KiehjmSml
THIS SECTION TO BE COMPLETED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE STWF%W£^
Lii'Y^KKSOmCE
'a-^ofwm
2021 OCT 18 PH l:^
r
FEE PAID: ^°^C^%
DATE: |0/
TO THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned hereby appeals decision: By the Historic Preservation Commission By the Planning Commission
Approval y of: Denial of:
Variance (V)
^ Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Design Review Permit (DRP)
Other
Tent Subd. Or Parcel Map (TM)
Rezoning (RZ)
EIR Decision (Em)
DESCRIBE ITEM AS PRINTED ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION or
HISTORIC PRESERVATION AGENDA:
PLN20-043 Garbelman Residence: PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review toconstruct a two-story, single-family dwelling on a vacant parcel located within the — S,Shoreline Overlay District at 357 Western Dr. (APN: 558-185-006).
STATE REASONS FOR APPEAL:
There has been inadequate process in the consideration of the applicant's plans, and violation and deprivation of the neighbor's due process in the course of the applicant's proposals to the city, There has been consistent lack of information and unreliability of information presented to the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission. The P.C. lacked correct and reliable information to support necessary findings and to make an informed decision about the applicant's plans.
Please see the attached form for further reasons and explanations.
DELIVER OR MAIL TO:
City Clerk
450 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor
Richmond, CA 94804
1 rd
NAME Claire Arbour, Simon Winer and Ron Elson
1360 Western Drive, Richmond, CA 94801
360 Western Drive, Richmond, CA 94801
TELEPHONE (HOME) (617) 699-2766
(WORK) (510)610-1166
Attachment 1
We are appealing the decision of the PC at its October meeting of a proposal to construct a new dwelling at 357 Western Drive, item PLN20-043 Garbelman Residence.
1. We believe that substantive design issues raised both by Design Review Board and the City Staff have not been adequately addressed and that required findings have not been met. The three conditions that the Planning Commission laid out for their conditional approval were not thoroughly or clearly met,
The DRB unanimously recommended denial when the proposal was first submitted. Since then they have not reviewed any plans or revisions submitted by the applicant. Even with the minor modifications proposed since by the applicant, the project does not meet major criteria for approval. The Commissioners relied heavily on a verbal presentation by the applicant's architect at their October meeting - without their nor city staff having the chance to review the latest written revisions submitted by the applicant.
2. We question the appropriateness or legal authority for the Planning Commission to refer back to a subcommittee of the DRB rather than to the full DRBfor review.
No transparency was shown in the selection of which members would be chosen; nor how they would proceed with their review. Their meetings with the applicant/ architect were not public and the public had no chance for input into the subcommittee's review. We aren't aware that their ideas or recommendations were then reviewed by the full DRB. 3, The applicant and his architect have not held discussions with community members and neighbors, despite their claim that they have.
While such discussions aren't required, they are a vital way of showing respect for the community. Balancing individual wishes with community well-being is a major issue these days in our country and our community. It would be reasonable to propose such meetings in an effort to arrive at compromise.
4. A requirement for approval (as per Item E of Resolution 21-17, A resolution of the planning commission of the city of Richmond approving the conditional use permit and design review with modification (PLN20-043) to construct a two-story, single family dwelling on a vacant parcel at 357 Western Drive, subject to conditions) is the demonstration that the proposed development is "adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services" (emphasis ours).
The present sewer system is known to be inadequate and to pose significant public health and welfare issues to the citizens of Point Richmond should it fail more than it has. A moratorium on any new connections, other than in the case of remodels of buildings that already are connected to the sewer system, appears to be de facto in place. Comments by the city council and consultants to the city have supported this moratorium. No new construction should be approved until the complex health and welfare issues are resolved.