Attachment 2
RESOLUTION NO. 21-17
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
APPROVING THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN REVIEW WITH MODIFICATIONS (PLN20-043) TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A VACANT PARCEL AT 357 WESTERN DRIVE, SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS.
WHEREAS, Rudi Garbelmann (the "applicant") filed Planning Application PLN20-043 with the City of Richmond requesting a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review to construct a two-story, single-family dwelling on a vacant parcel (the "proposed project" or "project") at 357 Western Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 558-185-006) (the "subject site" or "premises"); and WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review are subject to the provisions of Articles 15.04.306, 15.04.805 and 15.04.806 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the project is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(a), up to three single-family residences may be constructed under this exemption; and
WHEREAS, on November 18, 2020, the Design Review Board held a public hearing and voted to recommend denial to the Planning Commission of the design review citing their inability to make certain required Design Review findings pursuant to Section 15.04.805.050, specifically findings A, C, and D; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed project for conformance with the provisions of Sections 15.04.806 and 15.04.805 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance related to Conditional Use Permits and Design Review, respectively, as well as all other applicable regulations, including but not limited to Sections 15.04.306 and 15.04.201.030 of the Richmond Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, April 1, September 16, and October 7, 2021, the Planning Commission conducted properly noticed public hearings pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, including the agenda reports; and WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings, with supporting statements of fact, regarding the applications consistency, as required by Section
15.04.805.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance, for approval of the Major Design Review:
A. The General Plan and any applicable specific plans;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential, and the zoning designation is RL1 with an -S, Shoreline Overlay District (which is the area within the 100-foot shoreline band). The proposed project complies October 7, 2021 1 of6 Resolution No. 21-17
with General Plan Policy LU4.1, which encourages protecting, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline, including being harmonious with the site's surrounding.
B. Any applicable design guidelines;
Statement of Fact: Criteria Not Applicable. There are no applicable design guidelines in this neighborhood.
C. Any approved Tentative Map, Use Permit, Variance, or other planning or zoning approval that the project required; and
Statement of Fact: Criteria Satisfied. Pursuant to Section 15.04.306.030, a conditional use permit is required for new uses or development with the -S, Shoreline Overlay district. A Conditional Use Permit must be approved by the Planning Commission for the proposed residence. The project also observes the view corridor conditions on the parcel map.
D. The design review criteria in Section 15.04.805040.
The project must satisfy these criteria to the extent they apply.Criteria Met? A. The overall design of the project, including its scale, massing, site plan, exterior design, and landscaping, reflects design integrity and the relationship of form and function in a coherent manner.
YesNo D
B. The project design evidences a sense of place; does not overwhelm or adversely impact adjoining properties; and respects prevailing setbacks and the scale and heights of neighboring buildings and how they relate to the street.
YesNo D
C. The project's design elements, materials, signage, and landscaping are internally consistent, fully integrated with one another, and applied in a manner that is visually consistent with the proposed architectural design.
YesNo D
Lighting and lighting fixtures are designed to complement buildings, be of appropriate scale, provide adequate light over walkways and parking areas to create a sense of pedestrian safety, and avoid creating glare.
YesNo
E. The proposed building design and landscaping supports public safety and security by allowing for surveillance of the street by people inside buildings and elsewhere on the site.YesNo F. Landscaping is designed to be compatible with and enhance the architectural character of the buildings on site. Proposed planting materials avoid conflicts with views, lighting, and signage.YesNo D Statement of Fact (A-F): Criteria Satisfied. The project will incorporate conditions of approvals that will modify the roof, ensure the roofing material is non-reflective, and landscape is provided along the north elevation to reduce the mass and bulk. These additional changes will help to enhance the design of the new residence with the prevailing pattern of homes in this neighborhood.
WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with supporting statements of fact required by Sections 15.04.806.040 and 15.04.306.030 of the October 7, 20212 of 6Resolution No. 21-17
Richmond Zoning Ordinance for approval of Conditional Use Permit for uses and development within an -S, Shoreline Overlay District:
A. The location of the proposed conditional use is in accordance with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan and the land use designations for the project site; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The General Plan land use designation of the Project site is Hillside Residential and the zoning designation is RL1 and -S, Shoreline Overlay District (which is the area within 100-feet of the shoreline). The proposed project complies with General Plan Policy LU4.1, which encourages protecting, conserving, and enhancing the Richmond shoreline. This includes protecting to the maximum extent feasible views of the Bay from the street for the benefit and welfare of the public. The project design is conditioned to modify massing and bulk.
B. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed use will be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood;
Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. Given that conditions of approval will be incorporated, the design of the proposed residence will be harmonious and compatible with the surrounding buildings, and the design will appropriately consider the sensitive nature of the coastal zone.
C. The proposed use will not create any nuisances arising from the emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare at a level exceeding ambient conditions; Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The proposed residential use is not anticipated to generate emissions or off-site impacts that will affect the residential character of the coastal zone of the area. have atypical emissions since it will be designed to meet the City energy reach code and current CalGreen Building Standards.
D. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and Supportina Statement of Facts: Criterion Not Satisfied. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the RL1 Zoning District, such as setbacks, parking requirements, lot coverage, and the-S, Shoreline Overlay District for the reason stated in Findings A and B above, as well as specified in the agenda reports.
E. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.
Supporting Statement of Facts: Criterion Satisfied. The site is accessible and adequately served by public facilities and services, including water, sewer, and streets.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission does hereby approve a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review set forth in Exhibit A (PLN20-043), subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Development is to be constructed in compliance with the Project Plans in Exhibit A, October 7, 2021 3of6 Resolution No. 21-17
attached, submitted to and dated August 9, 2021, by the Planning Department. Any modifications shall be reviewed by the Zoning Administrator who shall determine whether the modification requires additional approval.
2. The design of the roof shall be modified to decrease the slope of the butterfly roof and/or ceiling heights per the revised elevation submitted on September 28, 2021 (see Attachment 1).
3. Material samples for the proposed metal roof shall be provided to ensure it is a non- reflective finish, subject to the review and approval by the Community Development Director. If the coating of the roofing material is found to be reflective, substitute roofing material shall be required.
4. The north elevation shall integrate design features or landscaping to reduce the mass and bulk of the building.
5. Prior to issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall demonstrate that all exterior lighting has been designed and located so that all direct light is confined to the property and is satisfactory to the Community Development Director or his/her designee. Lighting shall be indirect (up or down with alabaster lens or with alabaster color lens) with a maximum 3000K if LED.
6. Failure to abide and faithfully comply with any and all conditions attached to this approving action shall constitute grounds for the revocation of said action by the Richmond Planning Commission.
7. Illuminated building street address numbers, as required by the Fire Department, shall be provided.
8. During construction activities, the applicant shall reduce or prevent to the maximum extent practicable the direct or indirect discharge of any dust or pollutant into the storm drain system utilizing best management practices contained in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities. Construction activities include but are not limited to: watering operations; roadwork and paving operations; concrete and painting; structure construction and painting; construction material storage and handling; construction waste/debris storage and disposal; and, construction equipment/vehicle cleaning, maintenance and fueling operations. The project sponsor is also responsible for training all contractors and subcontractors on the best management practices identified in the California Storm Water Best Management Practices Handbook for Construction Activities which shall be made available by the project sponsor at the pre- construct meeting of the project.
9. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from the City of Richmond Public Services/Engineering Department for all work within the Public right-of-way. All curb, gutter, and sidewalk replacement shall conform to City of Richmond standards. Should any infrastructure be damaged or destroyed as a result of the construction of the project, the applicant shall be responsible for returning the infrastructure to an acceptable condition as determined by the City of Richmond Public Works Director.
October 7, 2021 4of6 Resolution No. 21-17
10. The applicant shall repair all damaged sidewalk, pavement, existing curb and gutter along the project frontage to the satisfaction of the Planning and Building Services Director and City Engineer prior to occupancy. The applicant shall replace any damaged landscaping, improvements, or street improvements caused by the installation of utility services and construction of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning and Building Services Director.
11. All new electrical lines and connections to the site shall be under grounded to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Planning and Building Services Director.
12. Any relocation of existing improvements or public utilities shall be accomplished under the direction of the City or impacted utility company's requirement at no expense to the City or utility company
13. The applicant agrees, on behalf of himself, his successor in interest and assigns, to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, its Council, Planning Commission, advisory boards, officers, employees, consultants and agents (hereinafter "City") from any claim, action or proceeding (hereinafter "Proceeding") brought against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul the City's actions regarding any development or land use permit, application, license, denial, approval or authorization, including, but not limited to, variances, use permits, developments plans, specific plans, general plan amendments, zoning amendments, approvals and certifications pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, and/or any mitigation monitoring program, or brought against the City due to acts or omissions in any way connected to the applicant's project, but excluding any approvals governed by California Government Code Section 66474.9. This indemnification shall include, but not be limited to, damages, fees and/or costs awarded against the City, if any, and costs of suit, attorney's fees and other costs, liabilities and expenses incurred in connection with such proceeding whether incurred by applicant or City. If applicant is required to defend the City as set forth above, the City shall retain the right to select the counsel who shall defend the City.
I CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on October 7,2021.
AYES: Commissioners Agarwal, Harrison, Huang, and Soofani NOES:
ABSTENTIONS: Commissioner Brubaker
ABSENT: Chair Tucker and Vice Chair Loy
October 7, 2021 5 of 6 Resolution No. 21-17
'Tuc^i^
DAVID TUCKER
CHAIR, RICHMOND PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved as to form:
JAI^S ATENCIO
SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
Exhibit A: Project Plans
Attachment 1: Building Elevation Dated September 28, 2021.
October 7, 2021 6 of 6 Resolution No. 21-17
PROJECT TEAM
OWNER
RUDI GARBELMANN
P.O. BOX 70371
RICHMOND. UM607
[email protected]
(415)636.1786
ARCHFTECT
GUNKEL ARCHTTECTURE
22?5 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELET, CA. 94702
[51D.)9B4-)])Z
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE, RICHMOND, CA 94801
DESCRIPTION OF WORK
lUaiON OF NEW SINGLE-FAMUT DWELUNG P^TOIUES) 0
SYMBOLS
©
[NmUOR ELEVATION
DEMDUTION NOTE
IMPHOVEMENTNOTE
RNISH NOTE
®
0 m
PROJECT INFORMATION
LOTSE£ 6,000 SF
MAX ALLOWABLE HEIGHT; 3?-C"
ACTUAL HEIGHT; IB'-) I'ATHIGH POINT ONLY, RECT OF HOUSE IS LCWEft MAX FLOOR AREA, AU.OWED: 2.BOO SF
TOTAL HJOOK AREfc U40 SF 1?TAND 2ND R.OOn + -WO EF GARAGE ^JBO SF TOTAL MAX COVERAGE Z700,-<5X
PROFOS® COVEBASE: l.»M SF, 32-;
SPRINKLERS: YES
CODE COMPLIANCE
201T CAUFORNIA BUILDING CODEtlNCOftPOStATES B'TADOPTK
CODE COUNCIL ICQ
20t? CALIFORNIA KESID&HIU.CODE-APFUES TO ONEANDTWO?M1LT HOUSE ANOTOWNHONES L£SS THAN I STOIUB IN HBGHT. (INCORPORATES BY ADOPTION AND REPRINTC THE 2019 .CODE)
'CAUFO?
CODE'
AGENCY. NFPA) • •
PLUMBING CODE WITtiCUjroRNIA AMENDMENTS. PUBUSHEDBTTHElMTERNATIONAL/iSSOOATION :1M&WMO)
2019 CALGREEN CODE -APPUES TO CEflTAIN NEW BU1LD1NC3 ONLY . AU. NEW RESIDEtfflAL BUILDINGS 3 ENERGY REPOKT.
ASSESSOR'S MAP
r- m?M&«
"'-""•ill-""™
VICINITY MAP
*>»<„
SHEET INDEX
ARCHITECTURAL
BUILSABLE AREA DIAGRAM
STTE PLAN DIAGRAM
CONDmONS OF APPROVAL
•LANDSCAPE PLAN
:STTE FLAW ROOF PLAN
UNE ELEVATIONS
UNEBBWT10NS
^^
.S3-
^.0-
^<«
rt.
>
DESIGN REVIEW UPDATE
TO. I
Neighborhood Outreach & Design Review Timeline
11 meetincis over 22 months
Project Kick-off
Met with neighbors
Second Neighborhood
Council Meeting -
Project ADDroval
DRB Subcommittee
Meeting
Planning
Commission
Meeting #1
Feb Oct Nov April
DRB Subcommittee
Review Meeting
for PC
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #4
2020 2020 2021 2021
First Neighborhood
Council Meeting
DRB Study Session DRB Final
Meeting-Staff
Recommended
Approval
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #2
Planning
Commission
Meeting
Continued #3
Improvements made along the way include:
1. Reduction in the height of the house facing neighbors during neighborhood council
2. Narrowed the foyer in front of the house facing the neighbors during DRB review
3. Reduced the pitch of the roof to make it less stark and changed reflective building materials for DRB
4. Provided additional view studies requested by the Design Review Board
5. Met with DRB subcommittee again & provided additional view studies requested by the Planning Commission
6. Removed the rooftop deck to preserve the privacy of the neighbors during PC
7. Further reduced the pitch of the roof and added a flat roof section for the PC BCDC Shoreline Overlay District Restrictions
The BCDC issued a permitto build in 2012 (permit #M1986.015.02B) with the following restrictions to accommodate neighbors' privacy and protect public views, which was subsequently approved by the Planning Commission:
1. Maximum height limited to 28ft for the first 29ft of the street-side property line
2. No windows for the first 29ft of the street-side property line
3. No rooftop deck for the first 29ft of the street-side property line
4. A larger rear setback to maintain a distance of 17ft from the cliff's edge
5. An established view corridor 5ft wide, along the southern property line
6. An established view corridor 10ft wide, along the northern property line We have followed all BCDC restrictions, and have actually lowered the house by over 6ft under the maximum allowable height to further protect neighbors' views, in addition to narrowing the footprint of the home by 6ft to provide a more expansive water view for neighbor Simon Winor across the street.
Project Revisions:
Since project kick-off in late 2019, we have met with neighbors multiple times and made numerous revisions. The home is much shorter and narrower than current standards allow and lower than previously established BCDC restrictions. We installed story poles and worked closely with our neighbors through the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council and after revisions, received unanimous approval from the Council. Compared to other homes in the neighborhood, this project is quite modest in size and celebrates the diversity of home designs that define the unique character of the Point. We then made additional changes for the DRB but unfortunately the members could not reach a consensus to provide a recommendation to the Commission.
Oct
2021
u
a:
3 u
UI
I
u
D:
<
J
Ill
^
z
3 0
UJ
3 z
UJ
><
0 J
m
2:
z
<in
in
0-
rM
Sb
m ^ n
I!8
[U '
a:
? ^h co< U 5.
U UI
I 0
D S
IT v
s ^ri y ^
S Z 0
iu 5 I
m 0 n-
.^r]*l
%-l
^yj'
LU 0
> °°
gs
Q<
zu
a: .
iu Q
:fcz; So
^1
^5
"5
REVIEWS AND
REVISIONS
1 AT
TI.O
357 Western D r,
Richmond, CA 94801
5®^jSB^
^z
VIEW ANGLE
STUDY-KEY
iTl.la
3AI ANGLE 3 BUTTERFLY ROOF
2AI ANGLE 2 BUTTERFLY ROOF
IAI ANGLE I BUTTERFLY ROOF
u
D:
3 D
HI
I
u
n:
<
-I
3 d
s
E<E
th
u
u
z
w
sua
^
lu n
QNz ^
UJ 0
><
3 <5i u
<c
a.
iyui [j
s i
?1 US m
lh<
s
0 u
u
fr
3 hu
u
I-
I
u
n
<i
Ill
^
z
3 0
,2.'
s^?1
u
0 I
LU
>
a;
Q
z
a.
LU
I-
wLU
^
[s^
mm
m
^
CO
0^
0 in
u
z
0 I
u.
/S9
0 co
'T
CT<
<
u
Q
z
0 2:
I
u
a:
VIEW ANGLE
STUDY
DESIGN FtEVtE^
•••••
"M I '
"y^A;^.-' /
N78°36'10"E 43.82'..^--'' .'^•bv--SK \. /
..^\\y ^ i .-•'.
>
s?> c
°s
> >
n oa
1^
_2
HEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 984 - 1112
N 78°36' 10" E 43.82'^ - ' /^;,
•\\.i-
^•Wlh
57vifwc^RRIDVOR^ 4 A^^\Y)t/f-f^^^EV^bRRl5o^J:
^.^
•I
•
w
0 z
<
3 c
-I
a S2
> ^
s?^3 Z
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE; (510) 984 " 1112
3 I SOUTH EAST ELEVATION
LEGEND
OMGINALLYSUBMm-ED
TO NEIGHBORHOOD
COUNCIL
ORIGINALLY SUBMm-ED
TO DESIGN REVIEW
BOARD
PORTIONS OF HOUSE TO
BE BELOW CURRENT
GRADE
EXISTING GRADE UNE
NORTH EAST ELEVATION
ya
^u
I
u
D:
<
_1
HI
2 z
b
>-
E
<c
Ui
u
u
x
a
s
LL) n
3 9
z '»
u d.
5<
0 <
n 0
^
Q.
z >< UI
'" ^.
sllS 3
0 u
u
E.
D
u
h
I
D
D:
<JHI
^
z
3 0
^K?
u
0 B
LU
>
c:
z
a:
LU
I-
C/t
LU
5:
LH
m
HEIGHT
n
•^
§
0 m
IU
0 D.
0 00
•^"
V-
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
0;
DIAGRAMS
1 ATE 9i:
.TE
T1.4
WEST ELEVATION W/ 2 HOUSES ON LEFT ADJUSTED TO COMPARE HIEGHT UI
a
HI
E
I
u
tt,
<
J
u
z
z
0 >
-I
E
2,
u
u
x
w
sux
ill n0NTiu d'
><
8 <
m "
<
a.
I ^'"' i
s Ii i
s g0 ::
u
HI •
Q:
D ^
^ §LJ
h
I °
D m
[E *-"
5...:u u
x z
I!o i
s
u
0 a
UJ 0
> c°
53;
Q<
zu
u: -
LU Q
fcz
LU 0
^1
1^1
!^u
m ~i
BAY VIEW
STUDY
o/
Tl
IATE ?/:
UPDATE
1.5 s"£";=3°;3*ia»;
'S3U'S""3S
;SwSSv!-£
'S35?S£E£S
•Ka
^r5!!Sr
£3S
OmSnSS^L"ssssa"
SS5S
""r.
••-
^^^'sSiiiS's^l
'V^S:H.!a£l"^
k KA^I 5?£w -^?S
• K.gzSaS
'ICa-ss?2
lis?.:S2Ka
S;3S'| .saa,
^(ril S'^^T
SSSKSK^
""'ssss.^'
•SS3,'
-[g^^;g3,| _,„^ |.,S..|.3sass
gBS.sSS
^^"^"ss^^
- tt»H
' ngzs.a^
'""—"
m
^2£7^
ssssas
BBS;
WSi
ts S.5 ^t; S ? EAS *Ss ^ S^?ii 5S ^ 5?'
uuiin'iiiniii
y§t lili
ffiijjliiii111s 11 III IiliiUlilili
ilSBPII! tliilii ii
Illp
illliUI
ill? IHis IffillII IIill! il ^
MIll
Sja
ft0
&
CONDITIONS
OF APPROVAL
NEW SIHCLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
OUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE; (510) 984 - m2
SURVETOR'S NOTB
DATE OF SURVEY: MAY 2021.
2. UTILITIES FOUND ARE BASED UPON SURFACE EVIDENT RNDINGS,RECORDS OF UTILITIES WERE NOT UTIUZED FOR THIS SURVEY LEGEND
BOUNDARY (SMALL LOT)
TREES SHOWN ARE THOSE OF SIZE S1GN1F1 CANCEL TOE SITE CONTAINS OTHER TREES UNDER G" AND ARE NOT SHOWN FOR MAP CLARlpr, TBEE CLASS1HCA710N5 ARE TO THE BEST KNOWLEDGE OF THE SURVEYOR. AN ARBORIST MUST SPECIFY ACTUAL -TREE TfPE. TREE TRUNK LOCA-nONS ARE APPROXIMATE. TREES THAT CROSS A PROPERTY UNE AT GROUND LEVEL SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO BE JOINTLY OWNED BY THE RESPECTIVE PROPERPr OWNERS. CONSULT AN AR80R15T FOR DETAILS.
5. PHYSiCAL 1TD-IS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY ARE LIMITED TO THOSE SURFACE ITEMS VISIBLE AS OF THE DATE OF TOIS SURVEY AND FROM AVAILABLE RECORD DATA. SUBSURFACE OBJECTS, IF ANY, MAY NOT BE SHOWN. SAID SUBSURFACE 03JECTS MAY INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT UMITCD TO, UNDERGROUND UTILITY UNES, UTIUTC VAULTS. CONCRETC FOOTINGS, SLABS, SHORING, STRUCTURAL PILES. PIPING, UNDERGROUND TANKS, AND ANY OTHER SUSSURFACE STRUCTURES NOT REVEALED BY A SURFACE ]NSPECT10N.
6. DlMENStDMS SHOWN HEREON ARE GROUND DISTANCES IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.
BASIS OF BEARINGS
BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE
FOUND REBAR AND CAPS
MARKING -THE NORTHERN
UNE OF WESTERN DRIVE
FLOW LINE OF THE SANITARY
SEWER MANHOLE AT THE
INTERSECTION OF WESTERN
AND SANTA FE
INVERT ELEV.= 36.82 FEET
8ASED ON NGVD1929 DA-TUM
GREENHILL/SCHWIMMER
D.N. 2019-900857
PARCEL MAP MS 756-08
BOOK 213 OF PARCEL MAPS 18
-SARBERMAW]
ZOIS<008G577
GIN]
APN 558-030-003
SURVEYORS STATaiElffi
THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS^
I CONFORMANCE
TtiE REQUIREMEtiTTS OF THE LAND SURVEYORACT IN W\\
PARCEL WAS ESTABLISHED BY FOUND MONUMENTATION
LOCATING THE SUBJECT PARCEL
H.OWL1NE
TOP OF CUF
EDGEOFPAVEMEN1
CONCRETE
LIP OF GUTTER
GROUND
ASPHALT COr
TOP OF CURB
FINISH FLOOR
SETBACK UN
aueoniMis
_vyAj.-^&Z??/.
PLANTING SUGGESTIONS
DEdDUOUS TREES
Japanese Maple
Be+ula
DECIDUOUS SHRUBS
Rosa 'Iceberg'
EVERGREEN SHRUBS
Euonymous 'Green Spire'
Junipers
Laurel nobilis
Pittosporum 'Golf Ball'
Nandina 'Monum'
Thuga 'Emergald Green'
or "Daniellow'
Thuga Green Giant'
Podocarpus
PERENNIALS
Salvia species Penstemon
species Phormium 'Tom
Thumb'
GRASSES & SEDGES
Carex species'
Chondropetalum
tec+orum
SUCCULENTS
Agave species
Dudleya species
GROUNDCOVERS
Ceanothus
Junipers
Manzanita
CLIMBERS
Clematis species Lonicera
species
ve-tisvJAf
C^M^f
^^'^_\^e?[?£N&!£!^;. -
Wit veuc-c
^ Al-i-Tj-WnHtri-HPeyerMApa?
viwl &Oizp-rDse=i^'6e ^-s' HT".
t^KAyet..
P.ff^'SFFJ-evs.
t^,'
".Wffl//w^/A~.
^D: .^...MS^^v\w3-
-Tor o^.'u.ors-
CHRISTINE KRAUSE DESIGN STUDIO
CHRISTINEKRAUSEDESIGN.COM
[email protected]
CHRISTINEKRAUSEDESIGN.COM
GARBELMAN RESIDENCE
157 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
DRAWING: PLANTING. DESIGN PLAN
•SCALE: 1/8"=1-0" '
DATE: 6 JAN 2020
REVISED: 27 MAY 2020
DRAWN BY: Christine Krause
DRAINAGE
!. SITE RETAINING WALLS & FOUNDATIONS TO
HAVE FRENCH DRAINS AT BASE TTP. HARD PIPE
TO DISSIPATORS OR LANDSCAJ'JNG
Z. ALL ROOF DRAINS ROUTED TO DISSIPATOR IN
HARD PIPE
OUTFAU, DISSIPATOR
SII°23'50"E 0.60'
377 WESTERN DRIVE
(E) SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
\
NOTE: ALL ROOF DRAINAGE TO BE COLLECTED TO DOWNSPOUTS TO BE CONNECTED TO (N) TIGHTLINE DRAIN SYSTEM -S--_^
Nw
SITE PLAN
5 o
z ^
Ill O*
><
8 m
<
Q.
S 3
Q B
u
tU '
Q:
? s
< U fr
U UI
\_
I °
U 5
a: '-"
u I
u u
^ z
5 0
31 s
K
iu o
> co
'^
Q<i*u.Q<
UEiu
LU Q
0 ^
wX B LU 0
y»
u
^5
m5
SITE PLAN/
ROOF PLAN
VIEW UPDATE
AO.I
AWN FX AWN
(S'.fi-AJ.F,) (5'-6"AJ.F.) (S'.6"A.F.F.}
4>
N
HI
ec.
3 u.
[U
i<
_I
Ill
2 z
3 0
5 E
<Eu;
u
0 a
tfl
Iua
m n
0Nz ^
LU 0'
><
3 <^ u
<
a.
z >< m'"' i
£ ^?; 5
N ffl
»(
6 u
1U
u:
3hu
u
I-
I
D
or
3 LU
^
z
3 0
/z-
s^*
u
0 z
UI
>
OL
z
a:
LU
h-
(/)
UJ
^
in
m
m
^r
a
0 0
m
u
z
0 I
a.
/5l
000
^-
0 <
u
Q
z
0 s
I
D
Q^
FIRST FLOOR
DES1GI
PLAN
REV ^
<TE ?/21
Al
UPDATE
•o0FIRST FLOOR. PLAN
3'-0nx3'-0" 3'.0"x3'^"
t-i'-O" ABOVE (I W ABOVE
2ND[€OORTF.1— — —FO~rER FLOORT — ~T — — ^i
N
Ul
a.
3 u
1U
h
u
a
<
_1
Ill
g
z
3 0
5 E
<E
Ui
u
•I
u
x
w
I
<?1
U fN0
Nz ^
U 0
^
0 <
^ u
<
Q.
z >
< ^
" iii
^m g
K uK m
na<
0 D
UJ
a.
3 I-
D
1U
h
I
D
IT
<J
UI
^
z
3 0
^
u
0 Ill
>
c^
z
aL
LU
I-
wLU
^
N
U1
m
N
s
0-
0 ^
LU
z
0 I
D.
w
0 co
^0^
<
D
Q
z
0 s
z
u
0;
SECOND
FLOOR.
REV1E
DATE 9/2E
Al
PLAN
•
IATE
ISECOND FLOOR PLAN
r ^
;0
0 0
>
2 NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 984 - 1112
SOUTH ELEVATION
g [p
WEST ELEVATION
MATERIALS
[T] NATURAL WOOD
SIDING
[2] MEDIUM GREY
INTEGRAL COLOR.
CEMENT PLANTER.
[3] NATURAL WOOD,
TRELUS
[4] MEDIUM WHITE
INTEGRAL COLOR
CEMENT PLASTER
Fs1 CLEAR ANODIZED
ALUMINUM FASOA.
WINDOWS & DOORS
[|j OBSCURED GIASS
[7] STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF W/
KYNAR MEDIUM GRAY
FINISH
s:. —=;a
PS] miNLESS STEEL
RAILS. POSTS &
CABLES
u
a
s
I
u
^
u
2 3
0 5
E
KUi
u
0 x
w
Iid
a
U t
IIIll (
s
q .
~i (
£
Il
" i
!P i°< i
P! i
»1
e
B
0 u
u
D:
3huUl
h
I
D
D:
<
-J
u
^
z
3 0
X-5
UJ
>
a:
z
Q;
LU
I-
t/1
LU
^
[^
wm
n
•q-
co
0'
0 in
u
z
0 I
a.
0 co
•^-
<r
<
u
Q
z
0 2:
x
u
(^
ELEVATIONS
DESK
D/SATE < ZB/21
Al.l
'DATE
I
>
»
®
w
^ij z
0 m
z
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
OUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (510) 9B4 - 1112
m
1^1
m
Ill0
l1
1.1 si
B
S3
B
Q
E B B
I
B B
&
w
9 w
<>
-f
0 z
NEW SINGLE FAMILY
HOME
357 WESTERN DRIVE
RICHMOND, CA 94801
GUNKEL ARCHITECTURE
2295 SAN PABLO AVENUE
BERKELEY CA 94702
GUNKELARCHITECTURE.COM
PHONE: (S10) 984 - 1112
-^.|3| SECTION
I
JJ_
REAR OF HOUSE
u
St
?
u
u
i
u
Ct
<
-1
s
z
3 0
5 c
Ct
Uh
u
0 a
(8
I
'y
llj m
QNz y
u ^
i
3 <^ 0
<
a.
i yU1 ui
s i?; i?N m
^
="
u
ii
0 u
u
a.
D
I-
u
UJ
h
I
u
(t
<
1U
X
z
3 u
'z-'
?$
LU
>
aL
z
a.
LU
I-
LO
UJ
^
^
in
m
m
t
co
t>
0 in
u
z
0 I
Q.
0 co
^-
0^
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
tt.
BUILDING
SECTIONS
UP
A3.®
STAIR SECTION
^SSs^
GARAGE
HIGHE?rEX]SI'NS.G«?E---
LOWEST EXISTING GRADE"
RETAINING WALL IN FRONT OF SECTION
^
1R11EWAK
-<&_-—
_ _ _ — -T.STSf
SECTION
uu o
> co
SI
zu
a: -
LU Q
eiK. - -1706 (01.9) :3NOHd
W03'3anj.33-LIH3aV-]3XNnO
COZtr6 V3 A3~13>ia3a
3nN3AV 0-ISVd NVS S6ZZ
aynj-osjLiHsuv ^^>^Nno
108fr6 V3 'QNONH
3AI-aa N~a3J.S3AA ;
3MOH
jniuwd aiDNis
Attachment 1
EI a E]
SOUTH ELEVATION
M
St
?
u
1U
I
u
a
<
J
u
2 z
3 0
5 E
a,
u
ia
w
Iux
fc^
uj n01\z ^
u as
><
s <
ffl "
<
D.
z >
< ^
" i
£ IS uF! 3
•ai
="
u
0 3;
0 u
UJ
0:
3 I-
uUJ
I-
I
u
D:
<
-1
HI
^
z
3 0
/z.l
N
^co
ok
0 in
u
z
0 I
Q.
^
UJ
>
a:
Q
z
aL
LU
I-
LO
LU
^:
N
wm
0 00
^0^
<
u
Q
z
0 z
I
u
a:
ELEVATIONS
DESIG1 REV I E^
1ATE ?/3
Al<
UPDATE
• 3
MATERIALS
T [P Q] NATURAL WOOD SIDING
[2] MEDIUM GREY INTEGRAL
COLOR CEMENT PLASTER.
[3] NATURAL WOOD. TRELUS
[4] MEDIUM WHITE INTEGRAL
COLOR. CEMENT PLASTER.
[5} CLEAR ANOD1ZED ALUMINUM
FASC1A, WINDOWS & DOORS
[6] OBSCURED GLASS
0 STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
W/ KYNAR. MEDIUM GRAY FlNISHl
[8] STAINLESS STEEL RAILS. POSTS 8
CABLES
WEST ELEVATION
Attachment 3
RESOLUTION NO. 128-09
A RESOLUTION OF THE CTt-V COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
ADOPTING A MFTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING PARCEL MAP MS 756-08 TO CREATE ONE LOT AT 367 WESTERN DRIVE CKOWALSKI, APN 558-185-003)
WHEREAS, Stephen & Patti Kowalski (the "appUcmt"), filed an application wifh the City of Richmond for approval of proposed parcel map MS 756-08 (title "Parcel Map") to subdivide the existing parcel (the "subdivision." or "project') at 367 Western Drive (APN: 558- 185-003) (the "project site" or "subject site") into two standard residential parcels of 10,806 Square Feet and 6,002 Square Feet, respectively; and
WHEREAS, fhe Parcel Map is subject to the provisions of California Government Code Sections 66410-66499.58, known as the Subdivision Map Act, and Chapter .15.08 of fhe Richmond Municipal Code known as the Richmond Subdivision Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Parcel Map is not categorically exempt from fhe California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by way of CEQA Guidelmes Section 15315, Class 15, Minor Land Divisions, due to the fact fhat the slope is greater than 20 percent. Therefore, staff conducted an Initial Study; determined that the project could have potentially significant impacts infhe areas ofAesflietics, Geology and Soils, and Hydrology and Water Quality; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration which includes a Preliminary Soils Investigation and Initial Geology and Soils Analysis. Based on such investigation and analysis, staff determined that implementation of specific mitigation measures will reduce environmental impacts to less-fhan-significaat; and WHEREAS the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment in accordaace wifh fhe California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and a response to comments was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Zoning District at -fhe subject property is zoned SFR-2, Single Family Very Low Density Residential District, which permits residential dwellings on lot sizes of 6,000 SP or greater, and fhe General Plan designation of the site is 942, Very Low Density Residential (0 to 5 DU/Acre), which allows single family residential dwellings in areas typified by relatively large lots greater than 6,000 SF; and
WHEREAS, fhe City Council has reviewed fhe Parcel Map for conformance with the Subdivision Map Act, Subdivision Ordinance, 'Zoning Ordiaance and all other applicable regulations offhe Richmond Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a properly noticed public hearmg pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented during the hearing; and
WHEREAS, on fhe basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted at or prior to the public hearing, the City Council makes the foUowmg findings with statements of fact to support fhe findings as required by California Government Code Section 66474 for fhe approval of Parcel Map:
Findrng 1. The proposed Map is consistent with the applicable General a&d Specific Plans.
Statement in Support of Findine: Criterion Satisfied. The Richmond General Plan designation for the project site is 942, Very Low Residential. The subdivision meets all . the applicable provisions of the Richmond General Plan by creating a buildable lot which is equal to or greater than 6,000 SF. The proposed Lot 2 would meet the development standards for the minimum lot size in the SPR-2 Zoning District, v?ith a. proposed area of 6,002 SP. The proposed Lot 2 will also meet the development standards for the miiumum lot width of 60 Feet in the SFR-2 Zoning District; the proposed lot width will be 69 ft.
128-09
Page I
Findme 2, The design of lots, streets, open space, draiaage, sewers, water and other improvements are consistent with fhe Zoning Ordinance.
Statement in Support ofFindmg: Criterion Satisfied. The subdivision wiU result in a lot configuration fcat is common in fhis neighborhood. The project site is adjacent to existing residential buildiags, wifti landscaping and drainage, sewer, water and ofher utility improvements fhat are consistent with fhe Richmond Zoning Ordmmce. If any new utilities are desired, tiiey would be required to comply with. fce Riclunond Zonmg Ordinance and fhe requirements of the Public Works Department and respective utility company.
FindmeS. The site is physically suitable for the type of development.
Statement in Support ofFmding: Criterion Condifionally Satisfied. The subdivision is for fhe purpose of subdividing the existing lot into two lots for an additional residential dwelling unit. The newly created Lot I would be physically suitable for development with fhe implementation of fhe laiti.gati.ons indicated m fhe Mitigating Monitormg and Reporting Program (Attacbnent 2). New off-street parldng would be required for Lot 1 as a result offhis subdivision in order to meet fhe parking requirements offhe Richmond Zoning Ordmanoe.
Pindme; 4. The site is physically suitable for fhe proposed density of development.
Statement in Support ofPinding: Criterion Satisfied. The subject site is presently served by a31 requisite public facilities and services such as gas, water md eleotncity, and fhe lot size of 6,002 SP is larger fhan tie imnimnm required lot size in Ifae 942 General Plan designated district, and fhe SER.-2 Zoning Distnct.
Fiadmg 5. The design oftiae subdivision or fhe proposed improvements is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or fheir habitat
Statement in Support of Fmdine: Criterion Satisfied. The subdivision will not cause substantial environmental damage because fhe existing lot is currently part of an exiting residential property. Future improvements of fhe lot would be typical of ofher improvements in this neighborhood and -would have to conform to fee Development Standards offhe SFR-2 Zonmg Distnct.
Finding 6. The design of fhe subdivision or fte type of improvements is not Ekely to cause serious public healfli problems.
Statement in Support ofFmdiag: Criterion Satisfied. The design offhe subdivision is not likely to cause serious public health problems as it proposes to subdivide an exiting lot istotwo residential lots.
Fmdmg 7. The design of the subdivision or fhe type of improvements wiU not conflict -with easements, acquired by fhe public at large, for access fhrough or use of, property -witlun the proposed subdivision.
Statement m Support of Pinding: Criterion Satisfied. Tentative Subdivision Map MS 756-08 does not conflict wifh any fccio-wrL existing public easements as shown in. Exhibit A.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Richmond, does hereby grant approval of Parcel Map 756-08 subject to the following conditions of approval:
1. Conformaace to Parcel Map: The Parcel Map shall be in substantial conformance with flie Parcel Map in Exhibit A, prepared by Bay Area Land Surveying Inc., submitted to and date-stamped received by &e Richmond Plamiiag and Buildmg Services Department on April 24, 2009. Prior to finalizing the Parcel Map, it shall be submitted to fhe Engineeriag Depailment for review and approval accompanied by the requisite review fee. The Parcel Map must be prepared, wet sigaed and sealed by a civil engineer or land surveyor, registered and licensed in the State of California.
2. Implementation of the Mitigation Monitorme and Reporting Proei-ami The applicant shall implement Mitigation Measures I-A, VI-A, and VHI-A, as indicated in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ra fhe Mitigated Negative Declaration (Exhibit C).
3. lademrdfication; To the fullest extent permitted by law, the subdivide!- shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City ofRicbnond, its Council, Boards, Commissions, agents, officers, employees, consultants, successors and assigns from and against any and all claims, demands, obligations, proceedings, actions, causes of action, suits, losses, judgments, fines, penalties, damages, liabilities, costs and expenses (including, without Itmitation, attorney's fees, disbursements, and all other professional or expert fees and costs) (individually a "Claim," collectively "Claims") which may arise to attack, set aside, void, or aimul the - project approvals, or any project condition imposed by the City or any of its agencies. Departments, Commissions, Boards, agents, officers, employees, or Council concerning said project, which Claim, is brought iu accordance with all applicable laws related thereto aad within the time period provided by law, moluding but not limited to, aay claitn for private attorney general fees olaimed by or awarded to any party fi-om City. The City of Richmond shall promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in fhe defense.
4. Utilities: Any new utilities are required to comply with the Zomng Ordinance, fhe requirements of the Public Works Department, and respective utility company.
5. Easements: All existing easements related to this property shall be carried fonvard onto the Final Parcel Map mcludiag fhose required by ofher agencies.
6. Off-Steeet Parking: The applicant shall provide proper off-street parking for Lot I by constructing a two-car, tandem, parking strip wifh a one-car carport 'with a mmimum mtenor dimension of 10 feet wide and 20 foot length. This carport shall be constructed prior to the recording of the Parcel Map and conform, to fhe City's Development Standards and Building Code. Future residential development of Lot 2 will be required to include at least two covered off-street parking spaces.
7. Fencmg: In. the event a new fence is constructed on fhe property line of the newly created lot, the applicant shall construct a "good neighbor" fence.
8. Sag Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission CBCDQ Permit:
The applicant shall apply and receive a development permit from the San Francisco Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC) for the proposed Parcel Map and potential easements or view corridors. A copy of the valid permit shall be forwarded to fhe Plamiing Division and the City Engineer.
9. Windows: There shall be no 2nd story windows, oiher than skylights or clerestones, built wittiin 29 feet of the street side property boundary line along the south side of any home erected on the property.
10. Deck: There shall be no roof deck built wifhin 29 feet of the street side property bouadary line on any home erected on the property.
11 .Height: Wifhin 29 feet of the street side property line, the maximum height for any home erected on the property shall be 28 feet from existing grade.
Mitigation Measures from the Mitigation Moniformg and Reporting Program:
128-09
12. The proj ect applicant for futaie development of Lot 2 shall reduce the severity of ttie project's effect on aesthetics by implementing fhe following fhe following mitigatioTi measures:
a. The future project shall be landscaped to soften the view of the development from off-site locations.
b. Landscaping shall be desigaed to be compatible with existing vegetation on site aad ia surroundmg areas.
c. The new building shall be designed to be visually compatible with fhe existing buildings.
d. The applicant shall contact the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and apply for aU required permits prior to construction.
13. The project applicant for future development shall reduce tile severity of project effect on Geology and Soils by following the followiag mitigation measures:
a. The future project shall be designed in accordance with the 2007 California Building Code (CBC), -whiclihas been adopted by the City of Richmond. b. The rear setback for fature development of a. building shall be approximately seventeen feet (17°) &om fhe top of slope.
c. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for seditnent and erosion control shall be followed duriag construction.
d. An erosion control plan sbaU be prepared prior to issuance of a Building Permit and implemented dunng construction activities.
e. A building project shall molude measures such as selective removal of expansive soils and weathered rock in foTmdation aad concrete slab areas and replacement -with non-expaasive select fiU to mimimze 1iie potenfial daraage to site improvements.
£ AH preliminary design recommendations indicated ia fhe Preliminary Soils Investigation and Initial Geology and Soils Analysis (Appendix B) shaU be followed.
14. The proj.ect applicant for future development shall reduce the severity of project effect on Hydrology and Water Quality by followmg mitigation measures:
a. The future project will be required to provide positive runoflf. b. The future project wiU be required to incorporate pervious coverage in hardscape and landscape plans for absorption;
c. The rear setback for future development of a building shall be approximately seventeen (17) feet from fhe top of slope.
d. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for sediment and erosion control shall be followed during constmction.
****AftA****ft****A*A****ft
128-09
I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof, held on November 3, 2009, by the follov?ing vote:
AYES:
Approved:
GAYLE MCLAUGHLIN
Mayor
Approved as to form:
Councilmembers Bates, Butt, Rogers, Ritterman, Viramontes, Vice Mayor Lopez, and Mayor McLaughlin.
NOES: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
ABSENT: None.
DIANEHOLMES
Clerk of the City of Richmond
[SEAL]
RANDY RIDDLE
City Attorney
State of California }
County of Contra Costa
City of Richmond }
:ss.
I certify that the foregoing is a tme copy of Resolution No. 128-09, finally passed and adopted by fhe City Council offhe City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on November 3, 2009.
128-09
Attachment 4
KSehjmittwU
THIS SECTION TO BE CQnPl.ETED BY THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ST^P^F^Ey-T^ y
cn'Ycu^som^^O^mOHD'
ZQ210CT18 PH l:^
FEE PAID
DATE:
,<-tTD°^CUe%
TO THE RICHMOND CITY COUNCIL:
The undersigned hereby appeals decision: By the Historic Preservation Commission By the Planning Commission
of: Approval "' of: Denial
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 PLAWONG 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
NAME Claire Arbour, Simon Winer and Ron Elson
,360 Western Drive, Ridunond, CA 94801
360 Western Drive, Richmond, CA 94801
TELEPHONE (HOME) (617) 699-2766
(WORK) (510)610-1166
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 DRB for 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 serred 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.
Attachment 5
January 10,2022
In regards to our appeal, I do understand that we cannot introduce new topics at this point, and I appreciate the reminder about how the process works. I will include (below) the grounds for our appeal so that it is part of your records.
The basis of our appeal included four main points:
(1) Substantive design issues were not addressed due to the late submission of the applicant's plans and inadequate interpretation of the Shoreline Overlay District. We named the design issues as: mass of the proposed development, non-reflective surfaces and acceptable vegetation. We also specifically outlined the Shoreline Overlay District language that includes that the "development shall be sited, designed and undertaken so that it is harmonious with the character of the site and the surroundinR environmental setting to the maximum extent feasible....Buildings and landscaping in shoreline areas shall be oriented and located such that they preserve public views of the Bay from public rights-of-wav....Visual access to the Bay and scenic_vistas^fwateLand district shorelines shall be protected, and the Planning Commission may impose reasonable conditions of approval to ensure that this object is met." The Planning Commission is responsible for enforcing the Shoreline Overlay District, but it appears that there isn't a thorough understanding of the Ordinance by the City Commissioners. Due to the confusion about how to enforce the Ordinance, the Commissioners discussed it as though it is a subjective requirement and therefore difficult, if not impossible, to enforce. As residents of the neighborhood, the idea of building a house that is "harmonious with the character of the site and the surrounding environmental setting to the maximum extent feasible" does not feel confusing. It requires development that follows the contour and the slope of the land, and visual public access to the Bay for the hundreds of walkers who use our neighborhood to escape the density of the city.
The proposed development affects views from the street directly in front of the house, but also from the street above (Casey Drive) that leads to Western Drive. Public views will be impacted from several vantage points in the area.
The requirements of the City's Shoreline Overlay District Ordinance were not met because the development is not harmonious with the site, does not follow the contour of the land, and does not protect public visual access to the Bay and shoreline. The late submission of the applicant's plans did not allow the Commissioners and City Staff to effectively evaluate the proposal at the October 7th Planning Commission meeting. As a result, the Commissioners relied heavily on a verbal presentation and a drawing shared by the applicant via zoom/ without the Commissioners or City Staff having the chance to review the written revisions submitted by the applicant. Approval without reviewable plans is unacceptable. (2) The Planning Commission approval is invalid due to violations of both the Brown Act and due process. A subcommittee of the DRB was formed, without any transparency with the public, without noticing or reporting of those meetings, and without a return to the full DRB for a vote on the applicant's plans.
According to our attorney, the Planning Commission and Design Review Board are separate deliberative bodies under the City of Richmond Municipal Code. The Planning Commission cannot set up a sub-committee of the DRB; they do not have this authority. All deliberations of the DRB must be properly noticed and conducted in public per the Brown Act. In seeking to approve the project, the Planning Commission overstepped their authority and called upon a subset of the DRB to work with the applicant, at the applicant's request (!). Any business conducted in such a meeting is invalid and cannot be used to approve of a project. The subset of the DRB provided an "active and significant" role in advising the Planning Commission and on September 16th, the applicant reported that the DRB supported his plans and approved of the changes. This is not true and is a procedural due process violation as the DRB had already acted on November 18th, 2020 with seven architects recommending denial of the applicant's project. Case law in Nightlife Partners v. the City of Beverly Hills (2003) finds that due process requires a fair and unbiased decision be made and this cannot be achieved via a subset of the DRB. The hierarchy of the Planning Commission relative to the DRB was muddled in this application, in violation of procedural due process precedent. As a result, the Planning Commission decision is invalid, and we ask that the approval be overturned. The remedy is for the applicant to be directed to return to the full Design Review Board. (3) There is a de facto moratorium on sewer hookups on Western Drive that includes this property.
The present sewer system is known to be inadequate and to pose significant public health and welfare issues to the citizens of Richmond. The City Council met on this issue on September 28, 2021 and it was stated in that meeting that despite there being several undeveloped properties along the shoreline in Point Richmond that could offer tax revenue to the city, no further sewer hookups should be permitted in the area of 357 Western Drive. Both Mayor Butt and PUblic Works Director Joe Leach said that there is a de facto moratorium on new sewer hook-ups along Western Drive.
THe approval by the Planning Commission includes the following statement: A requirement for approval is the demonstration that the proposed development is "adequately served by....sewer....and other public facilities and services".
The PC is required to make a finding that the property is served by all necessary utilities. It cannot currently make that finding about 357 Western Drive because the property is not served by a sanitary sewer system with adequate capacity for additional discharge from new construction.
I am an avid swimmer and I often swim parallel to that very sewer line. I also know that, on warm days, Keller beach and the local parks are packed with Richmond residents who seek relief from the heat of the city at our shared shoreline beaches. The sewer line is risking the health of our local community, making the shoreline unsafe for public recreation. Allowing further sewer hook-ups under the current conditions is short-sighted and, from a health perspective, unconscionable. Until this situation is remedied, no new sewer connections can be sanctioned.
(4) 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.
The applicant also states that the Neighborhood Council approved his plans and is in favor of his proposed development. While he did gain the approval of the Neighborhood Council, the truth is that the "plans" that were presented to the Neighborhood Council could be characterized more as pictures than as architectural plans. There were no metrics or dimensions associated with his presentation to the Neighborhood Council, and it was there that the idea of a "green wall" was introduced as a way to mitigate the enormous mass of the proposed design - a blank wall that towers over the down-hill neighbor. Instead of recommending a structure with less mass and more elegant and harmonious design, the Neighborhood Council introduced impractical ideas that were not based on reliable dimensions or metrics. The Neighborhood Council was unaware of, and so did not evaluate, the Shoreline Overlay District Ordinance.
We have offered before and will continue to suggest that City Councilmembers (and anyone else!) come to the building site. Don't take our word for it... Please come see the property and our neighborhood.
Thank you again for your time and consideration. I really appreciate all of the work that you are doing to maintain the city's integrity throughout this process.
Sincerely,
Claire