controlling people's conduct. We think it's reasonable, no matter what, to allow parking on Bissell on the north side of the building up to the point of the parking area. So directly in front of the building seems like a reasonable place for staff or visitors or other people associated with the building to park, but not in front of residential properties. That's it.

One of the point that was made to to staff over the last few months is that the parking from the neighbor who owns the mechanic shop is generally putting 10 to 15 cars on the street six days a week, and they even park in front of our building. And so, obviously, you know, we can we'll have to ask them to not park in there, but legally, we have no authority to to to do that. So but just to give you the idea of the quagmire that this situation presents. Certainly concur with what Greg has indicated about the parking in front of the building.

Okay. Any other presentation from applicant? I guess at this point then we is there someone who wished to be a spokesperson for the community to present concerns and then we will I think we'll go back and start asking questions of the various presenters after that. I guess if there's a rebuttal thing as well.

I have six speakers signed up. All of them have noted against. So does anybody want to volunteer to you would have up to ten minutes. Everyone else would be limited to

not, then each one gets what? Two minutes? Or is it two minutes or

three I

saw one person stand up. Okay. Ronald Sanchez.

Hi. My name is Ronald Sanchez. I don't want a shelter in front of my house. A shelter is not good.

Don't bring good for

the speaker low. Put the speaker a little closer. I

don't want a shelter in front of my house. Our shelter don't bring anything good for our community, for our neighborhood. They bring crimes. They bring drug addiction, prostitution. They bring all things that they really bought for our for our neighborhood. That building don't have a space for a parking for any only for three cars. For three vehicles, they have parking. Last meeting, you said that they're gonna have a parking permit. What about the people that they're just camping outside? Because a shelter bring anyone to that shelter.

Maybe they're gonna be waiting for somebody inside the building. Maybe they're gonna be camping just because they're waiting for food. We don't know. But what I know is that all of them, they're gonna be criminals camping outside, taking our parking space. There is no parking space for the neighborhood.

Another thing is there is a middle school one block away. There is elementary school one block away. And these guys, they're gonna bring criminals to this building, and that's not good for anybody. Our families, they're not safe. Every time I have to go to work, I have to see these guys in front of my house just watching me because that's what they do.

They have all the time to do that. My neighbors, we're not happy with that. We don't want this. You have to bring education to our neighborhoods, teachers to our neighborhood. The only people that is getting benefits in a thousand of dollars are these individuals, the owners of that building, nobody else.

So it's really hard. I paid taxes for almost twenty years that I've been living in Richmond, property taxes. So how do you think I feel that the state is taking my taxes and give my money to these individuals that they don't wanna work because the system don't work. Shelters don't work. Why don't work?

Because people, they don't have a jobs. Honestly, if you see how many how many people in this shelter, they work, nobody's gonna work. They're watching the neighborhood. They're just watching everybody. So this is not good. It's not good for me. It's not good for my family. It's not safe. It's not safe for all the kids that they pass by to that middle school. And so you guys you guys are leaders, and you have to see the best for people that is honest, not for these guys that we don't even know them.

They just came from prison. So you tell me how you're gonna do that. We don't know them. They're sexual offenders, drug users. So some people, they have mental illness. So it's really hard for the neighbor for our neighborhood to live with that. It's not something easy. So you're saying that it's 25 beds. How many toilets? Just one?

I mean, that's my 25 beds. Yes. Parking for three vehicles? That's not good. It's not good for anyone. And you guys know shelter is not good. It's a residential area. There are families everywhere. So I don't have to go to UC Berkeley to see what's good and what's not good for the neighborhood. Bring jobs.

That's what we want, jobs, education. But Richmond is one of the poor cities in California. So and we bring criminals, we bring shelters. How we're gonna have something good for for the kids, for our families? The system of shelter don't work because they don't work.

Because everything that you get free is easy to get. So I hope you make a decision today, and I want the best for our neighborhood because I want everybody live in peace. We don't have to wake up and don't even go outside because these individuals, they're gonna be waiting for for our families, gonna be waiting to do something and trespass our properties. So my biggest thing is my family and our families because this is not not good for anybody. The only ones is the owners.

They wanna do business. I understand that. But they don't care about the neighborhood. And that's all I have to say. And thank you so much.

Thank you.

You

I will

speak, but after I just noticed they had ten minutes up there.

Well, we have subsequent speakers will get two minutes. So if you submitted a card, and you'll get a chance to I will be calling those people to speak. Right. They didn't have to use their whole ten minutes and apparently they

But they did. So can we use the rest of his time?

No.

But he wasn't signed up to speak, the architect.

Okay. When you were asking, you said the leader of the group would could speak ten minutes, but everybody else only had three minutes.

Yes.

And so we were I was thinking that since he only used six of those minutes and yet they got to split their time and use the whole ten minutes, I was thinking we could use the whole

Well, that's the idea of a leader. That's one person. So that's why

Rolando? Yeah. Right? Can you appoint me as an assistant to finish?

Are you ready for the next speakers?

Yes, I think we are.

Okay. Cordell Hindler?

Oh, I I haven't said anything yet, so thank you. So good evening, chair Harrison, commissioners. I am Cordell Henland. I'm a member of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council, and and I had two clarifications. So one, I looked at the site and it's practically in our area, Park Plaza and then the other part is in Pullman.

So I just wanna clarify that, so for the record. So I was looking at the project and I'm like as speaker who who said before me was like, he had very I had the similar concerns because as not only am I a community advocate, but I'm an uncle to a soon to be a middle schoolers. And I'm like, the very thought of my nephew's going to like Dijon, he has to like go to the Dijon to go past the site. And I'm like, I'm scared of my life because it's like every time I hear these images keep coming towards me, and it's like, you know I mean, we want we want we wanna be good neighbors to we want the African to be good neighbors to us, but it's like but it's just like all these vibes is coming to me. And it's like, you know, I mean, do we want to I mean, do we want them to be our neighbors?

I think so. But but but it's just like, you know, I just have, like, a gut feeling. It's like we wanna be good neighbors to them and we want them to be good neighbors to us. But it's like but it's up to you all to, like, to make to hear the rest of the to hear the other speakers because half like, that side near the middle school is, like, half a block. And I'm like, it's gonna it's gonna look something.

But it's like, well, I'm just asking that, like, you know, please consider this, two of the following. Because before you approve it, be before you make any recommendations, you also gotta talk to the other businesses along that corridor because you got got just a salon. They have concerns about the project. Then what else? You gotta talk with the the middle school, the administration. You know, I'd like to get their input on this because this is gonna affect them too because it's like, I was just hoping that the commission will, like, make sure that the applicants talk to those groups because I'm just I'm just overwhelmed by this because I'm like I'll just leave it at that and I'll pass my time to the next speaker.

Thank you.

Robert Sloat.

All right. First of all, Lonnie, I do recognize that you're trying to meet a need in our community. So absolutely there's Here a lot

of to your comments too

A lot of work has been put into this, and I just wanna recognize that I understand it's a big need. You know, we have zoning laws for a reason, and they are to protect our neighborhoods and the citizens in our communities. Let's not ignore the zoning laws, especially when recent history, according to their report, has shown that the highest crime rate was during the three months. The most amount of calls, and that's what we were trying to get back to that graph, was during the time that they had their shelter there before it was shut down. Also there's a middle school a block away.

Therapist office. They're dealing with kids that have been exposed to trauma already. That's why they're in therapy. There's already an element of crime within that area that doesn't get reported and is not on your guys' sheets. I am there at least once a week covering graffiti, picking up garbage. There's people sleeping on the bench. There right next to the bank. There's people dumping stuff in front of people's businesses. So this is something that is that goes on that quite frankly the citizens and the business owners deal with without reporting. So there's an element already up and down that corridor.

What we're talking about is bringing an additional element that is not necessarily good for the community and the families that are living there. You know, God forbid, if a resident of the shelter assaults or attacks a kid as he's going to or from school. If that happens and the community finds out that we, the community leaders that are there to protect our citizens, made an exception for a shelter that is not zoned for that area, that outcry will reach us. It will be us that they're like, did you allow this into our community and something happened? You know, this is an office building.

It has been an office building. That's what it was zoned to do. That's what it was zoned for. We can have training there, vocational training, support, occupational training. It is not for an overnight shelter. That is not the element we want to bring in. They have a great and needed business idea as well as a ministry and there is a need for that but not in this zone. Let's not break our own rules to shoehorn this into a community that's existing as a residential community so close to a school. I think the unintended consequences of doing that could be disastrous. Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrea Costa. I

think if this was a shelter for Richmond families, we'd be having different conversation tonight. But, unfortunately, we're talking about convicted criminals into our neighborhood, which brings up a lot of safety concerns. As we've already spoken that it brings up it'll track crime, drugs, alcohol use, prostitution. Blight is already an issue. It home shelters and things like this will increase the blight.

And as this gentleman said, he's not responsible for any illegal dumping or the for that could occur, which most likely will. As most of your gentlemen said, the community is often picking up after without reporting. So crime is already an issue here. Citibank has been there's been lots of chugging going on there where I think people know what chugging is. And there's also been several property crimes and assaults.

Poor economic development is already throughout the corridor now and we're hoping for just better economic development. With And a shelter nearby, I don't think that's going to attract more businesses. And the Church's Chicken that was formerly there has just recently been burned and has been occupied by homeless in the past as has other business areas down the street have. Furthermore, this is a working class neighborhood and small business owners, we've invested and homeowners have like all of their resources into their homes and their shops. And a lot of us don't have pensions, 401s, and our shops and our homes are not only our sanctuary, but that is our sole investment.

And with a shelter in our neighborhood, it brings down our value and just decreases the, you know, the quality of living as the security feels to be a threat. And we've already spoken about Dijon Middle School, which is a huge concern. I mean, this is already underprivileged children attending this school. I don't think we need to put them at further risk. And my concern also is the shelter said there would be like two staff at night with one security guard.

I don't think that's enough for like 15 to 25 parolees. Like I think it needs to be higher staff if that was even if it we're hoping it's not going to go through. And this is going put the burden on the police. Any incidents that happen outside of the shelter will fall on the police. And we already saw the record number of calls.

Our police department is already understaffed, overworked and I think it's going to fall on them. And also public works is going to have to be responsible for all the blight that goes on. And again we all know that they're out there trying to keep Richmond clean and they're overwhelmed. So I think that you just would ask you to please reconsider. Think of the neighborhood, how it's going to lower our property values, bring security issues and when the shelter, you know, residents leave and the staff leave, the community is the one that's gonna bear the burden as well as the police department and public works. So I ask you just to reconsider and please think of the neighborhood first. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sergio Joshua Vega Vargas. And after him will be Naomi Williams.

Good night. So last time the shelter was here, there were a lot of problems. There was dumping syringes on the floor for some reason and there was people yelling and fighting every like five minutes. Also, he's the one of the people that was supposed to be doing this said that if anything happens outside, it's basically, like, not their problem. So if somebody gets hit or like something happens to them, it's not going to be his problem, but rather the police's problem or the city's problem since it's not quote unquote his responsibility.

Also, there were kids people were yelled at the kids that went to that school were yelled at when they were here. And so one of my neighbors that's also around my age, he was also harassed by one of the shelter people. There was also more violence during that time than any other time in my entire life there, which was basically my lifetime until now. And I never thought that like that much violence in one place was possible until they came. That made me realize that not everybody comes here with good intentions.

Also, some people over there need mental help. And the emergency emergency shelters and mental health places are two different things. They're not the same thing. So I want you all to please consider about everybody that's going there because it might if it gets approved, it will be the same thing from last year or it will get worse and more things will happen because there have been many incidents last time they were here. Thank you.

Thank you. Please, I'd appreciate if you'd refrain from applauding. We all know there's points of view here that favored and not favored but we need to keep it level.

Naomi Williams.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is Naomi Williams, and I just happened to be the president of the Pullman neighborhood. I didn't get the notice that there was gonna be any changes to any place around in my block in my area. But I can see now that there was one, and nobody satisfied. I mean, the majority of the people that live there are not satisfied.

So if I if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time, that's me. I'm always there. So what I'm trying to say is we don't need anybody living right there by the bank on 3930 Seventh Avenue a street right next to McDonald's. Well, not McDonald's Street. McDonald not McDonald's.

Cafe, McDonald's Street. We lived there for peace, and they tried to put something else there before, not at that building. On the other end, they were gonna bring some cars or trucks or vans for people to live in. And we told them then everything they don't want, they put in Pullman. Everything they want, they take it someplace else.

This is a bad place to put this shelter, a so called shelter, and nobody came to the council for this to begin with. So we're not we didn't even know about it. So I'm thinking about you should think about what you're doing. I know that we need places for the people that don't have places, but there are other places, a lot of places around here in Richmond that they could go. But I guess somebody wanna make some money, But they can't make it off of Pullman. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. Others?

I do have a few members online. I will start with John.

You see them on the screen?

I think there's somebody online.

Yeah. Are we gonna see them on the screen?

You'll see them on the screen. John's just joined.

I don't think so. I think it's

John, go ahead. Your three minutes will begin when you start talking.

Alright. Can you hear me? Yes.

We can hear you.

Alright. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good evening, commission. I'm not against a shelter for the grace of the almighty goes every one of us. However, I think the applicants are not the people for the job. If you go back for the this is the third meeting. Not one time has the applicant or applicants acknowledged the concerns of the neighborhood. Just imagine. We have problems.

We let them know. They could give a blank. They don't live here. Sometimes you need to act like life is more about others than how much money is going to be put in your pocket. That said, there are three schools, two immediately down the block, John and the new school, Stiege.

Stiege may be there forever. Then around the corner, have King Elementary. Down the street, have the Rise Center. Not a good look, not a good place. I think the city of Richmond will be liable in case something happens, and you know what I'm speaking about.

There are far too many young people that have to travel to and from that place on the corner of Bissell And 37. I suggest to you reconsider, find another place. This cannot be it. Go back in the last meetings and see if what I am saying is true. Has the applicant acknowledged the concerns of the community?

A resounding no. I've spoken to everyone in that corridor. Not one of them is excited about having a shelter run by unresponsive owners. Please consider the concerns of the community. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other speakers?

Yes. Next, we have Roxanne. Your three minutes will begin, Roxanne, when you start speaking.

Hello. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can hear you.

My name is Roxanne Molina. I live right next door to this place that is to be sheltered. I cannot believe that it has taken this long and this many meetings to come up with a decision. This last meeting was not published as much as the other previous two, I did not get a notification. Miss Morgan had promised to email me.

I have been communicating with her directly by email, and I this is the reason why I was not there presently. It's totally unfair, and it almost looks like it's done on purpose so not all of us show up. This neighborhood is for working people, hardworking people who maintain this neighborhood as safe as we can and as clean as we can. We all do our part to keep it clean. The shelter that was there before caused a lot of problems for all of us, vandalism to our cars, trespassing on our property, abusing our children who are minors and have rights.

And we have witnessed people defecating in that parking lot, having sexual activity and drug activity and also repairing cars, dumping oil. There was also a death on this property. Let's not forget that one human life was lost because of all the lack of monitoring and lack of responsibility that these people that are bringing this shelter have. All they think about is how much money they're gonna bring into their pocket and not all the damage that they're bringing to the neighborhood. It's totally unfair.

Please think of the people and make a decision already to deny this permit permanently to this building. This is an office building, not a shelter. We don't need the problems. We don't need the additional people, hovering over our properties. I have had garbage dumped over my fence, which is facing directly this parking lot of this property.

I also the back my backyard faces the Citibank parking lot. I also get dumped from there on people that just come and throw things over the fence that and and that includes needles used for drugs. It's it's really a problem. We don't need more problems to this neighborhood. Please rethink this permit and do not approve it. We beg you, all of the neighbors are in the same feeling. Thank you for listening.

Thank you.

Next, we have Sabian Pan. You're in the meeting. Feel free to begin speaking. Three minutes will begin.

Hello? Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for your time. There's three points I'd like to address. The first is safety. All the previous speaker has spoken quite a bit about safety that would relate to the the the neighbor. I have a different perspective. I have a homeowner on the 300 Block On 30 Eighth Street since twenty two thousand nine. So I've been a homeowner here for fifteen years. So I've slowly seen the neighborhood improve and the home value increase.

And in my immediate blog, I've talked to three new neighbor who bought the place. And one of the reason they decided to come to this particular place is that it's relatively safe in in the city of Richmond. So the neighborhood has improved. So and the value has been increased. And like one of the speakers spoke of earlier, the people live on the street are working family.

Their home is most likely their retirement and the majority of their wealth. So if home value decrease because the shelter is in this place, who's gonna look after their financial being for the homeowner on the neighborhood? I mean, I'm a CPA. I I have colleague that that's a forensic expert for class action lawsuits. So if the home value drop for a lot of the homeowner in the neighborhood, you are looking for very potentially, you're harming the financial future.

That just the the from the money perspective. The last point I like to make, since earlier in this meeting, Chevron has been meeting all the environmental requirement. So as an example, why can't we have this project in a more industrial or other zone that's more suited for shelter rather than a residential neighborhood. If if you do wanna put this in the residential neighborhood, why not put it in the city city mayor's neighborhood? Right?

I mean, why is that have to come into a working families? Like the gentleman said, he has to go to work. Who is gonna look out for the safety of the children? So there's a middle school, but on the 300 on 30 Eighth Street, there's this childcare facility. There's a church with kids running around.

So if we cannot get a guarantee of our safety, how you know, I really like the commissioner to consider our concern, because how can we defend ourselves if something happen? Police is stretched with all the defund the police movement. So I really, beg the commission to reconsider, you know, this project. So thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else online who would like to speak? Seeing none.

Okay, then I will close the public comment period and I'll bring it back to the commission to ask questions of staff, the applicant, or the community, or rather comments you wish to make. Does anybody want to get started?

Do we do a rebuttal first? Are we

Do we need to do the rebuttals and all that? I guess we do. Well,

mean, think those let me look. Typically, it's an appeal where you're

Oh, okay. We've been through them before.

Yeah. It does allow for the applicant and proponents may rebut.

Okay. Then I'll reopen the public hearing initially. Then we would have, if the applicant wishes to rebut anything that the community has said, you've got five minutes?

Two. Two

minutes to do that. And likewise, there will be two minutes for the community to rebut anything that the applicant says. So the applicant would like to approach the podium.

Thank you, commissioner. The individuals who were placed in the facility, the city can tell you more about them than we can. There were background checks done. Additionally, we had children in the facility that went to DeJean Middle School. And I may add that the police data that you have that we submitted when we met with chief French shows there were six calls for service.

And those six calls specifically talk about exactly what the calls were. You had +1 911 disconnect. One was brandishing. One was a fight. One was a mental patient.

One was a spousal battery, and one was a suspicious vehicle, and none of them were associated with our facility. Of that, based on the police data report provided, there were zero incident reports and zero arrests. We have as much a stake as anybody. I have a had a house on Bissell right down I'm I'm sorry, on Beck Street right down the street, okay, for years. So, you know, we're concerned members of the community.

We don't want any harm to come to anybody. I understand folks' fears, but none of that transpired. None of these folks were arrested, and none of the stuff I mean, while they may have had their experiences, I I don't know what their experiences were because they didn't come to our facility. We made it known that they'd come knock on our door and come talk to us and let us know. But part of the reg or part of the moving forward, one of the things that we will have assigned posted and with our number.

If there's an issue, call us. But we cannot be responsible because the courthouse, for example, is right across the street, and they're there five days a week. So when you look at people coming in and out the neighborhood, it's a transit neighborhood, and folks are coming in out on a regular recurring basis. And you cannot attribute any issues or all issues relative to what we're doing. I think it's not practical.

Think your time's run out.

I'm sorry.

Thank you for your comments. Is there anybody from the neighborhood who wish to present a rebuttal? Okay. We've got someone coming forward.

It's only one person?

Yeah. Just one person. Okay. Again, don't not everybody gets That's right. That would be

fun. Just want to say that this guy, he's lying. I can prove it. I have videos. The police went to that building because they called the police department. The people inside the building called the police department because somebody got a gun. Was a lot of police activity because these guys, they never they never were in that building. So my thing is I had to call the police department almost every day because they were arguing. They were fighting in the middle of the night because their business didn't go the way they want it. That's what happened.

They were trespassing my property. So if you're gonna have your own business, you have to take care of your business, not let your business by by itself. You know? These guys, they don't know. I don't even see them. And when I saw them, what they were doing is getting the garbage, those cans outside the street. That's what I saw. They never introduced. They don't have to introduce. But at least those individuals that they were living in that shelter, they were criminals. I can tell that. Isn't it wasn't a it wasn't a shelter. I mean, that's what I have to say. I can prove it to you guys that he's lying.

Okay. That no. It's only one rebuttal. Sorry. Alright. We would be here all night. Okay. Then I think we've met our obligation.

Excuse me. Could you give it to the police report? Six call only. Yeah. Give it to them.

I think we've met our obligation under the guidelines. So I'm gonna close the public hearing at this time and bring it back to the commission for discussion, questions, comments. Whoever wishes to go first. Go ahead, Alex.

Go ahead.

Well, I'm just gonna make a comment. I'll try to be brief. So there is quite a few concerns that being brought by the community. And most, if not all of them, in one way or the other, touches on safety. Now the staff in their proposal or proposed approval outlined some conditions, and some of those were designed to address safety.

Now community appears to believe that this is not enough, and the project sponsor appears to believe that this is too much. In fact, I see a letter submitted to to the commission or to the staff that raises some legal arguments about taking. I don't know if CTI attorneys in the position to address those at this time, but that that's I don't I don't believe we're prepared to to analyze those. There's also

I think Alex is referring to the point number two in the letter from the applicant about whether it's an emergency facility or that the one?

No. It's a letter dated 11/01/2024. No appliance case law, subsection California Code of Regulations. So there's a lot of legal arguments. But, yes, there is also a legal argument raised by a member of a community if, in fact, the proposed use of the facility qualifies as an emergency shelter because it's not it's not temporary, I guess, or so that again needs to be analyzed if if it is in fact true. Do you know if the city

We have

yeah. James Tens here

is available.

He's here. Yes. Okay. And

then also applicant requested some changes to the conditions as they are, and I I don't know. They don't seem to agree to them, so I don't know how we can approve something that the applicant does not agree to follow.

I'd I would like to hear from the city attorney if he's available.

Sure. James Atencio, senior assistant city attorney. So I guess there's a few questions asked of me. With respect to the first question, we have reviewed the applicant's, letter from November 1, and, they're essentially arguing that the conditions that are being opposed are in violation of California law. We've looked at these conditions, we do we're comfortable with staff's, recommendations, and and we feel that they are, there is a nexus in proportionality standard that is met here that the conditions are tied to the proposed use of the building and that they are not, exceeding, what is reasonable with respect to the effect that the use would have on the on the surrounding community.

With respect to the emergency shelter, classification, I believe staff has made that determination, and we and we also have concurred that the that the proposed use would would be an emergency shelter. I've been just be just checking with staff to see if there if there's anything that staff wants to add to that.

Okay. Thank you, Michael.

I got

I I had my potential in

my life before. I apologize.

Oh, okay. Oh, and I'm sorry. And then with respect to the last question, you know, with respect with regards to conditions that would be imposed, if, you know, staff can approve or I'm sorry, the planning commission can approve an application with conditions that are imposed by the commission as recommended by staff. And if applicant essentially doesn't agree to those conditions, the applicant has the right to basically appeal the decision. They can appeal, you know, the the conditions that were imposed to in this case, would be the city council.

Okay. So, I mean, if we wanted to, we could try to do some wordsmithing here, or we could just pass it along and let the staff work on wordsmithing.

Sure. I mean, that's so yeah. Let me just clarify. That is something that the commission can do. You know, ideally, you'd work with staff or I'm starting up. You'd work or you would get feedback from the applicant. And if the applicant isn't is as signaled you know, this is my opinion. If this I have to clean it, it's signaled an unwillingness to adhere to the conditions, you might, you'll have to just, go ahead and deny the application.

Okay.

There was an open question, though, that the attorney brought up about just confirming that the use is an emergency shelter use?

Yes, and I apologize I don't have the exact definition, but part of that definition is a limit on time period of occupancy. And so, you know, it's temporary shelter and also the element of emergency based on apologize. I'm not going to get the wording right. But part of it is that there's a limit on occupancy, duration of occupancy.

So I think we had some questions last time, if I may, regarding the actual use of the facility and what would be involved. And I don't feel like I ever understood exactly what the applicant was proposing. And I'm not sure that we have more clarity now than I did before, but it does have to do with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, is that correct? These would be formerly incarcerated individuals.

So my understanding is that some individuals may come through the Department of Corrections but not exclusively. And the applicant may want to clarify that but that's my understanding.

Okay and an associated question is how long these individuals would be in the shelter so I guess those are two things that it would be nice to clarify.

I can clarify the question on time. Under government section code 65,582, it is housing with a minimal supportive service for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or household may be denied emergency shelter because of inability to pay. So six months is the Is the maximum. Is the maximum number of months.

Okay. Thank you. Oh, I had another clarification to ask about, and that is, somebody said that somebody questioned the zoning and whether this would be allowable on the zoning. And it's pretty clear in the staff report that it is allowable under current zoning. Is that correct? As a conditional use. As a conditional use.

They have to staff, in order to be approved the conditional use permit, they have to meet the five findings. Staff is prepared to report the list how they believe those five findings can be met. And my feeling is that, although their staff is trying very hard to make this succeed. I do not believe that no matter what is done to make this modifications, conditions on this facility impose them, that I don't believe conditions, requirements two and three, relative to the impacts on the neighborhood, I really think they can meet those. I don't think it does not, even with our conditions that you have proposed.

And I think going forward, they will not be able to do that. And in part, that's because of the as was expressed by the attorney and by others, the attitude that they don't want to even comply with some of these conditions. What we, as a city, have said, these are conditions that we think are going to make this use possible in this neighborhood, if at all. And the attitude that, how are you going to be their neighbor when you don't even want to work with them? I'm frustrated by that, just so you know what I'm feeling.

So I personally think that requirements two and three for conditional use permit cannot be satisfied by the project as currently provided to us. So I don't support the application. I don't know if there's Go

ahead. I was just wondering if there was a motion you were going to make. I

didn't know if there's any more discussion. If not, I'll make a motion.

I don't think I have more discussion.

Motion to approve, motion to deny.

I'm going to make a motion to deny the conditional use permit application, and we'll see what happens.

I'll second that.

You're gonna need to find make findings. I know. But

Yes. So before the commission votes, I mean, I think what I would recommend the commission do is recommend that staff return with revised findings before you can actually take the action because then it'll be appealable. There'll be a basis as to I think right now if he I think the action would be to direct staff to return with specific findings and if you could in your remarks, provide us some of the very specific public health impacts that you believe can't be mitigated with conditions of approval, then we can come back and integrate those into the findings.

What I would move to direct staff to prepare an alternative condition findings that the conditions needed to be have this approved as a conditional use permit cannot be met. Specifically, I think the safety of the compatibility with the neighborhood in terms of safety for surrounding uses, surrounding residences, I don't think can be fully satisfied. I think there also would be concerns relative to noise in terms of behavioral activities of our residents. I thought there was a decent condition here to try to keep the neighborhood clean, but the applicant doesn't want to do that. So I think the risk of litter and whatever you want to call that is a nuisance.

To me, that's a type of nuisance that the inability to address those kinds of likely impacts is not being achieved. Those would be my recommendations.

Is there any way to add that the history of the facility is not supporting these findings according to testimony that we've heard from the community. And I would just like to add that the number of beds previously was less than the proposed number of beds proposed. And that's a number that is by law, by right. And so even the concern from the community about the previous facility, it seems, is even more heightened by the allowable number of beds that will be in the future. So I don't you know, that that's a

good good good additional item. Anything else? Is that sufficient direction for staff?

Yes. And we can return. And since public comment was taken this evening, we can the commission could take an action. Then that way, at that point, it would be appealable once adopted.

So I sorry. You're gonna try to bring this back after public comment or at the next meeting? Or

No. I'm just expressing that at the next meeting, you will not have to take public comments since we are taking in your direction on areas where we can revise the findings and return. And then at that point, if it's adopted to your satisfaction, the item will be appealable.

All right. Thank you. Right. A motion have direct staff to prepare alternate findings that do not recommend approval. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Okay. Could we continue the item to December 19?

You can make it probably a motion.

You want the motion to be that we continue this item to receive these findings?

Yes.

Is it part of the same motion, right? Direct staff and continue the hearing? Yeah.

Or continue the item.

I move that we continue this item to the December which meeting? The seventeenth?

I'm just confirming the two options here. Pardon me. It would be December 5 or December 19.

Can you

be ready by the fifth? Am I gonna be here on the fifth?

Can we be ready? We be ready by the fifth. We have enough time to do public noticing.

Would it be better to do the

The nineteenth. We do have another item. It would be ideal to combine them on that date. Yes.

Efficiency. Continue to the nineteenth, with direction that staff would prepare alternate, findings that would support the denial of the project for the reasons expressed by the commission. Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right. Any further discussion? All those in favor? Do you need a roll call or if we just vote?

You can just vote.

Good. All those in favor say aye.

Yes. Aye.

Opposed? Okay. Motion carries.

Okay.

Next is a report of officers and commissioners and staff. Does staff have anything thing they wish to enlighten us about?

So the planning department will be onboarding two new planning technicians in this So we have Elder and Nino who will be starting actually next week on Tuesday, and then we have Nora who will be starting December 2. So we're very excited to be staffed up again and be able to serve the public both at the counter and on the phone and via email in our normal ways. In addition to that, we're in the process of hiring and recruiting for an additional senior planner to help facilitate the historic preservation commission, long range planning, advanced planning, and just general maintenance of ordinances. So, we'll continue to Congratulations.

Fantastic. That's really great to hear. Sounds good. I have nothing to report. No report here. No reports. Okay then. I believe we're adjourned at 08:30. Thank you all for attending.