Agenda — Richmond City Council, March 4, 2025 (part 2 of 3)

March 4, 2025

Library and Community Services

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

LaShonda White, Deputy City Manager – Community
Services
Kate Eppler, Deputy Director of Community Services –
Library
Ranjana Maharaj, Deputy Director of Community
Services – Recreation

Subject:

Transfer Management of Point Richmond Community
Center from Recreation to the Richmond Public Library
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Room rental fees will decrease from $104/hr to $12.50/hr (current room rental rate for library spaces); based on recent rentals of the space, this will result in between $1,000-$2,000 less rental income per year.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Library and Recreation divisions within the
Community Services Department propose transferring
management of the Point Richmond Community Center
(PRCC) from the Recreation Division to the Library
Division. Transfer of PRCC management to the Library
will increase community access to the space via
additional Library programming and lower rental rates for community use.

AGENDA
REPORT
177

Page 2 of 4 ends

March 4, 2025
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

ADOPT a resolution approving the transfer of control of the Point Richmond Community Center from the
Recreation Division to Richmond Public Library effective April 1, 2025; and AMEND the Master Fee Schedule to
reflect the transfer to the Richmond Public Library and a reservation rate of $12.50/hr for community use of the
Point Richmond Community Center – Community
Services (Kate Eppler 510-620-5452/Ranjana Maharaj
510-620-6972/LaShonda White 510-620-6828)

DISCUSSION:

The Point Richmond Community Center (PRCC) at 139 Washington Avenue is primarily a single multi-purpose room, equipped with a kitchen, a closet, and a small office. The land on which the building sits was deeded to the City of Richmond by W.E. Smith in May 1960. Richmond’s Recreation Division operates the PRCC, which shares its building with the West Side Branch Library. Space constraints and Recreation staffing levels do not allow for regular Recreation programming in the PRCC, but it is available for rent by members of the public and community groups.

The Library Division operates the West Side Branch Library (Branch Library) at 135 Washington Avenue, housed in the same building adjacent to the PRCC and connected to it by a hallway and a set of bathrooms. The Branch Library houses 8,558 volumes in a 1,754 square foot space. In Fiscal Year (FY) 2023-2024, 6,614 users visited the Branch Library and borrowed 7,578 physical items. During the same period, about 1,000 people attended events hosted by the Branch Library. To host many of these library events, the branch library reserves the PRCC, free of charge.

In FYs 2021-2022 through 2023-2024, the PRCC was reserved 20 times by neighborhood associations, local organizations, and members of the public, generating fees of $5,850 over the three years. During those same years, the Branch Library made ten times as many reservations for the space (208 reservations) to facilitate free library programming such as author talks, children’s reading programs and reading help, writers’ groups, book or comic making workshops, and story theaters.

In acknowledgment that the Branch Library is the PRCC’s most frequent customer, and to facilitate additional City-sponsored events in the PRCC space to support reading, writing and literacy, the Library and Recreation Divisions propose to transfer management of the PRCC to the Library (Attachment 1).

Richmond Public Library’s proposed management of the PRCC would facilitate increased activation of the space for library services and programming, while still accommodating many of the community uses that currently take place. During FYs 2021-2022 through 2023-2024, renters of the PRCC who paid a rental fee paid an average of $487. If the Library assumes management of the PRCC, those costs to 178

Page 3 of 4 ends

March 4, 2025
community users will decrease dramatically, reflecting the Library’s community room rental rate of $12.50/hour.

Under the Library’s proposed management of the PRCC, rentals would need to fall under the Library’s Community Room Booking policy, which supports rentals by community groups, nonprofits, and government agencies but which does not allow for private rentals of Library spaces.

During FYs 2021-2022 through 2023-2024, five of the 20 total non-library rentals of the PRCC were by the Arts of Point Richmond organization; an additional five of the 20 non-library rentals were from local clubs, Richmond City departments, or other entities; and three rentals were by the Point Richmond Neighborhood Council. Rentals of this type would continue to have access to the space after the transfer of management, at the Library's lower rental rate or with cost waived, where applicable.

Of the 20 non-library rentals during FYs 2021-2022 through 2023-2024, just five were for personal use by members of the community or general public, which would be outside the scope of the Community Room Booking Policy under Library management.

In future, those renters would be encouraged to contact the Recreation Division about other community center locations and provided with referrals to additional resources and options.

Due to the limited staffing capacity of both the Library and Department of Public Works - Maintenance, as well as the Library principles and practices, some features of access and types of rentals would be more limited under Library management. Rentals would be limited to Library operating hours, and food and drink, as well as access to the PRCC kitchen, would not be permitted. The Deputy Director of Community Services – Library would approve any special accommodations outside of the stated policy on a case-by-case basis. The table below details current rental options for the Point Richmond Community Center, as compared to future access if managed by the Library.

Rentals at Point Richmond Community Center
Under
Recreation management
Under
Library management
Rental Fees $104 (multipurpose room)/$83
(conference room) per hour
$12.50 per hour
Rental Application Fee Yes, $50 fee n/a (free)
‘Short Notice’ Fee Yes, $50 fee n/a (free)
Kitchen access allowed Yes, $51 fee n/a (disallowed)
Rental Hours All Library operating hours only
Food and drink allowed Yes No
‘General Public’ or
business rentals allowed
Yes No (only community-based
groups/nonprofits allowed)

179

Page 4 of 4 ends

March 4, 2025
If the transfer is approved, the new rental rate, which would take effect April 1, 2025, will be updated in the City of Richmond’s Master Fee Schedule.

To accommodate more of the existing community rentals of the PRCC, which include occasional art and craft fairs from local nonprofit organizations, the Library proposes to change its Community Room Booking Policy to allow Richmond-based community groups and nonprofit organizations to conduct special sales events (Attachment 2). The Richmond Public Library Commission voted to approve this policy change at its January 2025 meeting.

Although the Recreation and Parks Commission does not currently have a quorum to meet and vote on the transfer of the PRCC from Community Services-Recreation to Community Services-Library, this information was shared with the current members of the Recreation and Parks Commission for their information. Information was also shared with members of the Library Commission.

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

This effort is aligned with Strategic Goal Area No. 3: Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health/Improve Social Determinants of Health. Transfer of management of the Point Richmond Recreation Center to the Library will increase activation of the space by improving its usability for Library programs and events. The management transfer will also support Strategic Goal 3.2.b, ‘Build or upgrade Main Library,’ by providing additional space to support library operations during the renovation period when the Main Library building is closed.

City Staff is seeking Council approval of the proposed management of PRCC from Community Services-Recreation to Community Services-Library.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Resolution
Attachment 2 – Library Community Rooms Booking Policy

180
Reso. No. XX-24

Page 1 of 2 ends

RESOLUTION NO. XX-24

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, [TO TRANSFER MANAGEMENT OF THE POINT RICHMOND COMMUNITY

CENTER FROM THE RECREATION DIVISION TO RICHMOND PUBLIC LIBRARYTHE LIBRARY DIVISION WITH AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF APRIL 1, 2025]

WHEREAS, the Point Richmond Community Center, located at 139 Washington Ave in Richmond, CA, is managed by Richmond’s Recreation Division and;

WHEREAS, the West Side Branch Library at 135 Washington Ave. adjoins the Point Richmond Community Center, and is managed by Richmond Public Library and;

WHEREAS, the Point Richmond Community Center does not host Recreation Division- led programming but is reservable by the community and;

WHEREAS, the Richmond Public Library is the biggest customer of the Point Richmond Recreation Center, reserving it 208 times in Fiscal Year 2021-2022 through Fiscal Year 2023-2024 and;

WHEREAS, the Richmond Public Library can continue to make the room available for community reservations under its Community Room Booking Policy at the Library’s standard rate of $12.50/hour, although with some changes to permitted uses, and;

WHEREAS, management of the Point Richmond Community Center will help Richmond Public Library expand its programming and services at West Side Branch, while eliminating the need for the reservation process and saving City staff time, and;

WHEREAS Library programming at West Side Branch serves community needs and interests, attracting 1,000 attendees during Fiscal Year 2023-2024, and;

WHERAS, the Community Services divisions of Recreation and Richmond Public Library agree that transfer of the Point Richmond Community Center will lead to increased activation of the space and will serve community interest;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that control and management of the Point Richmond Community Center at 139 Washington Ave., be transferred from Community Services – Recreation Division to Community Services – Library Division, effective April 1, 2025 and;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Richmond Master Fee Schedule will be amended to reflect that the reservation rate for the Point Richmond Community Center will be $12.50/hour, effective April 1, 2025, and that the Library’s Community Room Booking Policy will govern all community reservations of the space.

**********************

***THE CITY CLERK’S OFFICE WILL COMPLETE THE INFORMATION BELOW***

I certify that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting thereof held Xxxxxxxx XXMarch 5, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

Formatted: Font: Not Bold
181
Reso. No. XX-24

Page 2 of 2 ends

PAMELA CHRISTIAN

CLERK OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND
(SEAL)
Approved:

EDUARDO MARTINEZ
Mayor

Approved as to form:

DAVE ALESHIRE
City Attorney

State of California }
County of Contra Costa : ss.

City of Richmond }

I certify that the foregoing is a true copy of Resolution No. XX-24, finally passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Richmond at a regular meeting held on Xxxxxxxx XX, 2024.

Pamela Christian, Clerk of the City of Richmond
182
Library Community Rooms Booking Policy Rev. January 8, 2025

LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOMS BOOKING POLICY
The City of Richmond extends use of the Main Library’s Madeline F. Whittlesey Community Room and Point Richmond Community Room by non-profit groups and organizations (hereinafter referred to as groups) when the room is not needed for activities sponsored or co-sponsored by the Library. Library programs have priority over other uses of the room. The City reserves the right to revoke or modify this policy and its regulations to adapt to the operational needs of the Library.

Meetings and activities must be open to the public at no charge. Groups may conduct customary activities such as collecting dues from members. No admission fees may be charged. Products and services may be sold only by Richmond-based community and nonprofit organizations, at the discretion of the Deputy Director of Community Services – Library. Groups formed to support the Library may use the room for fundraising activities in support of the Library. Richmond Neighborhood Councils will receive one free use of one Library meeting room per calendar year, subject to availability, which must be reserved in advance of the meeting date.

Availability, Use, and Occupancy
The City can impose reasonable conditions for the use of the room to ensure that public property is not being damaged and that the safety and welfare of the public is maintained. The City may collect reimbursement for any damage or additional costs incurred.

The Library reserves the right to attend any meeting held in its facilities to verify Library policies are being upheld, and that no illegal activities take place on the premises.

• Availability: The room is available only during the Library open hours. Groups must exit the building by Library closing time.
• Frequency: Limit one (1) booking to one (1) day per month. No renter may book Library meeting rooms more than 6 times per calendar year. This limit applies to the total annual bookings of both Point Richmond Community Room and Madeline F. Whittlesey Community Room. • Fees: The City reserves the right to collect fees for use, which are set in the City’s Master Fee Schedule. The fee must be paid in advance (see Access to the Room for details). • Cleaning and set-up: Renters are responsible for arranging furniture and setting up the room.

The room shall be left in the condition in which it was found. There is no custodial service during the day, and staff members are not free to leave Library duties to arrange the room or perform any services.
• Equipment: Non-Library groups must provide their own equipment such as projectors, etc. To use the screen, notify staff when reserving the room. The kitchen in the Point Richmond Community Room is unavailable for use. No permanent modifications may be made to the room 183
Library Community Rooms Booking Policy Rev. January 8, 2025

and no equipment may be left in the room after rental. The Library will not pay any portion of the cost of a renter’s activities in the room nor any portion of the cost of equipment renters bring for use in the room.
• Prohibitions:
o Smoking and vaping are not allowed in City buildings, including the adjacent courtyard.

Any activities that make smoke or fire, including smoking, vaping, and burning incense, are not allowed in City buildings, including the adjacent Library courtyard. o Food, cooking, and alcoholic beverages are prohibited. No eating or drinking is allowed. • Room Capacity: By order of the City Fire Marshal, capacity in either room shall not exceed the posted capacity limits.

Eligibility Requirements
Any group using the room must meet the following eligibility requirements and ensure that their activities are not disruptive of the Library in any way. Such inappropriate activity will result in immediate eviction and denial of future room use.

• Groups eligible to rent or use the Community Room are City and other governmental organizations, non-profit public, private, civic, cultural, educational, and charitable groups and organizations. The Library makes the room available to a wide variety of groups; however, this does not include for-profit groups.
• Youth groups must have an adult (age 18 or older) responsible for the proper use of the room and adherence to policy rules.
• Library personnel have authority over the use of the room. To book the room, call the Library Administration Office at (510) 620-6555.

Access to the Room
• If the fee is not paid by 5 pm the day prior to the meeting, the meeting may not take place there.
• “No shows” may be denied future use of the room.
• Access to the room is restricted to the hours booked. Always include set-up and teardown time as part of the hours booked.

Health and Masking Requirements
Non-City personnel who enter City premises must comply with State of California, Contra Costa County, or City of Richmond health policies, whichever is more restrictive, regarding vaccination/boosters, social distancing, social gathering, mask wearing, and other requirements as may be issued by the State, County, or City of Richmond.

184

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Proclamation Recognizing March 202 5 as Red Cross
Month in Richmond
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Observing Red Cross Month highlights the critical work of the American Red Cross in disaster response, blood
donation, and safety training. It celebrates the dedication of volunteers and staff who support our community daily, embodying a commitment to compassion and service.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION declaring March 2025 as Red Cross Month in the City of Richmond – Mayor’s Office (Mayor
Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

In March, we observe Red Cross Month, a time to recognize and celebrate the critical humanitarian efforts of the American Red Cross. Founded to provide emergency assistance, disaster relief, and education in the United States, the Red Cross has been a pillar of support and resilience. With a vast network of volunteers, the organization plays a key role in our community's safety and well-being, offering lifesaving blood donations, disaster response services, and health and safety training. This month, Richmond honors the spirit of volunteerism and the impactful contributions of the Red Cross and its volunteers, who exemplify dedication to helping others in times of need.

AGENDA
REPORT
185

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025
We encourage all residents of Richmond to support and engage with the Red Cross's mission, reinforcing our community's capacity to care for each other.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation declaring March 2025 as Red Cross Month in the City of Richmond
186

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
March 4, 2025

Proclaiming March 2025, as Red Cross Month

WHEREAS, March is American Red Cross month, when we recognize the compassion of people in Richmond and renew our commitment to lend a helping hand to our neighbors in need; and

WHEREAS, American Red Cross volunteers have stepped up to deliver relief and care across our country and around the world, bringing out the best of humanity in times of crisis as Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, did over 140 years ago; and

WHEREAS, the volunteers, blood and platelet donors, and supporters shine a beacon of hope in people’s darkest hours —delivering shelter, food and comfort during disasters; providing critical blood donations for hospital patients; supporting service members, veterans and their families; saving lives with first aid, CPR, AED and other skills; or delivering international aid and reconnecting loved ones separated by global crises; and

WHEREAS, with 982 volunteers in Contra Costa County, the American Red Cross assisted or responded to 94 disasters, assisting 204 families; and through our Sound the Alarm program, the American Red Cross installed 846 smoke alarms, making 262 homes safer, and trained 1,876 youth and adults through Pillowcase Project and Preparedness Programs; and

WHEREAS, Contra Costa County residents donated 17,356 units of lifesaving blood; hosted 520 blood drives; and trained 11,808 citizens in first aid, CPR, AED, and aquatics; and provided 463 case services to military members and their families; and provided humanitarian aid internationally; and

WHEREAS, this work to uplift our community is made possible by those who selflessly answer the call to help, whenever and wherever it is needed. We hereby recognize this month of March in honor of their remarkable service, and we ask everyone to join in their commitment to care for one another.

NOW THEREFORE, I, Mayor Eduardo Martinez, on behalf of the Richmond City Council, do hereby proclaim March 2025 as Red Cross Month. I encourage all citizens of Richmond, California, to reach out and support its humanitarian mission.

187

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez

Subject:

Proclamation Declaring March 2025 Women’s History
Month
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The City of Richmond proclaims March as Women's
History Month to honor and celebrate the invaluable
contributions women have made throughout our history.

From their leadership in local businesses and community organizations to their enduring efforts for gender equity, safety, and social progress, women have been central to shaping the vibrancy and strength of our city. This month serves as a reminder of their resilience, achievements, and continued impact on our community and beyond.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: PROCLAMATION declaring March 2025 as Women’s History Month in the City of Richmond – Mayor’s Office
(Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

The history of women in Richmond is marked by unwavering determination, resilience, and perseverance. From their vital contributions on the Home Front during World War II to their leadership roles today in the public sector, nonprofits, and local businesses, women have played a pivotal role in shaping our community.

AGENDA
REPORT
188

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025
The City of Richmond takes pride in the many women-owned businesses and entrepreneurs who strengthen our local economy. These women create job opportunities, support community initiatives, lead with impact, break barriers in male- dominated fields, and contribute to the revitalization of our economy. We recognize the tireless efforts of women of all ages who champion gender equity, advocate for safety, and work to enhance the quality of life for everyone who lives, works, and plays in our city. The City of Richmond is committed to honoring the invaluable contributions of women to our culture, economy, history, and heritage.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Proclamation declaring March 2025 Women’s History Month in the City of Richmond
189

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
City of Richmond
March 4, 2025

Declaring March 2025 as Women’s History Month

WHEREAS, in 1978, the school district of Sonoma, California recognized Women’s History Week to highlight the contributions of women to events in history and contemporary society; and

WHEREAS, in 1980, President Jimmy Carter issued a presidential proclamation recognizing Women's History Week, which was followed by the United States Congress recognizing Women’s History Week in 1981 and Women’s History Month in 1987; and

WHEREAS, the history of women in Richmond is one of steadfast determination, resilience, and perseverance, including the critical role women have played in the development of our society from contributions during World War II on the Home Front to current leadership roles in the public sector, nonprofits, and local business; and

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond is proud of the many women-owned businesses and entrepreneurs that contribute to the health and success of our local communities by creating job opportunities for residents, supporting community initiatives, demonstrating effective leadership, excelling in male- dominated industries, and helping revitalize our economy; and

WHEREAS, the City of Richmond recognizes the leadership efforts made by women of all ages who work tirelessly to advance gender equity, promote safety, and improve the quality of life for all people who live, work, and play in our city; and

NOW THEREFORE, I, Mayor Eduardo Martinez, on behalf of the Richmond City Council, do hereby declare March 2025 as Women’s History Month in the City of Richmond and support efforts honoring the indispensable contributions of women to our culture, economy, history, and heritage.

190

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Reappointment of Andrea Martinez Alvarez to the
Richmond Youth Council
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Andrea Martinez Alvarez is reapplying to serve on the
Richmond Youth Council
RECOMMENDED ACTION: REAPPOINT Andrea Martinez Alvarez to the Richmond Youth Council, term expires October 1, 2025 – Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

I am pleased to recommend the reappointment of Andrea Martinez Alvarez to the Richmond Youth Council. A dedicated and passionate high school student, Andrea has lived in Richmond for 17 years and has consistently demonstrated a strong commitment AGENDA
REPORT
191

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025
to her community. She volunteers with Rising Juntos, where she contributes her time and energy to support local youth, and has valuable experience as a teacher’s assistant. In addition to her volunteer work, Andrea is a member of the National Honor Society, reflecting her academic dedication and leadership qualities. Her continued involvement in community service and her demonstrated leadership make her an ideal candidate to serve on the Richmond Youth Council, where she will continue to be a voice for youth and have a positive influence on the future of our city.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Andrea Martinez Alvarez’s redacted application

192
193

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025

Mayor's Office

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Members of the City Council
FROM:

Mayor Eduardo Martinez
Subject:

Appointment of Regina Gilligan to the Urban Forest
Advisory Committee
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

Regina Gilligan is applying for a vacant seat on the
Urban Forest Advisory Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPOINT Regina Gilligan to the Urban Forest Advisory Committee, term expires November 17, 2027 – Mayor’s
Office (Mayor Eduardo Martinez 510-620-6503).

DISCUSSION:

Regina Gilligan is a dedicated advocate for native plants and trees, with a strong commitment to environmental sustainability and community engagement. Holding a BA in Psychology and both a BFA and MFA in Painting and Sculpture, she combines her artistic expertise with her passion for ecological health. Regina is involved in AGENDA
REPORT
194

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025
organizations such as the El Cerrito Garden Club, El Cerrito Trail Trekkers, and the Women’s Environmental Artist Directory (W.E.A.D.), and has contributed to the local environmental movement through projects like the "Bringing Back the Natives" mural at the Panhandle. She has also participated in a Native Plants study group and is committed to educating the public about the importance of planting natives for both environmental and public health. Regina’s creative approach and community-driven perspective make her a valuable asset to the Urban Forest Advisory Commission, where she will help promote a strong tree planting agenda and advocate for the critical role of native plants in urban ecosystems.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Regina Gilligan’s redacted application

195
r

RECEIVED
f c-Fonn J CITY CLERl(S OFFICE
CITY Of RIC! '.:'fOND
4;'1'6JG
BOARD OR COMMISSION APPLICATION F01;ffi JAtJ 30 Prl ·-5t-Bf}- DA TE: 1 /29/25
Check one: New Appointment ta
Re-Appointment □
NAME OF BOARD OR COMMISSION: U rban Forestry Advisory Commission NAME: Regina Gilligan
HOME ADDRESS: -----------------------------
ZIP CODE: 94804 HOME PHONE: ---- WORK PHONE: ________ _ OCCUPATION: retired+ Artist EMAIL ADDRESS:

HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND: 25 years _..;.._ _________
PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT:

REASONS FOR INTEREST IN APPOINTMENT:

I have an interest in Native Plants and Trees. I've participated in a Native Plants study group as part of a local garden club. I understand the importance for our health and the health of the environment for the city to have a strong tree planting agenda and want to help deseminate 1ntormat1on to the public about the crmcal importance of planting natives. I painted a Bringing back the natives mural tor the Panhandle FRATERNAL AND/OR CIVIC ORGANIZATIONS:

W.E.A.D. (Women's Environmental Artist Directory), VAR (Visual Artists of Richmond), Point Molate Alliance, El Cerrito Garden Club, El Cerrito Trail Trekkers EDUCATION:

BA Psychology, BFA, MFA Painting and Sculpture
REFERENCES (Minimum 5 - List Name, Address, Phone Number, and Email Address)

1. Anita Pereira,

2. Gayle McLaughlin,
3_ Alison Ehara-Brown,
4_ Martha Jackson,
s. Tarnel Abbott,
@±
i,,;,.____,____ JiJL�t,ot =dgo tho lofom,atioo pm,;,,,,•''"' aod '°i" O
'J,. >
5 �. . '. j -Da-te...!......�::._.--+-----Delrver or Marl to. City Clerk Or Email to: [email protected] .,.._..._ __ ___ 450 Civic Center Plaza Print and Sign
Richmond, CA 94804
196

Page 1 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025

Public Works

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Daniel Chavarria, Director of Public Works
Tawfic Halaby, Deputy Director of Public Works
Operations & Maintenance
Hugo Mendoza, Public Works Abatement Division
Superintendent
Subject:

January 2025 Abatement Presentation
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

The Director of Public Works provides the City Council
with a monthly presentation highlighting the activities of the Public Work’s Abatement Division. This presentation reflects the abatement activities for January 2025.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

RECEIVE a presentation on the January 2025 abatement
activities – Public Works Department (Hugo Mendoza
510-231-3030 / Tawfic Halaby 510-620-5482 / Daniel
Chavarria 510-620-5478).

AGENDA
REPORT
197

Page 2 of 2 ends

March 4, 2025
DISCUSSION:

On a monthly basis, the Director of Public Works provides the City Council with a presentation highlighting the activities of the City’s Abatement Division. The Abatement Division is responsible for many citywide activities, including hosting neighborhood dumpster days, picking up illegal dumping and weed abatement, and supporting homeless encampments abatement.

Dumpster days are scheduled for Richmond residents on a rotating basis, typically once or twice a year, depending on the size of the neighborhood. In preparation for these events, staff from the Abatement Division provide assistance to elderly and disabled residents who are unable to transport items to the designated dumpster day location

When addressing illegal dumping, the Abatement Division staff meticulously tracks specific items such as mattresses, paint, oil, and tires to ensure their proper disposal, as these items are not placed in landfills. Within the public right-of-way, the Abatement Division staff is responsible for removing weeds and abating encampments.

Occasionally, in collaboration with Code Enforcement staff and Richmond Police Department staff, and with the appropriate signed warrant in hand, the Abatement Division staff enters private property to perform abatement functions.

The presentation summarizes Abatement staff activities for the month of January 2025 (Attachment 1).

The following are highlights from the report:
 Removed 280.88 tons of illegal dumping
 Removed 251 mattresses
 Removed 122 gallons of paint/oil
 Removed 175 tires
 Abated 17 encampments and removed 36.29 tons of debris  Removed 242 graffiti tags from 120 locations

SYNERGISTIC POLICIES:

Strategic Goal Area No. 3 Improve the Quality of Life and Community Health/Improve Social Determinants of Health
 Goal 3.1 Improve maintenance of built environment, parks, and new recreation infrastructure

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 – Presentation

198
PUBLIC

WORKS/ABATEMENT
JANUARY 2025

ABATEMENT UPDATE
FEBRUARY 25, 2025
199

ILLEGAL DUMPING
280.88 TONS REMOVED
200

ILLEGAL

DUMPING
201
ILLEGAL DUMPING:

MATTRESSES, PAINT/OIL

AND TIRES
 251 MATTRESSES
 122 GALLONS OF PAINT/OIL
 175 TIRES
202

ENCAMPMENT
ABATEMENT (17)
36.29 Tons removed
203

ENCAMPMENT

ABATEMENT
204
Total
2025DecNovOctSepAugJulJunMayAprMarFebJan
Tonnage
Collected
280.88Illegal Dumping
0 Neighborhood
Clean‐Ups*

36.29Encampments
317.17Totals
0*Number of Events
205

GRAFFITI REMOVAL
242 Tags Removed
120 Locations
206

GRAFFITI REMOVAL
207

ABATEMENT STAFF HOURS
Illegal Dumping 1196
Encampment Removal 168
Graffiti Abatement 220
North Richmond Mitigation 34
Weeds/Brush Abatement 0
Fencing, Private Board Ups & Clean-Ups 0
Seniors Assistance 0
Leave 296
Management 290
Transport/Misc.* 36
Total 2240
January Hours
Illegal Dumping
Encampment Removal
Graffiti Abatement
North Richmond Mitigation
Weeds/brush Abatement
Transport/Misc*
Board Ups/Clean Ups/Fencing
Seniors Assistance
ManagementTransport/Misc. includes staff hours for removal of debris from vehicles, Point Molate trash removal, and hazardous waste facility disposal.
208
ILLEGAL DUMPING TONNAGE COLLECTED PER MONTH - 2025
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
209
ILLEGAL DUMPING TOTAL COST PER MONTH – 2025*

0.00 20,000.00
40,000.00
60,000.00
80,000.00
100,000.00
120,000.00
January February March April May June July Au gust September October November December *Includes Labor and Equipment
210
on
IRON TRIANGLE
BELDING WOODS
W
Barre
tt Ave
NORTH & EAST RICHMO
HEIGHT
ATCHISO

N VILLAGE
Dim
St RICHMORE VILLAGE-
METRO
SQUARE
Illegal Dumping
Hotspot (18)
February, 2025
Canal
PULLMAN PARK PLAZA
SANTE FE 580
CORONADO EL CERRITO
Lauritzen Canal
S 31st
St
CORTEZ-STEGE LAUREL PARK
80
EASTSHORE
Miller-knox
Regional
Shoreline
PARKVIEW
MARINA BAY
POINT

RICHMOND
PANHAND

LE ANNEX
RICHMO

ND ANNEX
Richmond Inner Harbor
San
Francisco
Bay
SOUTHWE

ST ANNEX
0 1/41/21 Miles
El
Cerrito Plz
ALBANY
211

PART NERSH IPS
212

Page 1 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025

Community Development

DATE: March 4, 2025
TO: Mayor Martinez and Members of the City Council
FROM:

Lina Velasco, Director of Community Development
Avery Stark, Acting Planning Manager
James Atencio, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Pam Lee, Aleshire & Wynder, LLP
Subject:

California Portsmouth Square Association (CPSA)
Emergency Housing (PLN23-360) Public Hearing to
Consider an Appeal of the Denial of Conditional Use
Permit.

FINANCIAL IMPACT: None.

PREVIOUS COUNCIL
ACTION:

None.

STATEMENT OF THE
ISSUE:

An appeal was submitted by Lonnie Holmes, of the
Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Conditional
Use Permit (PLN23-360) to convert an existing office
building into an emergency shelter for up to 25 persons at 207 37th St (APN: 516-210-020)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:

HOLD a Public Hearing and ADOPT a Resolution
denying the appeal submitted by Lonnie Holmes of the
Planning Commission’s denial of a conditional use permit to convert an existing office building into an emergency shelter at 207 37th Street and Uphold the Planning
Commission’s decision denying Planning Application No.

PLN23-360 – Community Development Department (Lina
Velasco/ Avery Stark 510-620-6706).

DISCUSSION:

AGENDA REPORT
213

Page 2 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
This report addresses the appeal submitted by the appellant following the Planning Commission’s decision to deny a Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-360) on December 19,2024 for the proposed project at 207 37th Street (APN: 516-210-020). It aims to provide the City Council with a comprehensive overview of the background, the basis for the Planning Commission’s denial, and the arguments presented in the appeal.

Background
The subject site is located at 207 37th Street (“Site” or “Property”), at the southeast intersection of 37th Street and Bissel Ave, in the Pullman neighborhood. 37th Street is a two-lane local street that intersects with Macdonald Avenue one block north of the subject site and has access to I-80 in about 1 mile. The Site is approximately 7,500 square feet and zoned T5MS-O (T5 Main Street – Open) within the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code. Adjacent properties along Bissel Avenue are zoned T5MS-O with residential uses developed with single-family units. Adjacent and nearby properties bordering Macdonald Avenue are zoned T5MS (T5 Main Street) with primarily commercial uses.

214

Page 3 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
The Site is developed with an existing 5,045-square-foot office building that is currently vacant and has been vacant for several years, with the exception of May to August of 2023, when the structure was used as an emergency shelter, as described below. The main entrance, located at the front of the structure on 37th Street, has a metal gate and rolling metal security fence. The rear of the building has wooden screens covering existing windows and a portion of the rear wall and has a metal security door at the rear entrance. The parking area at the rear of the building includes minimal landscaping and three parking spaces, which do not meet the required stall length nor include any accessible spaces.

Previous Shelter Use: Starting in May of 2023, the nonprofit California Portsmouth Square Association (CPSA) assisted the City of Richmond and the nonprofits Ways to Love and the Consortium of the East Bay by providing and 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. The residents primarily consisted of women, some of whom had children. No land use permits were needed at the time since the City was involved with the three-way arrangement to address an emergency situation at the Castro encampment. Subsequently, in early August 2023, the Fire Department advised Community Development staff that the use could not continue because the structure had code deficiencies that did not allow for a housing- type use. The City discontinued its involvement with CPSA and the occupants moved out in August of 2023, at which point the use was fully discontinued.

Some time thereafter, the applicant and architect, Gregory VanMechelen, requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the conversion of the office building into an emergency shelter for up to 25 persons (“Project”).

Project Proposal
The Project consists of converting the existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds. The Project would provide housing for no longer than six months; individual residents would individually obtain supportive services based on their case management programs, such as therapist, vocational, and occupational and related services, The Project would include seven rooms (six dorm-style and one private), a women’s restroom, a men’s restroom, one private restroom, an entertainment room, a dining hall, an office area for management staff, and a rear courtyard area.

The primary entrance would be on 37th Street, and an accessible entrance would be provided on Bissell Avenue, through the rear courtyard. Again, residency would be limited to six months or less.

Exterior improvements to the Site included adding egress windows at the rear of the building to comply with building codes for the new occupancy type, a 30-square-foot addition to accommodate a rear vestibule and wheelchair access ramp, and removal of existing non-compliant parking stripes. The newly striped parking area would include three parking spaces (including two tandem spaces and one accessible space), five short-term bicycle parking spaces, a new wheelchair ramp at the rear of the building, a new 340-square-foot courtyard area at the rear of the building, a refuse area with 215

Page 4 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
screening wall in the center of the parking area, and a six-foot-tall fence (including a metal person gate and rolling vehicle access gate) surrounding the parking area for security purposes. Per the applicant’s description, CPSA would not directly hire service providers for the shelter. Instead, individual residents would be placed at the shelter with existing management plans in place. CPSA would solely provide staffing management/security personnel responsible for intake, supervising residents, and any other daily requirements of shelter operations.

State Laws on Emergency Shelters
In accordance with California Government Code §65583(a)(4)(B), emergency shelters may only be subject to objective standards that already exist in the Richmond Municipal Code (“RMC”) or other regulations, and conditions of approval that are imposed are permitted to address only the following issues:

 Maximum number of beds or persons permitted to be served nightly by the facility;  Sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone;  Size and location of exterior and interior onsite waiting and client intake areas;  Provision of onsite management;
 Proximity to other emergency shelters, provided that emergency shelters are not required to be more than 300 feet apart;
 Length of stay;
 Lighting; and
 Security during hours that the emergency shelter is in operation.

According to the State statute referenced above, the City may prescribe specific operational requirements to the extent deemed sufficient to address public health and safety concerns and would not render the project financially infeasible. For example:

 Management and security requirements may include the number of required staff and training.
 On-site management requirements may address sanitation, air quality, graffiti abatement, and exterior improvements, as well as outdoor congregation areas.  Outdoor congregation areas could be based on California Fire Code requirements of 15 square feet per person in a furnished assembly area (i.e., with tables and chairs).  Parking may be based on staffing requirements.

State law does not allow the City to reduce occupancy beyond what is identified in the current regulations; in this case, up to 25 beds are allowed in accordance with RMC Section 15.04.610.180.

Neither state law nor local municipal standards require a specific ratio of management staff to residents for emergency shelters. City staff recommended that the Project be required to operate with three management staff personnel awake and on duty during daytime hours, and two management staff personnel awake and on duty during 216

Page 5 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
nighttime hours, as is required for residential care facilities in California. City staff also recommended that the management team include two trained, uniformed security officers at all times, as informed by the Richmond Police Department’s Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) report. City staff recommended requiring one of the required management staff personnel to be designated as a Community Liaison and requiring one additional staff personnel during nighttime hours to be on-call within 30 minutes of the facility in case of an emergency.

Thus, in terms of parking requirements under the RMC, there needs to be 33 percent less than the number of employees working at the Project at a given time. In this case, the day time hours have up to five staff members (three management staff personnel plus two security officers), and therefore at least three and one-third parking spaces, rounded up to four parking spaces are required for this Project.

Planning Commission Review and Denial:

The Planning Commission reviewed the application during several hearings of the Planning Commission, beginning on May 2, 2024, continuing to June 6, 2024, then July 18, 2024, and finally on November 7, 2024. A decision was rendered at a December 19, 2024 meeting. After extensive discussion and continued public hearings, the Commission denied the application based on several factors, including:
 Potential impacts on surrounding land uses
 Inadequate mitigation measures to address community concerns  Non-compliance with certain applicable zoning standards and development guidelines.

Specifically, the Planning Commission was required to make the following five findings, as required under RMC Section 15.04.806.040:

1. 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;

3. 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;

4. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and

5. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Although the Planning Commission found that criteria #1 and #5 were satisfied, criteria #2, #3, and #4 were not, for the following reasons:

Page 6 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
commercial uses in the same zone. RMC Section 15.04.607.060 requires a minimum of 33 percent less than the estimated demand for a use (or in this case, 33% less than the number of employees). The Project proposes two (2) parking spaces on-site. The applicant stated that there would be three employees, so three parking spaces would be required, and 33 percent less than that is two parking spaces. However, this parking and employee count does not account for the two additional security personnel that are required to be on-site at all times (one patrolling the exterior of the building and one patrolling the interior of the building). Therefore, there will be five employees/personnel working at the Project Site, and the required number of parking spaces is five spaces, which means more than three spaces will be required (taking into consideration a reduction of 33% less than the number of employees on-site). At most, the Site can accommodate three on-site parking spaces. Accordingly, the parking requirement was not satisfied.

Additional data from RPD was taken to compare the calls per year by month in 2023, when the Project was operating illegally without a permit in 2023, as compared to the same time period in other years between 2019 to 2024. The comparison is attached as Exhibit C to the November 7, 2024 Staff Report linked as Attachment 9. The data from the CPTED shows that during the year that the Project was in operation illegally in 2023, the calls for service were the highest, compared to the previous years and in 2024. Additionally, the monthly breakdown indicates that during the months the Project was in operation illegally in 2023, the calls for service were higher during May through August of 2023, compared to the same months during previous years and in 2024. This demonstrates an indisputable uptick in calls for service and potential criminal activity based on the Project operation, which necessitates a need for increased security measures to address adverse safety concerns at the site and in the surrounding neighborhood.

The conditions of approval for the Project, as proposed by the City, to address security and safety concerns include: minimum of three daytime staff and two nighttime staff, not including security personnel, employee training on preventive safety measures, graffiti removal within 24 hours of notice, operation of seven security cameras and monitoring, posted signage regarding loitering and prohibited activities on-site, and two onsite uniformed security personnel at all times. The applicant, however, has indicated that the conditions of approval with respect to the security measures would need to be modified or eliminated, such that the security personnel should not and could not contact persons on the premises or in vehicles without probable cause.

Public Health/Safety: The applicant also was not willing to comply with the litter management requirements to ensure that the site and adjacent area are kept free of 218

Page 7 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
litter at all times. There had been problems with litter and the public health and safety of the Project Site due to litter, illegal dumping, and potential vermin issues during the time the Project was operating illegally without a permit. The proposed conditions address those public health and safety concerns, but the applicant does not appear to seek compliance with those conditions.

Overall, the operating characteristics of the Project, including capacity, security protocols, and on-site management, are proposed to be imposed to address adverse safety impacts and security issues, but the applicant has requested modification or elimination of conditions that would adequately address these concerns, such that the conditions, if adopted, would exacerbate local safety and security challenges rather than alleviate them.

Appeal Action
Pursuant to RMC Section 15.04.803.140.E, the City Council determines whether an underlying decision is supported by substantial evidence and/or constitutes an abuse of discretion. The same standards and evaluation criteria, including the findings required, apply as they were for the original application. The appellate body’s review is limited to the issue(s) raised in the petition for the appeal.

The Richmond Municipal Code allows for appeal of Planning Commission decisions per RMC Section 15.04.803.140. A public hearing is required for an appeal, and new testimony and other new evidence can be provided and considered by the City Council.

The City Council is not bound by the Planning Commission’s decision, and is not required to decide the matter based on the conclusions or assumptions made by the Planning Commission. Instead, the City Council has the authority to affirm, modify, or reverse the original decision. However, if the City Council decides to modify or reverse the approval, the City Council must state specific reasons for doing so and provide a decision within 30 days of the close of the public hearing. The City Council may also choose to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and a decision, but only if significant new evidence is presented in conjunction with the appeal, which may include substantial changes to the original proposal.

In this case, Lonnie Homes appealed the Planning Commission’s decision on January 2, 2025. The appellant argues its position in Attachment 2 of this agenda report.

The appeal specifically requests that the City Council:
 Reconsider the evidence and findings presented by the Planning Commission  Evaluate additional documentation submitted with the appeal  Determine whether a remand for further review or a reversal of the decision is warranted

The appellant cites inconsistent police data, regulatory overreach on staffing hiring requirements, cleaning of public streets, and addressing loitering strangers, among others, that the appellant states it does not have control over. The appellant also states 219

Page 8 of 8 ends

March 4, 2025
that it did not disagree or refuse the conditions proposed by the Planning Department of the City.

Review of the Planning Commission’s Decision:

An analysis of the Planning Commission’s findings indicates that the decision was primarily driven by concerns related to the number of parking spaces being inadequate for the proposed number of staff for the emergency shelter, and therefore the appellant’s Project cannot meet the objective standards of the RMC with respect to parking, which is a topic that the City has authority over, pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(B). Other issues related to security and public health and safety were also considered. Staff notes that these concerns are in line with established city policies.

City staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution in Attachment 1 denying the appeal and uphold the finding consistent with those of the Planning Commission’s denial of the conditional use permit. This would maintain consistency with the City’s planning policies and protect community interests.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1 - Resolution Denying the Appeal
Attachment 2 - Appeal filed by Lonnie Homes
Attachment 3 - Project Plans
Attachment 4 - CPTED Report
Attachment 5 - Planning Commission Agenda Report dated June 6, 2024 Attachment 6 - Planning Commission Approved Meeting Minutes June 6, 2024 Attachment 7 - Planning Commission Agenda Report dated July 18, 2024 Attachment 8 - Planning Commission Approved Meeting Minutes July 18, 2024 Attachment 9 - Planning Commission Agenda Report dated November 7, 2024 Attachment 10 - Planning Commission Approved Meeting Minutes November 7, 2024 Attachment 11 - Planning Commission Agenda Report dated December 19, 2024 Attachment 12 – DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated December 19, 2024
Attachment 13 – CPSA Response to December 19, 2024 Public Comment

220

1 RESOLUTION NO. _________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLN23-360) TO ALLOW THE CO NVERSION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING TO AN EMERGENCY SHELTER.

WHEREAS, on November 22, 2023, Gregory VanMechelen (the “applicant”) filed Planning Application No. PLN23-360 requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert an existing office building located at 207 37th Street (the “Project Site” or “premises”) in the T5MS- O (Main Street - Open) District, APN 516-210-020 to an emergency shelter (the “Project”); and

WHEREAS, the requested CUP for the Project is subject to the provisions of Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section 15.04.610.180 and Article 15.04.806 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance and Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A) and (B); and

WHEREAS, the requested CUP for the Project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 – New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15269(c) – Emergency Projects; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the CUP for the Proj ect on June 6 th, 2024, after which the hearing was continued to a date uncertain; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the CUP for the Project on July 18 th, 2024, after which the hearing was continued to a d ate uncertain; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a properly noticed public hearing on the CUP for the Project on November 7, 2024, and considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, and closed the public hearing; after deliberation and discussion, he Commission directed planning division staff to return with a revised resolution making findings for CUP Project denial, after which the item was continued to December 19, 2024; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Comm ission resumed discussion of the item on December 19, 2024 of the CUP Project denial and, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted at or before the public hearing, including the staff report, the Planning Commission denied Planning Application No. PLN23 -360, based on findings with statements of facts as required by Section 15.04.806.040 of the Zoning Ordinance for denial of a CUP; and

WHEREAS, on January 2, 2025 , an appeal was filed by Lonnie Holmes (“appellant”), objecting to the Planning Commission’s denial of the Conditional Use Permit (PLN23-360); and

WHEREAS, the proposed projects is categorically exempt under Section 15303 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA): new construction or conversion of small structures; and Section 15269(c) – emergency projects; and 221

2 WHEREAS, on March 4, 2025 , the City Council conducted a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, including the staff report; and

WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials and testimony received at or before the public hearing, the City Council makes the following findings, with supporting statements of fact, regarding the application consistency, as required by Section 15.04.805.050 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance, for denial of the appeal and affirmation of the Project denial;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the Ci ty of Richmond, does hereby find as follows:

Section 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. Based on substantial evidence in the record, including all documents, oral testimony, and statements of facts, presented at the public hearing, the City Council denies the appeal of , and affirms, the Planning Commission’s denial of Application No. PLN23 -360 for a CUP to convert an existing office building into an emergency shelter, based on the following findings of facts and evidence:

1. 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;

Statement of Fact: Criterion Satisfied. The Project Site has a General Plan land use designation of “Medium -Intensity, Mixed-Use” which encourages a diverse mix of uses.

The Project is also consistent with the General Plan’s multiple initiatives to support and reduce barriers for emergency shelters in the city, such as Housing Element Programs

4.G and 4.J, and Policy 4.6 which seeks to “actively […] expand emergency, transitional, and supportive housing to address homelessness in Richmond.”

Further, the proposed Project would put an underutilized p arcel back into use after years of vacancy, would add a new local -serving service space with access to transit and bicycle facilities, and would add elements of surveillance and accountability to a currently vacant site. The proposed Project is consistent with the following General Plan policies which call for revitalization of underused parcels, development along key corridors, and accessibility to alternate transit options: ED1.1; ED4.1; ED5.1; LU1.1 ; ED4.3; LU1.C; ED4.A; LU1.H; LU2.3; LU3.4; LU6.A; CR1.D.

Statement of Fact : Criterion Not Satisfied . The proposed Project will adversely affect the livability of the neighborhood. Staff had developed conditions of approval, but the applicant sought amendments to and/or elimination of certain recommended conditions that would have m itigated such potential adverse impacts. If amendments to and/or 222

3 elimination of those conditions is approved, the impacts will adversely affect the livability of the surrounding neighborhood.

The Project will retain the existing building and will remain consistent with the neighborhood in terms of size and design, and the proposed Project would meet the additional standards for function outlined in RMC section 15.04.610.180 for emergency shelters. Conditions of approval were added, to the extent feasible by law and without rendering the Project financially infeasible, including those which address the following issues of neighborhood compatibility: required safety and management personnel including a Community Liaison, required training to be responsive to the community and neighborhood, requirements for safety patrol around the property and adjacent parcels, video surveillance, adequate illumination but without unnecessary glare, abatement of graffiti and litter, exterior improvements to the building, and monitoring of on -street parking. However, based on the following, the Project will adversely affect the livability of the surrounding neighborhood.

Parking: Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(B)(ii) allows the City to require sufficient parking to accom modate all staff working at an emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking there than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone. RMC Section 15.04.607.060 requires a minimum of 33% less than the estimated demand f or a use (or in this case, 33% less than the number of employees).

The Project proposes two (2) parking spaces on -site. The applicant stated that there would be three employees, so three parking spaces would be required, and 33% less than that is two parki ng spaces. However, this parking and employee count does not account for the two additional security personnel that are required to be on -site at all times (one patrolling the exterior of the building and one patrolling the interior of the building). Therefore, there will be five employees/personnel working at the Project Site, and the required number of parking spaces is five spaces, which means more than three spaces will be required – in fact, four spaces are required (taking into consideration a reduction of 33% less than the number of employees on -site). At most, the Project Site can accommodate three on -site parking spaces , and not four . Accordingly, the parking requirement is not satisfied.

Security: The Project is located adjacent to a residential neighborhood and in close proximity to schools where many minors/children walk past and in close proximity to the Project Site. As indicated by the Richmond Police Department (RPD)’s review of the Project, the RPD conducted a Crime Prevention Through Envi ronmental Design (CPTED) assessment at the Project Site. The CPTED assessment included a review of the number of calls for service at the Project Site per year, broken down by month from 2019 to 2024. in Attachment 4 of this report, that was provided to th e City Council for review. Additional data from RPD was taken to compare the calls per year by month in 2023, when the Project was operating illegally without a permit in 2023, as compared to the same time period in other years between 2019 to 2024. The co mparison is included in Planning Commission Agenda Report dated November 7, 2024 as Exhibit C . The data from the CPTED shows that during the year that the Project was in operation illegally in 2023, the calls for service were the highest, compared to the p revious years and in 2024.

4 demonstrates an indisputable uptick in calls for service and potenti al criminal activity based on the Project operation, which necessitates a need for increased security measures to address adverse safety concerns at the site and i n the surrounding neighborhood.

The conditions of approval for the Project, as proposed by the City, to address security and safety concerns include: minimum of three daytime staff and two nighttime staff, not including security personnel, employee trai ning on preventive safety measures, graffiti removal within 24 hours of notice, operation of seven security cameras and monitoring, posted signage regarding loitering and prohibited activities on -site, and two onsite uniformed security personnel at all tim es. The applicant, however, has indicated that the conditions of approval with respect to the security measures would need to be modified or eliminated, such that the security personnel should not and could not contact persons on the premises or in vehicles without probable cause.

Public Health / Safety : The applicant also was not willing to com ply with the litter management requirements to ensure that the Project Site and surrounding area are kept free of litter at all times. There had been problems with litter and the public health and safety of the Project Site due to litter, illegal dumping, and potential vermin issues during the time the Project was operating illegally without a permit. The proposed conditions address those public health and safety c oncerns, but the applicant took issue with those conditions.

3. 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;

Statement of Fact : Criterion Not Satisfied . The proposed use will be subject to the provisions in the Richmond Zoning Ordinance related to Lighting and Illumination (RMC Article 15.04.604), Noise (RMC Article 15.04.605) and other Performance Standards (RMC Article 15.04.608). The proposed use will not create any of the aforementioned nuisances through regular activity, and sprinklers and emergency egress, including windows, will be added to the existing building as required. Conditions of approval require monitoring of outdoor activity via management and security personnel, the abatement of litter on and adjacent to the site, and lighting requirements such that security lighting will illuminate the project site’s required areas but not extend into adjacent residential parcels.

However, with respect to parking, litter, and safety, the Project w ill create such parking, litter, and safety nuisances.

Parking: Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(B)(ii) allows the City to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working at an emergency shelter, provided that the 224

5 standards do not require more parking there than other residential or commercial uses in the same zone. RMC Section 15.04.607.060 requires a minimum of 33% less than the estimated demand for a use (or in this case, 33% less than the number of employees).

The Project proposes two (2) parking spaces on -site. The applicant stated that there would be three employees, so thre e parking spaces would be required, and 33% less than that is two parking spaces. However, this parking and employee count does not account for the two additional security personnel that are required to be on -site at all times (one patrolling the exterior of the building and one patrolling the interior of the building). Therefore, there will be five employees/personnel working at the Project Site, and the required n umber of parking spaces is five spaces, which means more than three spaces will be required – in fact, four spaces are required (taking into consideration a reduction of 33% less than the number of employees on -site). At most, the Project Site can accommod ate three on -site parking spaces , and not four . Accordingly, the parking requirement is not satisfied.

The full report is included in the Planning Commission Agenda Report dated November 7, 2024 and in Attachment 4 of this report, that was provided t o the City Council for review .

Additionally, the monthly breakdown indicates that during the months the Project was in operation illegally in 2023, the calls for service were higher during May through August of 2023, compared to the same months during prev ious years and in 2024. This demonstrates an indisputable uptick in calls for service and potenti al criminal activity based on the Project operation, which necessitates a need for increased security measures to address adverse safety concerns at the site a nd in the surrounding neighborhood.

The conditions of approval for the Project, as proposed by the City, to address security and safety concerns include: minimum of three daytime staff and two nighttime staff, not including security personnel, employee training on preventive safety measures, graffiti removal within 24 hours of notice, operation of seven security cameras and monitoring, posted signage regarding loitering and prohibited activities on -site, and two onsite uniformed security personnel at all times. The applicant, however, has indicated that the conditions of approval with respect to the security measures would need to be modified or eliminated, such that the security personnel should not and could not contact persons on the premises or in vehicles without probable cause.

Public Health / Safety : The applicant also was not willing to com ply with the litter management requirements to ensure that the Project Site and surrounding area are kept 225

6 free of litter at all times. There had been problems with litter and the public health and safety of the Project Site due to litter, illegal dumping, and potential vermin issues during the time the Project was operating illegally without a permit. The proposed conditions address those public health and safe ty concerns, but the applicant took issue with those conditions.

Overall, the operating characteristics of the Project, including capacity, security protocols, and on-site management, are proposed to be imposed to address adverse safety impacts and secur ity issues, but the applicant has requested modification or elimination of conditions that would adequately address these concerns, such that the conditions, if adopted, would exacerbate local safety and security challenges rather than alleviate them.

4. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

Statement of Fact: Criterion Not Satisfied. Conditions of approval ensure compliance with the code for the refuse area (RMC Section 15.04.601.090), signage (RMC Section

15.04.609), Lighting and Illumination (RMC Article 15.04.604), Noise (RMC Article

15.04.605) and most Performance Standards (RMC Article 15.04.608), including those outlined in RMC 15.04.610.180 for emergency shelters.

However, the objective parking standards have not been met. Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(B)(ii) allows the City to require sufficie nt parking to accommodate all staff working at an emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking there than other residential or co mmercial uses in the same zone. RMC Section 15.04.607.060 requires a minimum of 33% less than the estimated demand for a use (or in this case, 33% less than the number of employees). The Project proposes two (2) parking spaces on -site. The applicant stated that there would be three employees, so three parking spaces would be required, and 33% less tha n that is two parking spaces. However, this parking and employee count does not account for the two additional security personnel that are required to be on -site at all times (one patrolling the exterior of the building and one patrolling the interior of the building). Therefore, there will be five employees/personnel working at the Project Site, and the required number of parking spaces is five spaces, which me ans more than three spaces will be required – in fact, four spaces are required (taking into consideration a reduction of 33% less than the number of employees on-site). At most, the Project Site can accommodate three on-site parking spaces , and not four . Accordingly, the parking requirement is not satisfied.

5. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Statement of Fact: Criterion Satisfied. The existing building is loc ated one block from Macdonald Ave, less than 0.2 miles from four bus lines, and one mile from a B ART station. The project site is less than one mile from a major highway, and the site would not be altered in a way that would affect the site’s existing public facilities and services.

Section 3 . T he City Council finds that the underlying decision by the Planning Commission denying the Project is supported by substantial evidence and does not constitute an abuse of discretion.
226

7 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I CERTIFY, that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the City Council of the City of Richmond, California, at a regular meeting held on March 4, 2025 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

__________________________

CITY CLERK

_____________________
Eduardo Martinez
MAYOR

Approved as to form:

_____________________________
Dave Aleshire

CITY ATTORNEY

227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320

GENERAL NOTES
1 Scope: These notes apply to all drawings and govern unless noted or specified for more detailed requirements applicable to particular divisions of the work. See specifications and sheet notes contained in the subsections of these drawings.
2 Applicable Codes: The intent of the drawings and specifications is to construct the building in the project scope in accordance with the 2022 California Building Code (CBC), Mechanical Code (CMG), Electrical Code (CEC), Plumbing Code (CPC), Green Building Standards (CalGreen) and California Tille 24 Energy Standards; all including errata and supplements, as amended by the City of Richmond.
3 Construction Documents: The General Conditions of the Contract for Construction, (AIA Document A201 ), latest edition, and the Specifications supplement these drawings and are part of the construction documents. By accepting and using the construction documents, including but not limited to the drawings and specifications, the Contractor agrees to be solely and completely responsible for the accuracy of said construction documents: architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and fire protection.
4 Copyright: These drawings and all ideas, arrangements and plans, either indicated or represented by these drawings are owned by, and are the property of VanMechelen Architects, and were created, evolved and developed for use on and in connection with the project designated in the title block.

None of these designs, arrangements, or plans shall be used by, or disclosed lo, any person, firm, or corporation for any purpose whatsoever, nor shall any changes be made on this drawing without the written permission from VanMechelen Architects. These drawings are not valid for any use unless they bear the original seal and signature of the Architect. Upon completion of the project, all plans shall be returned to the Architect.
5 Document Coordination: The Contractor shall be responsible for coordination between architectural, structural, civil, mechanical, plumbing, electrical and fire protection drawings. This includes reviewing existing conditions and requirements of individual systems before ordering and installation of any work. Verify all architectural details and all finish conditions, whether depicted in drawings or not, with same disciplines.
6 Non-Industry-Standard Materials and Methods: This project is considered to be an "Environment Friendly Project''. II utilizes non-industry-standard materials and methods including but not limited to:

FSC Certified Wood, non-toxic paints, sealants and adhesives, thermal mass. The intent is to construct energy efficient buildings which are easy and inexpensive lo maintain while using construction materials which reduce environmental impacts and construction methods which reduce construction waste and increase recycling. Some of the products may have limited suppliers or unusual delivery requirements. Some of the details and construction methods are unusual and may require more attention than normal. The Contractor shall review the plans and specifications carefully in this regard and be solely responsible for completing the work as intended. Any substitution requests will be evaluated on environmental considerations as well as on specified criteria. 7 Dimensions: On drawings only written dimensions shall be used. Do not scale the drawings. The Contractor shall review and assume responsibility for all dimensions of building and site and notify the architect in writing of any suggested or required discrepancies before proceeding with construction.
8 Site Conditions: The Contractor shall visit the site and be fully cognizant of all field conditions, delivery methods and storage facilities, and consult with potential suppliers and subcontractors prior to submitting bid or cost estimate. He or she shall verify all site conditions, delivery methods and storage facilities and assumes all risk associated with field conditions.

9. Sile Restrictions: The site will be vacated by the owners throughout the construction process.

The Contractor, Contractor's personnel, subcontractors and all persons visiting the site shall abide by the following rules:
a. Intoxicants and drugs: No alcohol, drugs, tobacco, or other intoxicants are allowed on site. b. Noise: Noise shall be kept to a minimum including radios or music. d. Pets: No pets allowed on site.
1 O Job Sile Conditions: The Contractor agrees lo be solely and completely responsible for the job site conditions during the course of construction for the project; including the safety of all persons and property and that this requirement shall apply continuously and not be limited lo normal working hours.
11 Protection of Existing Facilities: Contractor shall protect all existing infrastructure, utilities, landscaping and other site elements. Contractor shall replace or compensate the Owner for damage to any elements.
12 Indemnification: The Contractor shall defend, indemnify, and hold the Owner, the Architect, its employees and consultants, harmless from any and all liability, real or alleged, in connection with the performance of work on this Project, excepting for liability arising from the sole negligence of the Owner, the Architect, its employees and consultants.
13 Errors, Omissions & Conflicts: Any errors, omissions, or conflicts found in the various parts of the construction documents or between the construction documents and existing site conditions shall be immediately brought to the attention of the Architect and the Owner before submitting cost estimates, bids or proceeding with the Work.
14 Changes: Should any conditions develop which suggest or require changes to the work, including but not limited to errors, omissions, conflicts, alternates or code compliance, the Contractor shall submit to the Architect a written Request for Change Order detailing the required work and associated costs changes. A written Change Order shall be prepared by the Architect and signed by the Contractor before proceeding with the work. No claim shall be allowed for work already started or completed. No claim shall be allowed for difficulties encountered that could have reasonably been inferred from examination of the site and the construction documents prior to submitting the bid. No claim shall be allowed for adjustments which could be reasonably expected based on the Contractor's general experience in this type of construction. 15 The Heating System: The existing Heating System shall be retained and modified as shown in the drawings.
16 The project proposes no new Fire Sprinkler System per CPC Appendix P Section P103.4 .. 17 All persons working al this site must implement applicable portions of the Stale Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual for Construction to the maximum extent practicable to prevent erosion and sediment from entering into the storm drain system.

19. No person shall erect (including excavation and grading), demolish, alter or repair any building or structure other than between the hours as allowed by the City of Richmond.

WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

1. If required by the City of Richmond, the Contractor shall provide a completed Waste Management Plan, and shall provide waste diversion in accordance with the Plan and City requirements. All cardboard, concrete, asphalt and metals shall be diverted from the waste stream.

EROSION, SEDIMENT, & STORMWATER NOTES
1 The Contractor shall maintain controls that do not permit soil and sediment to leave the site via erosion or wind.

2. Exposed and disturbed soil shall be surrounded by a straw wattle to prevent runoff. Straw mulch shall also be used to absorb runoff.

3. Stockpiles of soil, sand or gravel shall be covered with secured plastic tarps to prevent material from being blown off site, and shall be surrounded by straw wattles to prevent storm runoff.

4. Concrete trucks shall be washed offsite, at a site owned or used by the contractor that has been approved for this activity.

5. Concrete waste water including site mixed concrete and sweepings from exposed aggregate concrete, shall not be allowed lo drain into storm sewers. Contractor shall provide a temporary drying basin for any washout, and dry residue collected from that basin shall be disposed of in accordance with City of Richmond disposal regulations. The drying basin may be excavated below grade or fabricated with perimeter straw bales above grade, but shall have sufficient volume for all water discharge, and shall be lined with minimum 1 O mil polyethylene sheeting free of holes or tears, staked into ground or bales.

Cdona/d • ,.,,e
t;
I
Bfaself" ~vo 9
@ VICINITY MAP
1 no scale
GI t;
s ~ " t; ..,
/\facdonaldA
s
"' B "' Ve
1',!acdoni,fd Ave
'
t;
8isselfA Ve
Bisse!J Ave
B;sS:.~fl Ave

PROJECT LOCATION

PROJECT DATA

EXISTING PROPOSED
ZONING CM-3/ T5MS-O NO CHANGE

WILDLAND FIRE HAZARD RISK NO

FLOOD ZONE NO

ALQUIST-PRIOLO FAULT ZONE NO

LIQUEFACTION RISK VERY LOW

OCCUPANCY TYPE B

CONSTRUCTION TYPE V-B
LOT AREA 7500 SF
AVERAGE LOT SLOPE < 1%
NO. OF DWELLING UNITS 0

SETBACKS

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE
R-2*

NO CHANGE

NO CHANGE
••

REQUIRED/ ALLOWED
FRONT (EAST) 0'-0" NO CHANGE 0'-0" MIN, 5'-0" MAX
REAR (WEST) 0'-0" NO CHANGE 0'-0"
LEFT SIDE (SOUTH) 0'-0" NO CHANGE 0'-0"
RIGHT SIDE (NORTH) 0'-0" NO CHANGE 0'-0"
EXISTING BUILDING AREA 5045 SF 5045 SF
ADDITION AREA 30 SF
TOTAL BUILDING AREA 5045 SF 5075 SF 15,000 SF (FAR 2.0) COVERAGE AREA 5987 SF NO CHANGE
COVERAGE PERCENTAGE 80% NO CHANGE
BUILDING HEIGHT - STORIES 1 NO CHANGE
BUILDING HEIGHT - FEET 26'-9" NO CHANGE 35'-0"
OFF STREET PARKING 3••• 3••• 3•••
• PROJECT IS FOR EMERGENCY HOUSING UNDER CBC APPENDIX P •• THERE ARE NO DWELLING UNITS, PROJECT PROVIDES NONTRANSIENT GROUP

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is to convert an existing one story office building to an Emergency Shelter pursuant to the Richmond Municipal Code, an a E e e c si e 'fi i A i r ·a I he uses al only be permitted as long as
here is an official Declaration of Emergency by the City of Richmond.

The Project shall house up to 25 individual , whose occupancy will be more than 30 days.

The work includes replacing exterior windows, removing an existing gate, and a small addition for a rear vestibule and a ramp for accessibility requirements. Interior renovations include creating two new accessible Bathrooms, as well as work to comply with safety standards in the California Building Code.

PROJECT INFORMATION

ADDRESS

PARCEL NUMBER
OWNER
207 37th Street
Richmond, CA 94805
516-21 0-020
Lonnie Holmes
686 Humboldt Street
Richmond CA 94805
510-236-3388
[email protected]

PROJECT NARRATIVE
The project is to convert an existing one story office building to an Emergency Shelter pursuant to the Richmond Municipal Code, and as Emergency Housing as specified in Appendix P of the California Building Code. The facility will provide housing and minimal supportive services for individuals. Residency shall be limited to six months or less.

HOUSING FOR 25 RESIDENTS. The Project is located in the central downtown area of Richmond, near the city courthouse. ••• SEE SITE PLAN NOTES #7 & #8, SHEET A1 .2. The site is less than a block from MacDonald Avenue, which has several public transit lines DRAWING IND EX as well as commercial services. The DeJean campus of West Contra Costa Adult ~=~==~~-------------------------- Education is two blocks away.

ARCHITECTURAL

SHEET SHEET NAME
NO.

A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A2. 1
A2.2
A2.3
A2.4
A3.1
A3.2
A4.1

PROJECT INFORMATION, VICINITY MAP, GENERAL NOTES

SITE PLAN
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 1 OF 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PAGE 2 OF 2

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, WASTE MANAGEMENT
FORMS

EXISTING/ DEMOLITION PLANS AND ELEVATIONS

LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN

LEVEL ONE REFLECTED CEILING PLAN

DETAIL PLANS, WINDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULE

ACCESSIBILITY NOTES

EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS

BUILDING SECTIONS

WALL SECTIONS, DETAILS

CODE INFORMATION
ZONING CODES:

DATE
29 Dec2023
29 Dec2023
not included
not included
not included
29 Dec2023
29 Dec2023
29 Dec2023
not included
not included
29 Dec2023
not included
not included
The Project shall be defined as Emergency Shelter per 15.04.104.020 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC). Per RMC Table 15.04.202.020 (L 11) "Up lo 25 beds are permitted ... " The RMC does not define Emergency Housing per California Building Code (CBC) Appendix P, the definition derives from Section 8698 of Title 2 of the State of California Government Code, which is consistent with the term Sheller.

The nearest known sheller is Nevin House, al 3215 Nevin Avenue, approximately 1150 feel from the project site.

The location is ideal for this purpose, ii is near transit and commercial activities, while being adjacent to residential neighborhoods to give a more appropriate atmosphere for the residents. The entrance is on a more commercial street; across from the side entrance of the St. John Missionary Baptist Church Administration Building, and Tuneup Masters automobile repair and maintenance.

The Project shall house residents in 7 rooms (6 dorm-like, 1 private). Current projections are for 3 rooms on the south side to have up to 11 beds for females, and 4 rooms on the north side shall house up to 14 male occupants. The make-up and distribution of occupants is subject to modification as demand changes, but shall not exceed 25 total residents unless a Conditional Use Permit for higher occupancy is first obtained.

There is a community Kitchen along the west side of the facility, and a community Dining Room in the center of the interior courtyard, as well as a community Entertainment Room on the north side. All facilities are equally accessible by all residents.

Outdoor space is provided by the existing enclosed courtyard at the center of the building, and at the north end of the existing parking lot there will be a small outdoor gathering place, set well back from the street, and partially enclosed by existing wing walls and a roof.

Landscape improvements are shown on the Site Plan on Sheet A 1.2, all plantings shall be in containers.

APPLICABLE BUILDING CODES: The existing site has a small parking lot on the west side with (3) parking spaces. However, The following Codes shall apply to this project: 2022 California Building Code (CBC), 2022 this lot is not compliant with City of Richmond standards as the existing 45° angled space is California Existing Building Code (CEBC), 2022 Mechanical Code (CMG), 2022 Electrical too short and/ or the drive aisle is too narrow. In addition, there is no accommodation for Code (CEC), 2022 Plumbing Code (CPC), 2022 California Green Building Standards accessible parking as required by California State codes. The lot is reconfigured to provide (CalGreen), and 2022 California Title 24 Energy Standards; all including errata and (2) standard parking spaces in tandem and (1) accessible space. The project will also JS~u~~I ~~t~a~a~i!;epg;e~!)b~~~- ~fftii;'c;!lo:!90~d,-...,,,,.-...,,--..,,,---v--v-v-..--..,,.-...,-...,,---v--v,Provide (5) bicycle parking spaces. II is physically impossible to provide more automobile BUILDING CODE ANALYSIS AND REQUIRED MODIFICATIONS: arking on the existing lot.

Occupancy Classification: R-2 Nontransient Congregate Residence> 16 Occupants.

Building Area: 5075 sf
Building Height: 1 story, 26'-9"
Construction Classification: Type V-B
Allowable Building Area per CBC Table 506.2: 7000 sf (non-sprinklered or S13R sprinklers) (Allowable area increases based on frontage have not been included) Allowable Building Height per CBC Table 504.3: 40' (non-sprinklered or S13R sprinklers) Allowable Number of Stories per CBC Table 504.4: 2 (non-sprinklered), 3 (S13R sprinklers) The existing building complies with CBC requirements for R-2 Occupancy with Type V-B construction.

The existing interior walls consist of;" gypsum wallboard over 3;" wood studs. Walls surrounding Sleeping Units shall be modified to provide a 1 hour Fire Partition per CBC 708 (30 minute with fire sprinkler system), either by adding a second layer of!" gypsum wallboard or providing new i" Type X gypsum wallboard. Doors shall be fire rated per CBC 716. Ducts penetrating Fire Partitions shall be protected per CBC 717.

FIRE SPRINKLERS AND ALARMS
The project will provide a Fire Sprinkler and a Fire Alarm system.

DEFERRED SUBMITTALS
Fire Sprinkler and Alarm systems drawings and calculations. o provide security for the facility a new person gate and vehicle gate shall be provided long the south side of the parking area. Both shall be made of open metal framework, pproximately 6' high. The vehicle gate shall slide horizontally with a motorized control, the erson gate shall be locked from the exterior and operate manually with code-approved exit ardware.
new fence shall be erected along the west side of the parking lot, which is currently open. t shall be 6'-0" high, constructed of wood and shall provide full screening with vertical and/ r horizontal boards.
he facility shall operate 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Staffing will vary from 6-10 epending on the services being offered, with the maximum occurring during daytime hours, pproximately normal business hours. The main staff office is located in EXISTING FFICE 104. This space is adjacent to the Main Lobby, and has a service window opening o that space. The facility also has an extensive close-circuit camera system, with monitors nd controls in that office.

The following support services will be provided:
- Therapist Services will be provided by Dr. Cedric Jackson, Ph'd. - Vocational Services will be provided by the Career Center, Cyberess Mandela. - Occupational Therapy will be provided by Rebuilding Together East Bay Network/ Samuel Merritt University.
- Assistance with getting CA. Driver License, CA. ID cards, resume building and related ...:
,Q
"' C:
0 ., "' > 0
C:

Q)
0:::
'O
Q)
"' 0
Project Team
VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berke~y. CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
C)
C
en LO
::J 0
0 +"" 00
I ID~
~ ~ 0)
u +"" <(
C Cl) ()
Q) ..c
C) +"" -
L- r--.. "'C
Q) C") C
0 C. E r--.. E e WO a..
<( N ..c u ·-Cl) c::: a..
()

PROJECT

INFORMATION

VICINITY MAP

GENERAL NOTES
Revision
&.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
&.PLANNING • 26 Mar'24
,ffi.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
D,. •
D,. •
D,. •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A1 ■ 1
1 of 6 Sheets
Copyright 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reserved
321
(9 w :z:::::,
0 :z -' w
~~
w □
(_) -' - <( u.. z u.. 0 Oo
(9~
~ ::;; I-en...--= X<0
WM

EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
3615 BISSELL AVENUE

EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING
3616 MACDONALD AVENUE
0 0::
~ :::::,
0 (_)
~
EXISTING PARKING LOT, CONNECTED TO AND :;J

POSSIBLY UNDER CONTROL OF CITIBANK
15 ~ ................ ....
1 .. 9'-0" 4'-0"
00 207 37TH PARKIN LOT
26'-11" COURTYARD
1 EXISTING CITIBANK BRANCH OFFICE
3634 MACDONALD AVENUE

EXISTING CITIBANK PARKING LOT
100'-0"
PROPERTY LINE 100.00' N 79' 49' W - - - -
1 SUBJEC •
,
207 37TH STREET
P OPERTY LINE 100.00' N 79' 49' W

BISSELL AVENUE
1 1
True Nori Ian North
20 40 ft

SITE PLAN NOTES

BUILDING OUTLINE

NEIGHBORING HOUSES AND COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES

EXISTING FRONT/ MAIN BUILDING ENTRANCE
4 EXISTING/ NEW SECOND ACCESSIBLE BUILDING ENTRANCE WITH NEW ACCESS RAMP 5 EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT
6 REPAIR EXISTING SIDEWALK AS REQUIRED AND DIRECTED BY CITY OF RICHMOND. 7 REMOVE EXISTING PARKING SPACE STRIPING, SEE DEMOLITION PLAN NOTE #6 SHEET A1.5 8 TANDEM PARKING SPACES, SEE LEVEL ONE PLAN NOTE #5, SHEET A2.1. 9 ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE AND ACCESS AISLE. DUE TO SITE LIMITATIONS THE PROJECT

SEEKS AN EXCEPTION TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A VAN ACCESSIBLE SPACE, AS THE

ADJOINING SPACE WOULD OVERLAP THE EXISTING GAS METER, AND WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVIDE AN EGRESS WINDOW FROM BEDROOM #109. 10 11
12 13
14 WHEEL STOP

REFUSE, RECYCLING AND COMPOST BINS
4'-0" HIGH SCREEN WALL, SEE ELEVATIONS ON SHEET A3.1 AND DETAIL 4/A3.1.

EXISTING GAS METER.

EXISTING ELECTRIC METER INSIDE BUILDING'S UTILITY ROOM.

NEW 6'-0" HIGH FENCE

PERSON GATE

ROLLING VEHICLE GATE
WALK PATH ON EXISTING ASPHALT. AL TERNA TE: REPLACE WITH PERVIOUS CONCRETE.

TRASH AND RECYCLING, SEE FLOOR PLAN SHEET A2.1

CLIENT CONGREGATION SHALL OCCUR INSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING LOBBY, OR IF THE FACILITY IS NOT OPEN, SHALL OCCUR IN THE REARJ;&URTYARD.

RESIDENTS' OUTDOOR CONGREGATION AREA, 340 SF. i.I::,.

CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA. MATERIALS SHALL BE STORED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO PREVENT LEAKAGE, OR BLOWING BY WINDS.
®) PROVIDE CAMERA INSPECTION AND CERTIFICATION OF EXISTING SEWER LATERAL, @
@
REPLACE AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE CLEANOUT AT ANY BEND >45'.

SEE SHEET A3.1 FOR STREET ADDRESS SIGNAGE
PROVIDE NEW REFLECTORIZED PARKING SPACE IDENTIFICATION SIGN MIN. 70 SQARE INCHES, CONSISTENT WITH CBC 118-502.6 MOUNTED WITH BOTTOM OF SIGN MIN. 60" ABOVE THE PARKING SURFACE. SIGN THAT SHALL INCLUDE THE INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY IN WHITE ON A BLUE BACKGROUND AND SHALL IDENTIFY THE SPACE AS VAN ACCESSIBLE. SIGN SHALL ALSO STATE "MINIMUM FINE $250". AN ADDITIONAL SIGN SHALL BE POSTED EITHER; 1) IN A CONSPICUOUS PLACE AT EACH ENTRANCE TO AN OFF-STREET PARKING FACILITY OR 2) IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO ON-SITE ACCESSIBLE PARKING AND VISIBLE FROM EACH PARKING SPACE. THE ADDITIONAL SIGN SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN 17 INCHES WIDE BY 22 INCHES HIGH. THE ADDITIONAL SIGN SHALL CLEARLY STATE IN LETTERS WITH A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF 1 INCH THE FOLLOWING: "UNAUTHORIZED" VEHICLES PARKED IN

DESIGNATED ACCESSIBLE SPACES NOT DISPLAYING DISTINGUISHING PLACARDS OR SPECIAL LICENSE PLATES ISSUED FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES WILL BE TOWED AWAY AT THE OWNER'S EXPENSE.

TOWED VEHICLES MAY BE RECLAIMED AT: OR BY TELEPHONING ." BLANK SPACES SHALL BE FILLED IN - - WITH APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AS A PERMANENT PART OF THE SIGN. @ PROVIDE POST MOUNTED SIGN MOUNTED MIN 60" ABOVE GRADE WITH INTERNATIONAL SYMBOL OF ACCESSIBILITY COMPLYING WITH SECTION 7777-703.7.2.1 IN WHITE ON A BLUE BACKGROUND AND ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WITH THE DESIGNATION 'VAN ACCESSIBLE'.

BICYCLE PARKING (5 SPACES)
EXTERIOR PATIO. ALL PLANTINGS SHALL BE IN CONTAINERS
EXTERIOR LIGHTING FIXTURES AT ENTRANCES AND COURTYARD ffi " ,9
rn
C:
0 .,
ro > 0
C:

Q)
0:::
"O
Q)
rn 0
Project Team
VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berke~y, CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
0)
C: --en LO
:::J 0
0 +-' co
I Q) -.::::I"
>, ~ 0)
(.) +-' <(
C: CJ) ()
Q) ..c.
0) +-' -
I... r-,... "'C
Q) C") C:
0 C. E r---. E e WO a.
<( N ..c.
(.)
--CJ) c::: a..
()

PROJECT INFORMATION

SITE PLAN

VICINITY MAP

GENERAL NOTES
Revision
&.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
~.PLANNING • 26 Mar'24
&.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
6- •
6- •
6- •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A1 .2
2 of 6 Sheets
Copyright 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reserved
322
11 111 11 I 11
~-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NORTH RIGHT EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
5 1m1nnnn11nnnmnm1nnm1mnnn
:11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111::
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111
1111111
1111111
11111111111111111 I

WEST REAR EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
n n1m111nnnnminnnnnminnmmmmminin11nn1 n11111111n1111nnnnn1, nniinin1m111, ~':l.'li ", - - - -1, ,,111111111111111111111111111111111111, ,,111111111111111111111111111111 ',111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 I I I 111111111111111111111111111111111111, ,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 I I 111111111111111111111111111111111111, ,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 I lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 -®
,, ___ 1,111111111111111111111111111111111111,,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 1-1 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11!1111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 I dlllllll 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11!1111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111,,111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 -
1111111111111111111111111111111111 .. 1 111111111111111111111111111111 'n,111111111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111 11111111 llllllllllllDnllllDIDI IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIIIIII ffllDIIIDIIIID111111 .... -- -

SOUTH LEFT EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
I 11
c
D D
~
11 EAST FRONT EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
mnm111111mnn111111nninim
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
11 'l
~
I 11
11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111
: 11111111111111111
innin11n1nnimniimmmn
: 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
-----t 11111m
11 11
-- r r
I
I
I
,,.. EXG HALL 127
<~9
~
~
,- ~ FD
I \ , Y X Y_"II Y ~11
I \ , 4'--0' :,-'<;-7 ........ -.,,......,K_",,......., 7 =--11 y
-2_~ 2!.s.:::~=£3..-~ ~ I
~ ~ -x ..,,. Y Y >< I
,, '/' /' 9;. µ X y y
,,,,,,,/,/'s: ,-1''
,!
.., )(XY)<
EXG OFFICE 129 G OFFICE 128 1,, /,IZ'Vo·_; 1~j,,_K,,i
~ ~. l\i
' ' / ' / ' / '. / )' 11 XX)<)<//
'"ff / 'x/ \/ \,/ '"'-I' Y I

11.,.,,_..,L_-._,,_....:,,,_,.,_,::..;,L'-c; ~ I
'11'=~=='11' l
:: A-/•·;:::-/}t,-,,, ,-/ / I
I 11 ~'x/'\x,,:x'x~% ~-- ~. .,,~ ~
'
~
-
~
t::t,,, '/ '~/,,c,c/'/..:,, \ /
I
~
EXGRAMP130 111<-, F 1ai i!::, A:-,.. I \ ,,,
X Ill -s:0. ,.,
~ I I 1:~x, / §1)<..._ )<..._ /'< A~
I 111\ _.,,x, /-<, ,,,-<,
h "- fltL------~~------,1_
~
-~
e
~
'~ . ../
> y"
~
- EX 8
" 5 ' '
"" " •
"
3 "
~ ···~17
"
EXG MECH 119
' i
FD
@
(13\
' A1.6/ ,,..

T
l /
,~
~
\/
,a, y
EXG OFFICE 123
D

DEMOLITION NOTES
1 EXISTING DRIVEWAY AND CURB CUT TO REMAIN.
2 EXISTING GAS METER TO REMAIN.
3 EXISTING ELECTRIC METER INSIDE BUILDING TO REMAIN.

REMOVE EXTERIOR RAMP.

REMOVE EXISTING WOOD SCREEN STRUCTURES.

REMOVE EXISTING PARKING STRIPES. EXISTING PARKING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH CITY

OF RICHMOND PARKING STANDARDS AS EITHER THE SPACES ARE TOO SHORT OR THE DRIVE AISLE IS TOO NARROW.
(J) CUT EXISTING SLAB AS REQUIRED FDR DRAIN LINES, OR REMOVE ENTIRE SLAB. ® REMOVE EXISTING WALLS, DOORS, WINDOWS, PLUMBING FIXTURES AS INDICATED.

SALVAGE PER OWNER'S DIRECTION, AND DISPOSE PER REQUIREMENTS OF CALGREEN AND

CITY OF RICHMOND WASTE DIVERSION REQUIREMENTS
9 REMOVE EXISTING DOOR AND FRAME AND PREP OPENING FOR NEW FIRE RATED DOOR 10 REMOVE EXISTING SLIDING WINDOW AND PREP OPENING FOR INFILL FIRE RATED WALL. 11 REMOVE SECTION OF EXISTING WALL AS REQUIRED PER FLOOR PLAN ON SHEET f<l..1. 12 EXISTING ROLLING GATE AT FRONT DOOR SHALL BE REMOVED OR PERMANENTLY DISABLED IN THE OPEN POSITION.
@PROVIDE KNOX BOX FOR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS.

EXGHALL 122 u
.. " ' ,,.c.i=l,
~
,., ','~ \ /
'/ 9 ll , 19'-91'
EXG OFFICE 124 EXG OFFICE 125 ©--I",,' , EXG HALL 1 < ,_ ~
~
11·~· 4'-11f
FD
"' -
'v
A
©x1STING N COURTYARD @ ®
,--------,
L--i>
IZ: ~
:,""'
" no
I
"
0-- I
" ®-.J
,c- AN 1 Cc) ® CJ
®+-.J
~
'{
,J ' 11"-. ,_, - -
"
' ' /
3•~· ... 17'-4'DIAMETER y I II I I
/
.,
"'
3' ~
" '
Ill . -I
Ill b==• EXISTING LIBRARY 115 EXISTING~ BBY 101 ~
" ' Ill EXG KITCHEN 114
"'ia1.911 ;._ 'i - -
R
8'-10" ~II
/
r'16\
,
® .. , REQUIRED DEP-TH PER RMC , REMAINING ' I CB) CJ , \A1.6, ~ I
" AISLE WID!H- 1: :If-----+ -
__J I
~ -
I
" i ~
I
~~
" ~ ~ ' ~ ; 1!.t~1 _K >~ ,/1
"
v' v vU..v
~ r'\
"
! ' "13' 111 EXISTING S COURTYARD
§) ' :( M,,,' ,,, ' ,,, ' ;,.. ''I '
" 1:l ,>, i IIK v, ,,,v, 7-,...> >-: I _,,,.>
@ @ @ ® ' - V '- 13~~~ W• ®-t:JII 'l,1 tx~:..:, ) --11,,,,, ' / ~.J- - 11 =...,. / ~ ,,.., {9," i;;), 'O a.- I'. /< A lit \J A >v I W•'-~~~~~ '< '< I VJ I / ,,,,,,,'I,, -1 12 ,.
,t.>~ <? '/\~;-'-;.2,,'f )>. -
I v",' // .,,-,. .,, "!ti:..'' ~ FD D FD fD
"
I'..._ >~< / /', / --I
"
11\S" 4'-11i'
A. A. A A _r I
~ '- ,,, '~EXoa:Ai'~~_.11'fv >,,, ...1.__
"
\, / ' / \, / '/ _; '> -, A.AAA J 6
"
/ ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, ,,,, I'/ I /
~
"
, ,A, ,,,...., A, ,,,...., A, 1- /
"
d °HALL 10 ' J
EXG mcICE 109 ; EXG OFFICE I 06 EXGOFFICE 105 EXG OFFICE 104 EXG HALL 102 '-
®--r:J ~
~ ,-J
" "
II
II '
" ~ ::v4l ' 1q,·1<8' ,,, .. 1!1'-91'
'
"
FD
~,',,, ~-·, I
"
' ~,
~ ,',, FD I
~

12.J"
'. , \o
I
I EXG OFFICE 108 !2' .,,,.-
r£
-u:, EXGHALL 103
)-® "- ' >----®
~ ' ' er-
! ... 26'-11' • ,, ..
1 / 15 \
I'-_ _,,/ I ~
I ~ \
4 LEVEL ONE EXISTING/ DEMOLITION PLAN

1.6 1/8" = 1'-0" 0 5 10 20 40 ft
Project Team
" ,9
rn
C:
0 i
0 C:
&!
"O
Q)
rn
0 C.
e a.

VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berke~y, CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
0)
C:
en
:::J
0 I
LO
0 +-' co
Q) -.::::I"
~ 0)
~ u5 <(
55 ..c: ()
0) +-' -
I... r-,... "'C
Q) C") C:

E r---. o woE
<( N 13 en ·-a.. c:::
()

EXISTING

DEMOLITION PLANS

AND ELEVATIONS
Revision
&.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
~.PLANNING • 26 Mar'24
&.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
6- •
6- •
6- •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A1 .6
3 of 6 Sheets
Copyright 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reserved
323

LEVEL ONE PLAN NOTES

ALL DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH, UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
[ [J------SEE FOR_A_ WALL TYPES
•sl.--+.====-=-=-==========-=-=--==========--=--=--==========-=-=-==========-=-:::...;=========:::...;:::...;::...:=========::...:::...:::....::=========::....::::...::::...::=====1--'a. ■■ ••ONE HOUR FIRE RATED INTERIOR WALL WITH 20 MINUTE I"" .. .._ .._ I' r==,:,i-----,------,,,----,,1,~--------------------->i.,---------------------------------------------------ai,---,-~U~---~ ~.... RATED DOORS. ~ ~ \ NEWCORRIDOR#127 .,_ NEWCORRIDOR#122 ~ )) EXISTINGDRIVEWAY,SEESITEPLANA1.1 " 13\ h.2 ~ ----H- /\3 _ /\3 1::..2 _ 1\3 1::..2 .,;. I WAL'rW-/AY,SEESITEPLANA1.1 '-----,___ ~ ,, , /3\ ,, , /3\ ~ ,, , /3\ ~ _<=- 3) EXISTINGGASMETER >11 ~ .... ;-< !i.iiii:•i!!Li•i! Ji rr [iiii]iSii[iiiJ liiiiiiii\ • I 4) EXISTING ELECTRIC METER : r '---fi'-0" • ;:: -,, • •• " ,_ ± '-8" • ' llirrr=zl ' '' I 1i PER DEMOLITION NOTE #5, SHEET A1.5 THE EXISTING r+-------,--,1 \ ,., ___ / ~. 0 • '--u • 1~--~'" MINn \ , .. ~·\==k=al=a==~,;_ __ \_-=:::::o=IJ--,1111 -=·\==k=la===~----\..:::::::C,;J-...~lj==c::::::...i.l/--------'~----------Jil I I PARKING DOES NOT COMPLY WITH RICHMOND MUNICIPAL fl ' I < ~ -· -· ~ ,. 1 '-9!" ""-- I ' ,. -4" ""-- ,_ / 19'-8!" TE - CODE MINIMUM STANDARDS. IN ADDITION THERE IS NO ;~ > I /\ V\ , • • ◄ • ◄ • ACCESSIBLE SPACE. THE RECONFIGURED PARKING , • • v1 \ i , 1 'i=> , , • ◄ ,--------,c.--c ◄ PROVIDES THE SAME QUANTITY OF PARKING WITH TANDEM I , lir-"fi".dlilill'Um~~/ ~ - ~ " , , , ~ - PARKING. WHICH WOULD BE FOR EMPLOYEE USE.

NEW BEDROOM #129 ~J
50CCUPANTS
' ... ~ BEDI ooM # _a._ ·~ ;:w MEN'S BATHRq1 • JEW BEDROOM #12· , 1 EW BEDROOM #124 , NEW ENTERTAINMENT#125 N _._c,,_,o=R.,_,,Rl=-Do=,1-:2_ ffi 1 NEw1Ex1sT1NGFENcE,sEEs1TEPLANA1.1
I 1 OCC PANT L - - - 7 .J ~ • ~ 4 OCCUPANTS ◄ ~ 4 OCCUPANTS ◄ ~ EXTERIOR RAMP WITH MAX 112 SLOPE. PROVIDE 1~"0 14'-91" ' I N _ ____,, □ I ,@ ~ > • ~ > ◄ ~ > ◄ ~ WOOD HANDRAIL BOTH SIDES, 34' ABOVE RAMP, 1~" CLEAR • \,..1 r-21" \ / , > ' N _ _,_,.,,, ◄ N , ◄ y FROM RAIL, RETURN AT ENDS. RAMP SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM , ' 1 , £~- -r~~1-~ > 111?1==:;;i-+---, > "--------t>'--;1""111 ◄ I WIDTHOF36"ABOVEHANDRAIL,ANDCLEARHEIGHTOF6'-8'. ~~=:J::::ie~~en~~~~~~~~~~er:::E~:: , 2'-H" • 7'-6" , t:J L.J ii;;i r ,,-r;~ / , ---,,,.~ , ~ --'1< I , • > ' , ' l'=====l;,c='l""I ' I PROVIDE SOLID WALL OR GUARDRAIL AT OPEN SIDE OF ~ " ~ if! " ~ if!" ~ ~ z . _ , , ,,,, '" 9 : > ' > ' > ' E - RAMP, MIN. 34" HIGH, DESIGNED TO PREVENT PASSAGE OF A ," ~ ~ '.b ~~ v '.b f!-'fl 11r~ J ~. 1,, => 0 ~=1«--9 ,!;; '' ,.- ' '"' t"'----...,(111 > > > , 1 4" 0 SPHERE 7_ 7_ ~ ~~7 ~v 'r\l10~~.~ ~
1 Jtr--.., • ' I t¼ I > Fl > F~ > =~ D I ®9 TRASHANDRECYCLINGSCREENWALL,SEE4/A3.1 .... , =I □~ 0 0 ),·.- "',,,~) _lllU ,, > ' , > ' , > ' • @ PROVIDEMIN.36"DEEPLANDINGATEXTERIORDOORS,MAX "° t!f/ -//! ~ +2,_11,,
1 IQ 7,_b,\"""/,::;;"KJN' 4,_ 1.. , ,!~vt=::::sS,E=:3if=---~--4~~i::t:==±===3J=aaa=--~--~'.'...~.n,~3E~ 3l-"--l( )~;:=:=fl rfs 1=l ~"BELOWINTERIORFINISH,MAX.2%SLOPE. ~ l~O" Ml ; V 'i' ~ • , V E=3«( II - @ NEW CONSTRUCTION VESTIBULE, WALLS UNDER EXISTING 5' ®-- 1 I~ ~____,.--EX~ 'ES, 8 I;:;'\ ROOF OVERHANG. MATERIALS TO MATCH EXISTING. <
1 1
Ill ~
0 , ±6'-"'" 1:1111 ~ @ l[]\XISTINGNCOURTYARD @ 1e,; ____ ____ ® 1HOURRATEDROLLDOWNSHUTTERATINTERIORWINDOW. ~ ii • .. I q < @ PROVIDE GFI ELECTRICAL OUTLETS ON SIDE so THAT NO = ---=:;:::===j'k===:::::::===:::====='J VESTIBULE ' I ~ i J,i'I "'- • ~- COUNTER SPACE IS NO MORE THAN 2'-0" FROM AN OUTLET. L ' ADDITION I " /7-:V :::; I I V / I ~ ~ ~~~4'-+fl':_' -,,::;/I;'~ ~ @ PROVIDE MIN. (2) 20 AMP CIRCUITS TO COUNTERTOP ,. 8'-1YLAN ING c::, RAMP DOWN 12'-0" • 6'-0" LANDING I I EXG MECH 1 ft ~.-, J )ltEf' 117 - I - OUTLETS FOR SMALL APPLIANCES. -0" MINI UM ...- 1'-0" VERTICAL ' 5'-0" MINIMUM I ' ...,. .._________ @ PROVIDE SEPARATE CIRCUIT FOR REFRIGERATOR OUTLET.

I [ ~~--•,,._---~~I----,>-->------- • 1
00 I ® WASHER/ DRYER. PROVIDE SHUT-OFF VALVE. FOR ANY GAS I I ' ' ·,. 1:2,\ I I LINE. VENT DRYER TO THE WALL OR THROUGH THE ROOF. [ 0 / L. \ E (G AN 1 :i 3" fo\ I lo\ PROVIDE 30 AMP CIRCUIT TO LAUNDRY. PROVIDE LOUVERED [
I
[
[
[
/
"
I \ LJ) ::i. I.'::) □ I DOOR FOR COMBUSTION AIR IF GAS FIRED DRYER IS ==!i!i!!([);jJ ] .• ~ '-6" . > ,~[E~~"'=========-u-:1, \ \ l"-1' PROVIDED. ] /[ 3'-9" _ "' 6'-2" ,, ,, 17'.,l" niAl!ETER ,. ':.,,.--.---..V,,.-B'-4~1'~', '- 16,_31,, J , § PROVIDE 240V OUTLET FOR POTENTIAL ELECTRIC DRYER. ==1:i;(r--il"',.o=-=11== '>----~' \ 12'-3" ."' ,f,-~!..._~~7"~'---------,f,f-------=m:ti:Otl=~~~t::t:::=----<~r--f~::'.':!._~C!l.,_ t--1,------~'!__------~. ~ , _, > ~ PROVIDE ADJUSTABLE SHELVES IN LINEN CLOSET @ .,!, "' .;: EXISTING LOBBY 1011 - t--- ~ > ~ 8 NEW PLUMBING FIXTURES SHALL HAVE THE FOLLOWING L'4 - / . 1 ·1 ·1 1,11::vv u11~ll'll:J , .. ' '\_ ·1 _.., ~ - -· ==!i!•C::::a:4il"'J=]=II== ~ @--"' r, / ,,r- FLOW RATES:
] I ~ .. - K CHEN 114 ---------- I I/ f 111\
1 0 . 2 .f\ / TOILETS: EFFECTIVE FLUSH VOLUME SHALL NOT ==1;;;lC;::a:4,..,.0=]=11== I 1 @ .,;, 1 '~~~~~=====~ 1 io\ ~IY EXCEED 1.2s GALLONS PER FLUSH ( [2) I ~ I.'::) □ SHOWERHEADS MAX1.8GPM@80PSI
~•c::::a:4,..,.0=1=11== ~4 l[] ~-----,;,="1~%-Y !2 I I LAVATORY FAucETs: MAX o.5 GPM @60 Psi ] I / / 'J -'_j 10'-4" ~ , _ \ I, .'· I I KITCHENFAUCETS: MAX1.8GPM@60PSI 1' , ---,--7 @ WRAPALLEXPOSEDHOTWATERPIPESWITHMIN.R-4
' ~h" __
11 -3" 7'-6" K ~,i~ ;! ~ =-"' ,,;1,,!1t11! : -
/ • ro '1 [ - EXISTING S COURTYARD ::H~:!:N W,!
RECYCL tECYCL
-
4'-011
27'-I '
~ ~. : @ @ @ 1§) ______ _
l!:r-WOM~N:}~T: ". ·•JM 11J - ," /3\ ,~------,-_~/3-1\_/:_t_' ------_~l-3\-/-:2~0 ,----1 7!~@ ~ I ' I • , 7 1 1-Htn -/
, ' 0 I ~ \, 1 '-3" / I,
> "
' I _-'t-- - __- /
I '~ /~I/·
I OIV f/ ~I,,--®
t<t--~-,,,,-1~-_:___-711.,:,Q - (i.~'I. I 13\
l:i:~ ~-'Y lf1; : ~ ~ :
-
• "' - • • - • ,> E .. ,HALL >111"1 • ~ JEW BEDROOM #101 •, , 1 ' 4 OCCUPANTS
Fl
'
"
~
~
~\JEW BEDROOM #10>
40CCUPANTS
>
>
'
'
'
'
'
" I
EXG OFFICE 104
I
----- =
5 D
I -
I
L,JE-
1 I
j_ I
I e= -
I
NIW CORRIDOR I# J
I :\ : : : > : >
NEW BEDROOM #1 l9 '------ ,, ' 4'-0" •7-'f==n--- 1;;;.3'..;:,·9!'_' ----:='>i711!~•1'==r+===1~3•-42." ___ -=~lf-'-+-'--+-""""ir=- __ ..:.:1sc.::'·8!,_"' ------------,1'! ®-... I /\k_ II I -3 OCCUPANTS Fi
C---------~-c---~------+-~ ~l-t-cl===ii~~~12,•-3"
I
- -
'
26'-11" cp , .
1 LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN

2.1 1/4" = 1'-0" 0 1 2
.... -' a.-
5 I
I '
I ' "'" I!!]
--.__,.)NEW CORRIDOR #103
1 • .. • J 72'-5"
10 20 ft
'
'
'
t::
c..r-
I

INSULATION
@
1 NEWHOTWATERHEATER
@ SHOWER SHALL HAVE A MIN. 1024 SQ IN OF INTERIOR AREA, AND PROVIDE SPACE FOR A MIN. 30"0 CIRCLE. GLASS IN

SHOWER ENCLOSURES SHALL BE APPROVED SAFETY GLASS,
AND SHOWER DOORS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE MIN. 24" CLEAR

WIDTH AND SHALL OPEN OUTWARD FROM THE SHOWER

COMPARTMENT PROVIDE NONABSORBENT WALL SURFACE
TO MIN. 6' ABOVE FLOOR AT TUB/ SHOWER.

AREA OF RESCUE ASSISTANCE

NEW WINDOW
NEW EGRESS/ RESCUE WINDOW AT BEDROOMS. SEE DOOR
AND WINDOW SCHEDULE SHEET A2.5 FOR REQUIREMENTS.

INTERIOR SECURITY DOORS SHALL BE LOCKED FROM LOBBY

SIDE AND SHALL REMAIN OPERABLE FROM CORRIDOR SIDE
AT ALL TIMES WITHOUT SPECIAL TOOLS OR KNOWOLEDGE.

DOORS SHALL ALSO BE ELECTRONICALLY CONTROLLED
FROM OFFICE.

TEMPERED SAFETY GLAZING

WALL LEGEND

NEW WALL

EXISTING WALL TO REMAIN

EXISTING WALL REMOVED
Project Team
" ,9
rn
C:
0 i
0 C:
&!
'O
Q)
rn
0 C.
e a..

VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berl<e~y, CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
0)
C:
en LO
:::J 0
0 _, CO
I a,~
>, ~ 0)
(,) _, <(
C: CJ) ()
Q) .c.
e, ~ "C
Q) C") C:

Er--. o woE
<( N 13
CJ) --
a.. c:::
()

FLOOR PLAN
Revision
&.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
~.PLANNING • 26 Mar'24
&.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
6- •
6- •
6- •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A2.1
4 of 6 Sheets
Copyright 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reseived
324
I
I
[
[
[
[
I [
I
,. /2\
=~~,e;,r-----,-----\----\::-,l w-~••u~~- -- -- -- -~- ~•-----)!~--R,j-1i,------------~~l@ ':_~-=--=--=--=---, -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-~ ----i::-:r7--------------<H>,:--:i-,L7----------r-r--LJ---~-~ ~ .- ~ l~l-
i ) ( ~ _ rl;~~ ~~=~=~~~;i ~~h~v..,~J~, ~\~===r====i r _E FJ"--------!I
~ ~
-
l
>
... ... ... .. ... ...

NEW BEDROOM #129 FJ'l___-=;l-1"E...,_W,_,,B=ED=1IPO=O=M "'-1# ffl'-- 5 OCCUPANTS 1 OCC PANT
N _ ___,,
D D D
<1~[>
[
~
"': < I O I O I ,, ±2'-lr ~ l!Jll-1H11 LJ ~ LJ - - I I
~ · 1'-6"MIN' ' ~ ~ ~ _/ fE_I
~ ~/\ l/\ '-------, a 'I/ MEN'S BATHROOM 120
:X,
~
...

I- ,
-
11 """"

I COMMUNICATIONS
PANEL
- r
( tJ
'-

EXG VES,
~
8 LJ
,I,[\
NEW BEDROOM #12'
4OCCUPANTS
, m , ~
:t -------- -------r
'-..,,-"
NEW BEDROOM #124
4 OCCUPANTS
@ @x1STING N COURTYARD
--NEW ENTERTAINMENT #125 N V CORRIDOt
-
ti=!.

I
•·
~- M
I -E
I f "D
I ~
•
_'3\
' FD ~ -------------- -J..IH
@
I

6._
'.:],;, I "MECH 119 f,:, T0~1i I -~
/
I
/
I
=-~"']
~c:-u .i ]
==l!!~~.i ]
===l!:!;;!Dci" ]
=a!ii!~G:=u" ]
n
I
/\k_
~
I I
-
~
• ......__
I Do
I
I 1- ·- K CHEN 114
I
D1: :1~-
I
I
I
I
I
~ _J
(□)
@
/2\ , ~-
~
~- FD,
I ~""'-->'-o"-'H·· _

11...,
J
L...
. I"'
NEW BEDROOM #101
4OCCUPANTS
I
I NEW BEDROOM #1 O~'-::.-r,-,,,i rl"V1' ~/f'-r=~--,
3 OCCUPANTS r FD ' - • • '
I , =• D
I
>
>
>
I
- -

LEVEL ONE CEILING PLAN
1/4" = 1'-0" 0 1 2 5 10

NEW DINING HALL
~ =----

EXISTING S COURTYARD
@
_,- /2\
• .
> ·D • J
~
NEW BEDROOM #101
4 OCCUPANTS
......, r--..L7
20 ft
@
v"
~ '
@
@ @
_,- /2\ /\
• I
> B '
EXG OFFICE 104
□
EXISTING LOBBY 101
□
/\
~~~
/2\
I
I ~ •
'
~ ~
I
I I
I
l"r---r--
l:, IJ ,~ >
~I~""">
V
1/v
I
I I
I I
I -~
I
= I -
I
L,JE-
1 I
l_ I
It:: -
I
E
N V CORRIDOR I# I?
a= ~-
I
I ~-t::

I
I
I
l=w I
a= ~-
c.J""
Project Team
" ..9
rn
C:
0 i
0 C:
&!
"O
Q)
rn
0 C.
e a.

VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berke~y, CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
0)
C:
en LO
:::J 0
0 _, CO
I a,~
>, ~ 0)
(.) _, <(
C: Cl) ()
Q) .c.
e, ~ "C
Q) C") C:

Er--. o woE
<( N 13
Cl) ·-
a.. c:::
()

CEILING PLAN
Revision
&.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
~.PLANNING • 26 Mar'24
&.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
6- •
6- •
6- •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A2.2
5 of 6 Sheets
Copyright 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reserved
325
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -1- I

NORTH RIGHT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
,_, ,_, , _,
I 'f A \
I
□ □
~
I! ~
I I I
f- - - r- - I

SOUTH ELEVATION AT WEST COURT
1/4" = 1'-0"
I 1 __,.----..__ □ □□
~ , ~ ~:;;::;;::::;;::;I
• 9 ..,.
.
,•
~
.

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I
I I I
I

I I I I
I I

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I I
I

I I I I
I I

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I
- - I -+ +- -I -+ +- ·I -+ +-

I I I I I I I I I I

WEST REAR ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
"
- -
= t;l;t : Ht.'IIFFI I l==le=ll==ll==lt=al==t=lHll==lt=al==ll=afa=ll==le=ll==lHt=ll==le=ll==lHt=al==lf=ll==l Hl==llHe=ll==ta -- ~ - - - - - - - - - I- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - !- - - - - - - ,. ,.
® 9 <f_y
,.
/- 15', SOUTH (LEFT) ELEVATION
~, 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 n 7 L A w B II I L D I N r,
r==
I 207~
==1
13 Iii
----- ---- ---- LL ==J ---
I

EAST FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 0 1 2 5 10 20 ft
, -' I I
'f
I
I I
I
=
I I I
I I
~ ~
I I I
~ I I I
I
I I
I
~1-r - ~ I
I I -I -+ ----------------- f---- ~-,,-- .lr >-- ----- t------ I
- ~
------ ----- ------- ----------1-1----------------------------- I
I
I
r
--- --- ,_
I

FRONT HOUSE ELEVATION NOTES

EXISTING GRADE
PAINTED WOOD OR FIBERGLASS WINDOWS AND DOORS, TYP.

STUCCO TO MATCH EXISTING

EXTERIOR GUARD RAIL, WOOD SUPPORTS WITH DECORATIVE
METAL INFILL. 42" HIGH WITH NO OPENING ALLOWING
PASSAGE OF 4" 0 SPHERE,
®
ffi

STREET ADDRESS SIGN -SIGN SHALL BE BE ARABIC
NUMBERS MIN. 4" IN HEIGHT WITH MIN. 0.5" STROKE
THICKNESS, COLOR TO CONTRAST BACKGROUND.

EXISTING INTAKE VENT TO REMAIN.
±4'-0" ENCLOSING WALLS FOR SOLID WASTE, SEE DETAIL
4/A3.1
@
9 PERSON GATE
@ SIGN INDICATING THIS IS THE ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE AND
DIRECTIONS TO MAIN ENTRANCE. SIGN SHALL ALSO
INCLUDE INSTRUCTIONS FOR BUZZER ACCESS.

WELCOME SIGN ABOVE

VEHICLE GATE

FENCING

ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE DIRECTION SIGNAGE
, ' \ ~
, '
□ □
LJ LJ
---------- -----

METAL CAP FLASHING

PEEL AND STICK FLASHING

BUILDING PAPER OR TYVEK

FIBER CEMENT SIDING

BUILDING PAPER OR TYVEK
2X4 FRAMING AT 24" 0.C.
i" PLYWOOD EACH SIDE
4X4 PT SILL PLATE
;" ANCHOR BOLT AT 48" O.C.

CONCRETE FOOTING

EXISTING ASPHALT
I
l "
Ll
<1
1 1'-0"
4 l "

SOLID WASTE SCREEN SECTION
1 1/2" = 1 '-0"
z
0 -Cl)
Cl)...: -o
~i co :8
::> i
Cl)~
0::

Project Team
VanMechelen Architects
Greg VanMechelen
732 Gilman Street
Berkeley, CA 94710
Tel: 510.558.1075
Fax: 510.558.1076
[email protected]
(9al
z g_
-o
za:
z
<(
_J
a_

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

DETAILS
Revision
,:L.PLANNING 2 • 29 Dec '23
&.PLANNING • 26 Mar '24
~.PLANNING • 3 Apr '24
L-,. •
D,. •
D,. •
Date: 21 November 2023
Drawn:

Scale:

A3.1
6 of 6 Sheets
Copynght 2024 VanMechelen Architects
All Rights Reserved
326

Richmond Police Department

Patrol Services Bureau ● 1701 Regatta Blvd ● Richmond, CA. ● 94804

Date: September 23, 2024

To: Lina Velasco

From: Sergeant Kristopher Tong

Re: CPTED Assessment – 207 37th Street, Richmond, California 94805

CPTED is an acronym for Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design—an approach to reducing crime and the fear of crime by teaming planners, designers, landscapers and police to create safe surroundings within our constructed environment. CPTED principles and strategies are intended to reduce criminal activity on a property, but they do not guarantee that all crime risks will be prevented. Some examples of CPTED activities include: Repairing vacant lots and abandoned buildings, maintaining neighborhood green spaces, and upkeeping neighborhood housing.

Property Location: 207 37th Street, Richmond, California 94805

Property Description: Office Building

BACKGROUND:

207 37th Street is a proposed location for an emergency housing shelter. The applicant, Greg Van Mechelen, has requested a conditional use permit to convert this office building into temporary housing for those who are unhoused. The applicant stated there will be up to 25 beds available for those in need.

From January 2023 to August 2023, California Portsmouth Square Association operated an emergency housing shelter from this same building. The shelter was closed, and Mr. Van Mechelen has requested to reopen it.

The building is located on 37 th Street and Bissell Avenue. The building is neighbor to a Citibank N.A. bank branch to the north, and a residential neighborhood to the west and south. This location is approximately 540 feet from DeJean Middle School.

A parking lot with three (3) parking stalls is located immediately to the west of this building. Three (3) additional parking stalls are located in a separate parking lot (separated from the building’s parking lot by a short cement curb), though is not associated with this building.

327

- 2 -
Calls for service from 2019 to 2024 (for 2024, statistics include January 2024 to September (to-date) 2024) for the listed location 207 37th Street and within 300 feet of this location were as follows:

 2019 – 138 calls for service
 2020 – 162 calls for service
 2021 – 158 calls for service
 2022 – 146 calls for service
 2023 – 184 calls for service
 2024 – 151 calls for service

This location was only observed during daylight hours. The building was unoccupied and inaccessible during the time of this assessment.

ASSESSMENT:

Building: The exterior of the building is in below average condition. Paint is chipped in numerous locations, and decorative wood pieces are pulled away from the building (with nails exposed). Graffiti was seen on at least two different locations on the exterior of the building.

The parking lot ground had numerous discarded it ems on the ground and dried dead leaves . The parking stall lines are visible, though faint. The parking lot should be clean of debris and parking stall lines should be painted to clearly outline the location in which vehicles can park.

The building, to include the parking lot, should be maintained in good condition. Leaving a building or parking lot in disarray, encourages criminal activity and ultimately decreases safety for those in and around the location (broken window theory).

The entrance/exit door to the building from the parking lot is not visible from the parking lot itself.

The building’s door is separated by a wall made of wooden slats and a metal door. This “breezeway” is of concern, and creates an area where one is not visible from those in the parking lot or street. This area allows for individuals to hide and/or participate in illegal activity undetected. To prevent this area from being a location for illicit activity, it should be removed. 328

- 3 -

Lighting: During daylight hours, this location has no lighting concerns. Natural sunlight illuminates the building, and the parking lot satisfactorily.

In the evening hours, the primary area of concern is the parking lot associated with this building. The building was equipped with two exterior lights (with two lamps each) facing the parking lot. This light appeared inadequate to illuminate the entire parking lot. These lights would also leave areas of the parking lot dimly lit.

Illuminating the area surrounding this building, to include the parking lot associated with it, is crucial for the safety of those occupying this building. Lighting should be increased to higher intensity lighting options (such as metal halide lighting) a nd/or additional lighting fixtures, to achieve sufficient object illumination (be able to identify a person at 25’). Good lighting also provides physical and psychological deterrence to would-be offenders.

Because this building is within close proximity to a residential neighborhood (with homes immediately to the west and south of the location), lighting options must be considerate of those in the residential neighborhood.

The remaining sides of the building appear to have adequate lighting options ( i.e. city street lamp(s) affixed to a utility pole, bank parking lot lamps). To be certain, this location should be viewed in the evening hours to ensure satisfactory object illumination. If there is inadequate object illumination in any area surrounding this building (to include the immediate areas around it), additional lighting must be added.

329

- 4 -
Windows: There are windows on the west and east side of the building, along with narrow glass panes (presumably) to allow natural light to enter the building. Some of the windows are covered with wood. Because the building is currently not occupied, it is presumed the windows are covered to protect the glass while the building is vacant. Windows should be left uncovered (by wood or similar), and should allow for natural sunlight to enter the building, and for occupants to see outside.

The front of the building is located on the east side of the structure (on 37th Street). The entrance was protected by a secure barrier, though the front of the entrance appeared to be glass doors and windows. There appears to be no tint on the windows. This is important to maintain to ensure t wo- way visibility.

Sound: This location is surrounded by a residential neighborhood immediately to the west and south.

Though sound may not be concerning during the daytime hours, it may be of concern in the evening.

Based solely on attending the planning commission meeting in June, and having talked to residents in this specific neighborhood, there are concerns of loitering and illicit activity around the surround ing areas of this building. Such activities occur throughout all hours of the day, though more prominent during the evening hours.

It is important for the occupants of this building to be conscious of noise l evels coming from and around this building. Allowing excessive noise will encourage unwanted activity and/or individuals in and around this location.

Uniformed Security: This building was vacant when this assessment was conducted. There were no security personnel on site during this assessment.

It is difficult to anticipate the need for adequate uniformed security personnel before a building is occupied for its intended purpose. Based on the intent this location be an emergency housing shelter, and to reaffirm the safety of all employees and occupants of the shelter, a minimum of two uniformed security personnel should be present at all times.

One uniformed security personnel should remain outside of the building. Th is individual should conduct regular “foot patrol” of the parking lot, around the exterior of the building, and immediate surrounding area (to include vehicles parked in the parking lot, vehicles parked along the street that appear to be associated with this building, etc).
330

- 5 -
One uniformed security personnel should remain inside of the build ing. Th is individual should maintain peace within the building, and ensure the safety of those working/residing within the building.

Security personnel’s demeanor should be courteous and polite, not adversarial, and they should make eye contact with and greet as many people as possible. Peo ple lingering on the premises (or in vehicles within the vicinity) for no apparent reason may likely be engaging in activity of a suspicious nature and should be contacted. Uniformed security personnel should also be stationed at the front of the establishment.

Signage: There should be signage posted around the building to clearly notify individuals of unwanted activity/loitering. Signs stating “No loitering” are sufficient, though signage specifying city ordinances or penal code are more effective.

Parking: The building’s parking lot has inadequate parking (3 parking spaces) for the size of the building (and the intended number of occupants) . Additional parking is available on the street adjacent to the building. Because parking is inadequate, it is concerning vehicles associated with the shelter may park in the residential neighborhood. Shelter staff (and/or security personnel) should ensure vehicles parked on the street are in good working order, and do not remain parked (in the same location) for extended periods of time.

Though there is a parking lot adjacent to the parking lot associated with this building, it is not included in the conditional use permit application. As such, it will be the responsibility of the shelter’s staf f (and/or uniformed security personnel) to ensure no vehicles associated with the shelter park in this parking lot. If the applicant obtains approval from the owner/lease to utilize this parking lot, the applicant must ensure the security and maintenance of this parking lot as described in this report.

This includes, but not limited to: Uniformed security personnel “foot patrol”, adequate lighting, video surveillance cameras.

Video Surveillance: There are multiple video surveillance cameras affixed to this building. Three cameras were located on the building facing the parking lot, one camera on the south side of the building pointed towards the east side of the building, and three cameras on the front of the building facing the entrance. This appears to be sufficient surveillance cameras for the exterior this location. 331

- 6 -
It was unconfirmed if the cameras were operational. Though mounted security cameras (functional or not) are a deterrent to would-be offenders, cameras should have record capability, and accessible for law enforcement to view if needed. Having at least one staff member trained to access camera footage is desired. Having adequate and functional surveillance cameras aide in the safety a nd well- being of those associated with this location.

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS:

First Responder Ease of Access: First responders, to include police officers, may need to respond to this location for a crime that just occurred, or medical emergency. First responders must be able to enter the facility without delay. If the doors belonging to the shelter are secured, first responders must be able to enter swiftly, when needed (i.e. if the doors are secured requiring a person to be “buzzed-in,” shelter personnel must be immediately available to allow first responders to enter when they arrive).

CONCLUSION/OTHER COMMENTS:

This report seeks to identify CPTED weaknesses and offer suggestions to improve the physical environment at 207 37th Street, following the principles of CPTED . Though the recommendations may reduce criminal activity on this property, making the recommended improvements does not guarantee the property, or surrounding areas, to be free of criminal activity.

332
Agenda Item 3
e^^
ItieHsnSnHPLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA REPORT

COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
DATE:

SUBJECT:

June 6, 2024
CPSA EMERGENCY HOUSING (PLN23-360): Public
hearing to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds.

PREPARED BY:Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner
207 37th St (APN: 516-210-020)
Gregory VanMechelen
PROPERTY OWNER: Joanne Joey Tang
T5MS-0, Main Street Open
Medium-lntensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis)
LOCATION:

APPLICANT:

ZONING:

GENERAL PLAN:

CEQA:Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 -
New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and Section 15269(c) - Emergency Projects.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE/PROPOSAL:

The applicant and architect, Gregory VanMechelen, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter.

RECOMMENDED ACTION:

1. Hold a public hearing; and

2. Adopt Resolution No. 24-06 (see Attachment 1), approving the Planning Application No. PLN23-360, subject to conditions.

Page 1 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 333
Macdonald Ave.
,<1
tey;- T^f^st
BACKGROUND:

The subject site is located at 207 37th Street, at the southeast intersection of 37th Street and Bissel Ave, in the Pullman neighborhood. 37th Street is a two-lane local street that intersects with Macdonald Avenue one block north of the subject site and has access to 1-80 in about 1 mile. The subject site is approximately 7,500 square feet and is zoned T5MS-0 (T5 Main Street - Open) within the Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (FBC). Adjacent properties along Bissell Avenue are zoned T5MS-0 with residential uses developed with single-family units. Adjacent and nearby properties bordering Macdonald Avenue are zoned T5MS (T5 Main Street) with primarily commercial uses.

The subject site is developed with an existing 5,045-square-foot office building that is

Page 2 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 334
currently vacant. The main entrance, located at the front of the structure on 37th Street, has a metal gate and rolling metal security fence. The rear of the building has wooden screens covering existing windows and a portion of the rear wall and has a metal security door at the rear entrance. The parking area at the rear of the building includes minimal landscaping and three parking spaces, which do not meet the required stall length nor include any accessible spaces.

PROPOSAL:

The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of a CUP to allow the conversion of the existing office building into an emergency shelter. The facility would provide housing and minimal supportive services including therapist, vocational, and occupational and related services, as detailed in Exhibit A, page 1. The shelter facility would include seven rooms (six dorm-style and one private), a women's restroom, a men's restroom, one private restroom, an entertainment room, a dining hall, office area for management staff, and a rear courtyard area, as detailed in Exhibit A. Residency would be limited to six months or less.

Exterior improvements to the site include adding egress windows at the rear of the building to comply with building codes for the new occupancy type, a 30-square-foot addition to accommodate a rear vestibule and wheelchair access ramp, and removal of existing non-compliant parking stripes. The newly striped parking area would include three parking spaces (including two tandem spaces and one accessible space); five bicycle parking spaces; a new wheelchair ramp at the rear of the building; a new 340- square-foot courtyard area at the rear of the building; a refuse area with screening wall in the center of the parking area; and a six-foot-tall fence (including a metal person gate and rolling vehicle access gate) surrounding the parking area for security purposes.

DISCUSSION:

As described further below, staff received comments from the neighborhood expressing concerns about the proposed emergency shelter. Based on the comments submitted, regarding potential neighborhood impacts, planning staff researched other jurisdictions' emergency shelter standards, and the Police Department recommends conditions of approval to address security, rule enforcement, and community engagement.

The Richmond Municipal Code Section 15.04.610.180 (Emergency Shelters) contains standards for emergency shelters, as detailed in the Zoning Compliance section of this report. The maximum number of occupants is 25, but the capacity is not based on building or living size, unlike some other jurisdictions. The following table summarizes three California jurisdictions with square footage requirements for Emergency Shelters:

Page 3 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 335
Jurisdiction
City of Red Bluff
City of Los Angeles
Solano County
Max Occupancy
Standard
125 square feet (SF) of
living space per resident
70 SF of living space per
first resident per room, 50
SF thereafter
50 SF of living space per
resident
Proposed Project's Max
Occupancy based on the
example standard
Up to 5, with no more than
one per room and the
smallest room would not
be sufficient
Up to 21, with specific
limits depending on room
size
Up to 24, with specific
limits depending on room
size
The average maximum occupancy standard of the above jurisdictions is 75 square feet of living space per resident per room. Based on the above, Staff recommends limiting the proposed emergency shelter's occupancy to 16 persons.

Staff also recommends incorporating standards for sanitation and air quality based on the Minimum Habitability Standards for Shelter and Housing Policy from the California Housing and Community Development Department. Proposed conditions of approval would require graffiti abatement and fencing design to improve compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and requiring the applicant to consent to inspection with appropriate notice, so that the required standards may be verified for compliance.

The structure has been intermittently vacant for at least five years, and as such the exterior has not been maintained. Staff recommends that a fresh coat of paint in the same color scheme be applied, and that the metal folding screen at the front of the building be removed to make the entryway more visually appealing.

The small addition to the building to create the vestibule and wheelchair ramp access is proposed to comply with accessibility requirements, and the proposed windows at the rear bedrooms are required comply with egress requirements per California Building Code - Appendix P, Emergency Housing. All remaining proposed improvements are required by either state law or by the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), with the exception of the fencing with vehicle gate and person gate, which would abut a mixed- use zoning area. The person gate would include a welcome sign above, which would be required to be less than four square feet and comply with RMC section 15.04.609 (Signs) as a condition of approval.

Further, the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 for New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures as it pertains to the change of use of a structure less than 10,000 square feet within an urbanized area, and under CEQA Guidelines Section 15269(c) for Emergency Projects, which applies to specific actions necessary to prevent or mitigate an emergency, such as the City's shelter crisis (which was declared in 2018 through City Council adoption of Resolution 79-18).

Page 4 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 336
ZONING ANALYSIS:

The proposed emergency shelter use is conditionally allowed in the T5MS-0 (T5 Main Street - Open) zone, the intent of which is to "provide a vibrant, walkable urban main street commercial area that provides locally- and regionally-serving commercial, retail, entertainment uses, and civic and public uses, as well as a variety of urban housing choices." The "Open" sub-zone specifically encourages a more diverse mix of uses and building types. All adjacent properties fall within either the T5MS (T5 Main Street) or T5MS-0 (Main Street - Open) zones, where a mix of uses is intended.

The Richmond Livable Corridors Form-Based Code (FBC) outlines development standards for the T5MS-0 zone, per RMC Section 15.04.402.050. The improvements proposed as part of the emergency shelter conversion would meet the T5MS-0 development standards, as follows:

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE T5MS-0 ZONE (RMC Section 15.04.402.050) Site Fegtures^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Lot Size:

Land Use
Fence Location
Number of
Accessible Parking
Spaces
7,500 SF
Office
None
None
No Change
Emergency Shelter
At west (rear) and
south lot lines
1 7,500 SF
Conditional Use
Permit Required
(RMC section

15.05.040.A)
Within the max
setback
1 RMC section 15.04.610.180 - Emergency Shelters
Minimum distance
from other
emergency shelters
On-site area for
outdoor client
congregation
Management Hours
Management Area
Exterior Lighting
N/A
1,150 feet (nearest
shelter is at 3215
Nevin Avenue)
340-square-foot
courtyard at rear
Condition of
approval per code
Office area near
entrance
Near all entrances
and in outdoor
courtyard area;
condition of
approval per code
300 feet
Outdoor courtyard
On-site management
during hours of
operation when
clients are present
Area for the
manager near the
entr/ to the facility
At all building
entrances and
outdoor activity
areas; activated

Page 5 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 337
Childcare Facilities
On-Site Commercial
Kitchen Facilities
On-Site Dining Area
Laundr/
On-Si+e Recreation
Room
On-Site Support
Services (e.g.
training, counseling)
Number of Beds
Bicycle Parking
Parking Space
Requirement3
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes, community
entertainment room
Yes, therapist,
vocational, and
occupational
services
Up to 25
5 short-term spaces
proposed, 1 long-
term space required
as a condition of
approval
3 (Compliant per (CA
Code Title 7, Chapter 3,
Article 10.6 Section
65583(a)(4)(b)(ii))
between sunset and
sunrise of each day
Allowed but not
required
Allowed but not
required
Allowed but not
required
Allowed but not
required
Allowed but not
required
Allowed but not
required
Maximum 25
Minimum 1 short-term
space per 5 beds; 1
long-term space
Requirement
Sufficient for
Employees
Pursuant to Section 15.04.805.010 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), design review is not required for "exterior alterations required by State or federal law or other public agencies" or "commercial or mixed-use additions or improvements of less than 1,000 square feet that do not abut a residential zoning district." GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY:

The subject site is designated Medium-lntensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) under the Richmond General Plan. This General Plan designation is intended to create a "network of vibrant, mixed-use, higher-density pedestrian and transit-oriented corridors that link major community centers in the City." Buildings in this area are meant to have minimal setbacks and parking located to the sides or rear of buildings when possible.

The proposed project is in an existing building that is built up to the lot line and places parking to the rear/side of the building. The applicant notes that the project would be

Page 6 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 338
located within walking distance of major transit options, and proposed parking is limited to three spaces which encourages the use of other modes of transportation.

The project is also consistent with the General Plan's multiple initiatives to support and reduce barriers for emergency shelters in the city. For example, Housing Element Program 4.G states the City's intent to amend its parking requirements for emergency housing to be consistent with State Law (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)(A)), which requires only enough parking to support staff. Housing Element Policy 4.6:

Emergency, Transitional, and Supportive Housing states that the City will "actively seek to expand emergency, transitional, and supportive housing to address homelessness in Richmond."
PUBLIC COMMENTS:

The applicant shared the project with the Pullman Neighborhood Council via email, but currently no response has been received. As a note, the neighborhood council only meets during the months of July, September, and October (according to information published by the City on its website).

As of this writing, staff has received five emails in relation to the project (see Exhibit B).

All comments came from authors who stated that they live in the area and that they have been negatively affected by the shelter, which had been operating without permission in the same location within the past two years. In their emails, the authors shared that there was an increase in car break-ins, police activity, and emergency responses at the site.

They also shared a general sense that residents of the shelter were loitering in the neighborhood and threatening the safety of local residents.

CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS:

To approve any CUP, the Planning Commission must make all the findings below in accordance with RMC Section 15.04.806.040:

1. 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;

3. 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;

4. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of Article XV; and

5. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Page 7 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 339
The findings and recommended statements of fact are incorporated into the proposed Planning Commission resolution in Attachment 1.

CONCLUSION:

Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Planning Application No.

PLN23-360, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Resolution No. 24-06 (see Attachment 1). Among other things, the recommended conditions of approval would do the following:
• Require compliance with standards for Lighting and Illumination (Article

15.04.604), Noise (Article 15.04.605) and all Performance Standards (Article

15.04.608).
• Require facility standards including security lighting from dusk until dawn,and on-site staff during hours when residents are present.
• Require trained security personnel.
• Require an adjustment to the parking area to reduce the total number of spaces to two.
• Require that queuing be monitored so that it does not occur on any sidewalk or outside the premises.
• Require that the fencing and gate design be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and allow for the appropriate mix of privacy and transparency. • Require the refuse area to be covered.
• Require the metal folding screen at the front of the structure be removed. • Require the structure be re-painted in the same color scheme. • Require graffiti abatement within 24 hours of its appearance. • Prohibit all noise disturbances, as defined by Section 9.52 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), and require that the project maintain a "good neighbor" policy with the adjacent residential uses.
• Require a minimum of 75 square feet of living space per resident, reducing the maximum capacity of the shelter to 16 residents.
• Require standards on sanitation and interior air quality. • Require consent to inspection by the City with appropriate notice.

Page 8 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 340
DOCUMENTS ATTACHED:

Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution No. 24-06
Exhibit A: Project Plans
Exhibit B: Comment Emails
PUBLIC NOTICE AND APPEAL PERIOD:

Public notification consisted of publishing a legal notice in the local newspaper, notification by mail of property owners within a 300-foot radius of the subject property and notification by mail of the neighborhood council for the subject site. The Planning Commission's decision may be appealed to the City Council by written notice thereof and payment of appeal fee to the City Clerk's office and Planning Division by 5:00 PM on June 17,2024.

Page 9 of 9 ends

CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23-360)
June 6, 2024 341
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 24-06

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (PLN23-360) TO ALLOW THE

CONVERSION OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING TO AN EMERGENCY SHELTER.

WHEREAS, on November 22, 2023, Gregory VanMechelen (the "applicant") filed Planning Application No. PLN23-360 requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to convert an existing office building located at 207 37th Street (the "subject site" or "premises") in the T5MS-0 (Main Street - Open) District, APN 516-210-020; and WHEREAS, the requested CUP is subject to the provisions of Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) Section 15.04.610.180 and Article 15.04.806 of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the requested CUP is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 - New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures; and Section 15269(c) - Emergency Projects; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the CUP for conformance with the Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable regulations of the Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a properly noticed public hearing pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and has duly considered all written and verbal testimony presented before or during the hearing, including the staff report;and
WHEREAS, on the basis of the application, plans, materials, and testimony submitted at or before the public hearing, including the staff report, the Planning Commission makes the following findings with statements of facts as required by Section

15.04.806.040 of the Zoning Ordinance for approval of a CUP:

1. 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;
Statement of Fact: Criterion Satisfied. The project site has a General Plan land use designation of "Medium-lntensity, Mixed-Use" which encourages a diverse mix of uses. In addition, the Housing Element contains programs and policies, such as Program 4.G and Policy 4.6, that support and/or call for decreased requirements for development of emergency housing, especially in mixed-use zones.

June 6, 2024 1 of 7 Resolution No. 24-06
342

2. 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;
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The existing building remains consistent with the neighborhood in terms of size and design, and the proposed project would meet the additional standards for function and security outlined in RMC section 15.04.610.180 for emergency shelters. Conditions of approval addressing maximum occupancy, security, and lighting, as well as regular inspections, will ensure the surrounding neighborhood is minimally affected by the standard operation of the proposed use. Any congregation of residents would happen in the interior lobby, or in the rear courtyard of the building which is secured behind a six-foot fence. Exterior lighting will be automatically activated between sunset and sunrise for security purposes.

3. 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;
Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The proposed use will be subject to the provisions in the Richmond Zoning Ordinance related to Lighting and Illumination (RMC Article 15.04.604), Noise (RMC Article 15.04.605) and other Performance Standards (RMC Article 15.04.608). The proposed use will not create any of the aforementioned nuisances through regular activity. A condition of approval has been adopted to help ensure that all exterior lighting will be shielded and cast downwards so as to avoid excess glare.

4. The proposed use complies with all applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance.

Statement of Fact: Criterion Conditionally Satisfied. The proposed use conforms to the standards set out by Article XV of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), including the Form-Based Code and the specific use standards for emergency shelters in RMC section 15.04.610.180, with the approval of a CUP. Additional conditions of approval have been adopted to ensure compliance with the code for the refuse area (RMC section 15.04.601.090), signage (RMC section

15.04.609), Lighting and Illumination (RMC Article 15.04.604), Noise (RMC Article 15.04.605) and all Performance Standards (RMC Article 15.04.608).

5. The site of the proposed use is adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services.

Statement of Fact: Criterion Satisfied. The existing office building is adequately serviced by public facilities and services, being sited within less than one mile from June 6, 2024 2 of 7 Resolution No.24-06
343
a major highway, and the site would not be altered in a way that would affect these services.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond, does hereby approve Planning Application No. PLN23-360, granting a CUP (Planning Commission Resolution 24-06) to convert an existing office building into an emergency shelter, subject to the following conditions:

1. Prior to Building Permit application submittal, the applicant shall revise the final plans as follows:
a. Amend the Project Narrative on page A1.1 to reflect updated fence material. The material of the west fence must be compatible with the gate design, in a wrought iron or semi-open wood design. b. Amend the Project Narrative on page A1.1 to reflect updated staffing, to reflect that no more than four staff members are expected on-site at one time except during shift changes, and that the two-person management team is expected to carpool.
c. Amend the project plans to limit occupancy to no more than 16 beds or residents at any one time.

2. Approval: This Conditional Use Permit (CUP) approval is granted to allow the conversion of an existing office building located at 207 37th Street, APN 516- 210-020 to an emergency shelter with up to 16 beds as illustrated on the Project Plans submitted to the Richmond Planning Division, dated Friday, April 12, 2024, and including the amendments required in Condition #1, above. The project plans are attached as Exhibit A to the Agenda Report: in support of this Resolution.

3. Performance Standards: This CUP shall be subject to all provisions of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance including Lighting and Illumination (RMC Article

15.04.604), Noise (RMC Article 15.04.605) and all Performance Standards (RMCArticle15.04.608).

4. Staffing Requirements: On-site trained staff must be present 24 hours a day when clients are present. Staff training must include orienting staff to the neighborhood.

5. Lightinci: Exterior lighting must be provided at all building entrances and outdoor activity areas and must be activated between the hours of sunset and sunrise for security purposes.

6. Main Entry: The entry on 37th Street must function and operate as the Main Entrance, in combination with the required management office. The person gate at the south of the parking area may only function as an employee entrance and exit, accessible entrance, or as an emergency exit. The applicant and on-site trained personnel must monitor queuing at all times so that it does not occur on the public street at either the Main Entrance or at the rear, accessible entrance.

June 6, 2024 3 of 7 Resolution No. 24-06
344

7. Private Living Space: A minimum of 75 square feet of private living space must be provided per resident, per room. As designed, no more than three residents shall be allowed in rooms #123,#106, and #129, no more than two residents in rooms #124, #105, and #109, and no more than one resident in room #128 for a total maximum capacity of 16 residents.

8. Sanitary Facilities: Each program participant in the shelter must have access to sanitary facilities that are in proper operating condition, are private, and are adequate for personal cleanliness and the disposal of human waste.

9. Sanitary Conditions: The shelter must be maintained in a sanitary condition.

10. Interior Air Quality: Each room or space within the shelter must have a natural or mechanical means of ventilation. The interior air must be free of pollutants at a level that might threaten or harm the health of residents.

H.Parkmgi Prior to building submittal, the applicant must revise the plans on A2.1/A2.2 to reflect the updated parking area design. The parking area must not contain any more than two (2) spaces total, including one accessible space, as any additional space would reduce the ability to maneuver safely and comfortably. Final design will be subject to all applicable standards per RMC Article15.04.607.

12. Bicycle Parking: The project must provide one long-term bicycle parking space per RMC section 15.04.607.080. All bicycle parking shall be subject to the standards of bicycle parking per RMC section 15.04.607.080(D) including design, installation, and location. The proposed short-term bicycle parking must be located as back as feasible from the adjacent automobile parking space to allow for sufficient access space for both bicycle and automobile.

13. Refuse Area: The proposed refuse area shall include a roof, per RMC section

15.04.601.090.

14. Graffiti: All graffiti on the premises must be removed by the business operator within 24 hours of its appearance.

15. Metal Screen: Prior Building Permit application submittal, the foldable metal screen at the front of the structure shall be removed for a more appealing entryway.

16. Paint: As a part of the building phase, the entire structure shall be painted with a fresh coat of paint matching the existing color scheme.

17. Surveillance and Lighting: Adequate lighting must be installed around the shelter to deter criminal activities. The applicant must install and actively monitor an effective closed-circuit camera system that thoroughly covers all vulnerable areas. Lighting must be shielded and cast downwards so as to avoid excess June 6, 2024 4 of 7 Resolution No.24-06
345
glare.

18. Security Staff and Procedures: Robust security measures must be in place due to the project's central location and proximity to commercial activities and residential neighborhoods. The applicant must employ trained security personnel, particularly during evenings and nights, to maintain safety and prevent incidents.

19.Signs: The proposed sign above the person gate at the rear parking area must be less than four square feet and comply with RMC 15.04.609 for sign standards.

20. Noise: All noise disturbances, as defined by Section 9.52 of the Richmond Municipal Code (RMC), related to the project, and occurring in the parking lot are prohibited. The owner and/or operator of the business shall be responsible for maintaining a "good neighbor" policy with the adjacent residential uses, and a policy of preventing disturbances to the neighborhood.

21. Maintenance: The owner and/or operator of the site shall maintain in good repair all building exteriors, walls, lighting, drainage facilities, driveways and parking areas.

22. Consent to Inspection: Authorized City, county, and State representatives may enter and inspect the shelter at any time with a notice of no less than 24 hours, to ensure compliance and enforcement of the conditions of approval for this CUP (Planning Commission Resolution No. 24-06), except that the inspection and copying of private medical records shall be made available to the Police Department only pursuant to a properly-executed search warrant, subpoena, or court order. It is unlawful and cause for immediate suspension or revocation of the CUP for any property owner, landlord, lessee, and/or owner, agent, or employee to refuse to allow, impede, obstruct or interfere with an inspection.

23. Conditional Use Permit: Authorization of a Conditional Use Permit granted pursuant to the provisions of the Richmond Zoning Ordinance shall run with the land and shall continue to be valid upon a change of ownership of the site or structure which was the subject of the use permit application provided all provisions of the ordinance, the Zoning Ordinance, and all conditions placed on approval of the Conditional Use Permit are continually met. All conditions of approval shall be written or photocopied on the first page of the construction plans submitted for review and approval, if applicable. These conditions of approval, and all grading and construction plans shall be kept on the project site at all times during construction. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that all employees are aware of, and abides by, all conditions of approval.

24. Revocation: Pursuant to RMC Section 15.04.803.130, this CUP may be revoked or modified for cause if any of the conditions or terms of the permit are violated or if any law or regulation is violated.

June 6, 2024 5 of 7 Resolution No. 24-06
346

25. Expiration: The project authorized pursuant to this CUP must be fully operational within two (2) years from the date of final approval. If not fully operational within two (2) years from the date of final approval, the permit shall be deemed expired, and all rights granted pursuant to the permit may be revoked.

26. Indemnity: 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/orany 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.

June 6, 2024 6 of 7 Resolution No. 24-06
347
I CERTIFY, that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Richmond, California at a regular meeting held on June 6, 2024:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

JON HARRISON

VICE CHAIR, RICHMOND PLANNING COMMISSION
Approved as to form:

JAMES ATENCIO

SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
June 6, 2024 7 of 7 Resolution No. 24-06
348
ws
\
w
K.JdVE'
t&anse*
SZ.'OQfZ'
IfAtfW
a p i
•I.V
ws
StWUQ
xtuttunt; a>»0
•V
•V
•V
SNSNNWTd-^
SNiNWTd'^
ZWiWMV^y
wyway
pa|Bt&i pue fluipanq eumsaa -spies a) •V3 'asuaon JW()0 •TO Cu)B<rf> ifflw WUB^ESV - •A)|U8A|unwu8M|enufBS
flKxwm ABB }s^ Jsi^eGojL B^sm^ ^ P»?^ ^ npn Ate»Hl I<^B«inroo - •BjBpuew «a»q^o •MWMQ jaa»o •tB ^q papjAiud «q B)? sao|M»s puonKWA - •p.iy •uoapcr otipoo -JQ AI P»P|AOsri oq IBW saofuas isidswtu. - :p8pjwri aq mw SBayuOT podttns Bufw>BOt aiu.

S310N TVa3N30
dWIAllNIOIA
NOIlVWaOdNI
losroad
•wiijoimfluitxmua)!
tuoijuoiu iffiM 'uwta&i aiauiBO nnajp-ewp aAteueptfl ua cm| OS[B ^]|pSt Otti -sondii ^m fcp»do<wq»u|(iftB3[MaBeBei|puB'AR(nu|SHat(|oiiW3^pes!WBda^tu. -Wl ONEtSiX3 "i P«n«»l »1 oaiua ysvs upw am.
«fl iron -pwouo Biw WOJUBB Bqi uo I
0(.-fiu»t(Am|gw8u^Bts i(«w»ja<I atop ^-Asp jedunoiit.zainjKtojsetiaAgBMi Zl
Q
.11§Sg ^i5 W <c
Q- 3(3
:T CB
!il3m Ico ~ 5"
g
d^f<a^frpw-p<xw p psiMUtBUoa •M6|q .0-^ Ml irat)8;
•undo ARuaisu E; tpfipn iq SuppBd aijno spfB |WA »m BUOEB peioajo B<! geqs B3U8j MBU i Ipn paMudda-epoo mi« ^icnuaut S|B»A) PUB jofiapm Btfl uinq pwpoi aq BKJS BIES • oft *)aiiU» pazNOiMU a miu ^B^t0q»«< BfflP KBt|s flijsB spiqaA ay.-qB(q ^, lyoMtuaitisuutioctoioapsuuttqieyauios -mue BuptJEd BU) jo spf mnos atfl! pep|A(ud eq ua(t »(B6 »p|t)eA pua »tc0 uoB»d man » Aiupei ofi joj A]{J(»M uwuud i •tOjBugcptosifti
eijqouioiro BJOU] Bp|My<i a| qq|B«o<hut ^fesfsfwfl e) n •8»3«te Cuptied eptoiq (5) ep|AOtd' o«ia HMptifQid nta •KWtta ajqtssaao® (0 puc tuepuet u) saoetts Bt^ed pjepu^e (z) oppwud of piunOBUoow q w atu. ••^>oo otc>s »!iuoii[ao Xq ponjnbtu ec Btwad ^itiwwaa jqixsnspOtUUKWBOUSifuetfl'uOfllppcui •mosueuoeg»j^S{BBAtip»ajo^uBiiotfooi St oOBda peiBuB .st fluimw am re BfUBpUBtO puowipiyjo AIQ mtw U)^(dttK» tou q ioj sftfl ••Bwte Oyp(»d (S) tflim ttpp WOM am uo TO OtWwd 8»u» a "4 If lIuBspa it! •UaU|GHK»l)|
uq jpys sflufiueid OB •z-iviwys uo "By B)!S stn uo uwoits are e^oiuauuduii edsMpun •pcu B puB WBM Btqw BuBBpm Aq paso|Mi9 ^BBCTind pun leaqs Btfl UKU} ipw) H"<n PW •aoBpl BufiBtflcB joofqno nmuB » »q liw nwnnd Buppcd Buittpm am p pua uyou aifl ie pua 'Bufpenit oifl jo a]tieo Btfl in pjB/ynoa posopuB eugspo Btfl AI pspjAari q aamjs »op|no tiuapcw !|B A] eflaasaMe Asenbe aje awtPd IEV •»0? iwou ew uo tuooy iuBtuu|f4JBiugA|iureuuio3 8 sa BOW SB 'pjsAynooj«^»|u| eyijojasuao Mfl ^ tuooy 6u(U|a Atunuujoo e pun '<)|jpB,t emio opts tsaw, oifl BUOEB usiptM ^[unumico B s\ ww^ •peujqqo isitf S| AnjBdnroo jaqBm jq ijuwd wn ]euoH[puoo B B»wtF> quepfssj ptoi sz paMxe iou SBI^B imi -ssBustp pusmsp ss uonsouipout 01 pafqrw s) s)undro30^> uogncyflSjp pun dn-aijBui oiu. 'Biuadrtoao otnuj n. ot dn osnoq ucys opia tfljou am uo «tKXU »• pun'tqwua^ ^q speq E. t^ m dn BABq d ep)< mnoe am uo muood e ^s am suoB»rcud luauno -{sfw^a \, -aifiKiuop s) Biuoau z ^ ciUBptsai aerwy BBtff pafcuc! aia •83ueus)U[Biu puejjedaj Bimotuotne
uoiten dnauni pua 'flutMing tfflffuwu[u)pv ipinio tsndBg Ateuoiwsn ui|or ts aio loBOUBsqueap|B»ifliuaiimoj3B:tBaimBt!yauiiuo3atoiyBuoti03uejwee((jL •quepse<u ayi jqt <u(n^«otU(e oiapdcudds ojouj B 6A|B 0| Bpoot^oq^BfBu JBBUBPSBOJ 01 lueo^pB Bujaq g;|t(w •TOWWB jepjsiuujco pue tieueji xw a\ i| •aaodjnd <im ^ paapj 1 uofleooj aqi •a]isp^(ijdaifliua(t
WtOSU AtsiBuipccydds 'enuaftv ^AW SIZE ? 'asnc^ UIAON <1 J«ut)« uMOinfirofnou am •AWKB S)j30N OMt St UOBB3np3 •
ipipv BISOQ enuoo ^SAMO sndiuro use^a »>U. •saafuasjesjBwujossBaaMss wuif asuu) auqnit feaaws ssi) tpiHrt 'enusAV pieuoaam i"n4 ipoiq »UKfl ss^ q »ip giy. •esnoiftinco ffp mfl .leeu •puoujipfy p aaie u^uwop jefluos «fl u| pairoq Et p^aid aiy. •SSB] jo mguout aqs at p8HUi)j aq gmts AHWpfwy •qenp(Aipuj joi tB3|A»s enftioddns isuwj pue Supnoti 8p{A<ud JHM ^BPB} ma -apoo 8u|p|(ng B)tyqH)e3 wfl jo d iqpuaAttf u[ p^ipncfa w CuianoH AwuBftua BB pun ••poo jBdp[untft) puouitpiy tft ct luunund jeifus Axfsamtua ue q Su)pBnq rouo Acns euo SURS)XB UB )JSAU(X> q B] tMftud fltu. •mo))tt((»3)B3 pue t6u|Mcjp aiu^aAa UUBIV pue wpiujwls wu' s'wxurans aairaa^a •
•uwisfe tuuen/siy e pue jsp(tfljds uy B enAOJd UM psfcud mu, swynv anv sH3-txma*i8 3uy,
•2tZ383^adpaFWioixloqBeti8«»oiu»>adaijCu|iet|W»dspr»o •St^, oao.wdpaiuajEtwiswuooa •Fueo<me» umsdUtB x »<Ui j w»u th^fMud jo picoqEuw. tunaUfl ^jo jaAei puooas 8 Biwpe Aq jaifflB'(lusiste »piut;(fs aqi ifljw B)nu|iu oe) MU 383 J^ uq»B"d uy motf i, B awAQtd 01 t»UE[»ui eg )|cys suun CujdWtS Bujptfliauns ^»M ^P<^ P<»^ .^ ^^ PW><tB^ tUMtta ^p i^syoa tjian JC^IBIU] fluRapm «iu.' •UOflSfUtSUOS'
8-A «"i tfll« AniKiroao z-y wi siueuiu|nbai 083 WA aeitdiuco BuiparK] 8ui»sp» a<a • '(a»p|UKteyets)e'<puopiU(Kis^iou)2 :fws»iqBi083»d»PoiSi°-»«t^"N^(lB*uilV' (uepiupda ae^s w paJep|UlXls^wu) ^>fr :rtOS OWL 080 »<! ^GieH Suifflins ^quuinv. (papnpui urn lou aAen sOwtOtt uo pessq ssss&out s&re ^((e»oiw) (uepMidB ygt.s Jo pftfBpfuixla^Mj} js oocu. :Z-90S 'WU.OSO -»d BBJV Gqpnng siqEMonv S-AwUi :uoflB3iKBBnouoffinit6uoo'
.e-.oz'^oiB t. nnBiBHBujaina'
ftSlQS :B(UVBu|Sin8'
•s)undre»o st < eauepfeay BisStuSuoo iue|wanuoN e-y atCflK>ij[waio Aiuednaoo. :SNOUVOUI(K>H osainoau ONV siSAivNV aooo SNKnins,
PUB BIBUB Bujpnpuj as :apt^>UBis Wmua W «S± v^v^eQ SZQZ pue '(ueaioieo) BfUBpusiS CutWt"8 i»w3 ^UUOJIJBO zzo2 '(Orf3) •P°0 Suiqutny eaE *(030) •P03 laaWWQ ZZOS '(3H3) »POO iB^UBtrww ZZOZ '(0833) «P03 Ciflpuna 8"|ttpg epttOjltBO ZZOZ '(080) BPOO Bu(pt|ng B|UKW[BO v.W W>fud SMt 01 ^idde as>4« sapoo CtflMOipi aa :S3ooo QNicnms aisvonddv
•jaws uiw> etft tfflM }UO|S|SU(» S( ipniu -apoo luouiugAog cpUtmiBO jo sms OB P Z eflU. ? 9698 "OPOS u»4 6<wN^> uosyyap tnfl •d XH>t»ddv (QSD) spoo Cuipung ^uojiTO rtd Buisnt^ AsuaEIaius Buuap tou s»op gwy BIU. .-^nsuwt •nBspeqszqdn.fi.nlozo-SK'wstWBioKy^d •(3na)«po3tB<fp|unw pucuiy^a «t(|JO OZO'Wt-WSI. ja«i^tia<SAw8a»tU3 as pBuuap BQ ieqa pefoucj am :S3Q03 3N1NOZ
NoiivnyodNi aaoo
pepnpunou S-W.L30 'SNOLL03S TWM VW
popnpuitou SNOU33S QNtOIJng Z-EV
C20Z aea 82 SNOU.VA3T3 yoiy31X3 l.-CV
pepnpuiiou S3JLON ^msassaoov vw
papnpuiiou 3^na3K3saooaaNVMoaNiM'SNv-td-nvi3a ew
czoz 3»a 62 ?nd SNnao aaioruay BNO -i3A3i zw
ezoz »a 62 wid aoo-y ^o i3A3i vw
czaeoaaoe SNOEiv/aTaaHvsnvidNOEinoHaa/ONLLSixa yiv
SWUOd
POpnpUflou iN3K39WiW13ISV/A'S30a3VydAM3tnt39VNW<JLSaa S-IV pepnpuiiou ZJOZaSVdTVAOtiAtVdOSNOUjaNOO fr'tV
POP"PUHSU ZsCK.aSWdtVAOyddVdOSNOU.IONOO E-W
ezoswasz Mtfidaiis rt.v
eeozoca ez saiON Tvyaeo 'dvw AitNtOiA 'NoiiwnfOdNi io3royci ri.v awa
•ON
X3QNI SNIMVya
aAiivyyvN loaroad
•V W X33HS 'W V W S310N WHdt 3US 33S *,.
•aiNsaisay sz aoj SNisnoH
(irtoysiN3isNVtUMONsaatAoadio3royd'sjUNn£?tm3MaoN3yv3y3Hi „ d XIONSddtf 003 IBONn SNISnOH AON3Sy3H3 a0d S! 133FOyd . «.e *-e ™e SNixyvdiaayisAio
JS-Se 35NVHOON
3SMVH30N
3SMVH30N
seeMea'oi.s
S08rtV3 purauiCTy
ieajtStP|oqamH988
swum oiuutn vaww
OMHH&si.s yaennN -ooyvd
soewva'puountoiy
iwuBnuezoz sssuaav
NOiivnaodNi loarond
•opoo Sujpisns eiuucimeo wft uf ^uepums
Ai»^ t(^ jqduio) <^ ipom CT KBM BB'sUKKuif^ aicBSWKre MSU owt Cui>ea» aptsofl tuogsAouai joy^ut •queiyajjnba) ^jeqiesssoe joj dtuaj s pun flinq)is9A JBW B jot uofflppn JIBIUS B pue •a)Bfl Bunqw ue GU}AOUJU 'SMOptflw jofjeixe Bupeictu ropnpuj ^QM etu.

Wpui SZ 0| dn ftsnot< nmis ^ay aiu.
l!Bp|UOt»BS)l
3SNVHOON
(o'zyv;j)jsooo^ dssiss
dsrc
rtSSWS
.(h0 30NVHO ON
^•Q 39NVHO ON
JO-S 3QWHO ON
XWt .0-.S 'NIW ^-.O 3SNVHO ON
3SNVHOON
3SNVHOON
35NVHOON
*z-y
33NVHOON
301WHOON
30NVH3 ON
3SWHO ON
03AAOTtV/a3y!f ll
JB-SZ isad • 1HSS3H ONia-itna
t SStUOlS • WWW WW-HHQ
"/.OS 35WlN30y3<i 3£>Vy3AOO
JS286S V3yV3£WU3AOO
dssws vsyvsNicnmaivioi
vsyvNomaav
js SWB \gyv wiaiina ONLLSOQ
JQ-S EniaoNlaaisiHSiy
JQ-S (Hinoslsais.uai
JO-JQ tiS3M)aV3y
Ji-jo asv3)iNoy^
SM3VBJL3S
o SDNTI SNmawa do -ON
^> 3d01S10139Va3AV
dsoos.t vayvicn
9-A SdAJ.NOIlSnUiSNOO
3AU.AONVdn030
AoiAysA itsiy NOLLOvjsnon
ON s^oznnvjoioEyd-jLsinGiv
ON 3NOZaOO"U
ON xsfyayvzvHayyawicniM
9NINOZ
x
•
D-
r+
>
•saicq x) punoio oiu| peifeis
•<aac| jo «>)cn}jo BBU} Cun&ttttS wm^afyMS j|iit (H uinuj|u|iu ifl!» pauy oq ^a pua •a6mpe]p ja)sw ipjof 8tUR|oA }uapii»ne awn ge^s inq -opajS »AOCtB B^aq wejip ja)8ui(ied tftpn pai«wq ^o epejB MOjaq psieAKnm sq Aiiu upsq SuAip am •suo;)8jnB&i issodsip puowiCTy p At)o tfl!* wuepjcme u) jo pesodqp «q !|St{6 Ujseq tmfl tuaij pep^ps mpisnj Ap pue •inoysew toe jq» ujEKt GujAtp AfluodtU8tSBp)A<ud|tett8JCj3Bfluo3 •uaw«sttuoteotUtUtatpaipBrtOtjn8(fiE>U]iBi)e'aiaj3uoa a]e6a<6Bapesodxeuiou!isBu|d8BfMpuB«[B»Mi03pBx|ut«|)sBu(pnp^ja?Me|sewa)aouo3 -s •A][A{pB S(m J0.t pBAOKtCiB
uoaq BBtf ]Bifl joipuiuoa Btfl Aq pssn jo PBUMO a)|e B }B -Bnqio p«(S«rt oq WW opnfl <HB»u03 •> •Houni uuoifl }UBABi(J q samBM wafls A) papunauns ocj timts pue 'a)p i»o uwoict Supq tiKUt ieta]euiitaAario|fidteiaRsqdpairoesifl(Mpa*aA03Bqi|BMS{w«iSjopuBe*i!osjos8|!d)pots '£ •jiouni qxwqa 0) paw »q O»[B ipxtc
tfflruu <wits -^ouru itUAatd <>! omBu meqs 8 AI pepunouns Mt irBiie gos paqanisfp pue pssodKg •z •pupi»jouo(oue
B}A^iB^Mt»|(tiiuBinpwpUBno»l[uu»diouopimfl3)Cu|uo3UtqusBui)[Bi)ajov)a4uoo«tu. t saioN yaivMnaois v 'iNaniaas 'NOisoaa
-tUBWr BtOTM Wft UKUJ piVBAfp aq yntft s)BtBUj pus geittfsa •Biauuco •fUKKBun gy -quuu?(niNM A)0 PUB u^ ^ i^ <ouepjo»B u; u^uwqp stSBM spfwud jfeqs pun'UB|d }uau)«>6BUBW o(se/lA pewtutoa e Bpfftcud ueys «pei}uoo em -puounpiy jo ,10 Btfl Aq paj|nbat jj • ^ NVId 1N3N39VNVW 3XSVM
•(xxxuipiu jo ^D e^/q pawuge so airion aifl i»wn)Bq uBifl jmfla wmwuts jo Buipgnq hx JEBd&i jo JBI[B 'HSBOtuop '(Sup&ifi pue uOffBABSXB Guipnpu!) paia iseifl uoaiad CM •6t lUBlUfe U|&(p ttUO)e 81)) Cqtlj BupajUB uau} tuauijpw pue UE^SUIB luaAoad ot eiqeofp&id luepm uimupcmu aifl 01 uo;p[U}suoo joj |BF>UBH BBcqpaiei luatueBeuBH )S9ajsiaMturtRa(esBiflpsuotvodetqe^de)ueu^(^»sniua^qtfliBliupt)OM6uos.»<f|!v u "^EOti!i"°jpesd>t!P"BddVOd3»du»i9^s^>tWdsuyMouousaBodo^di3^oddeiu. St •SfiUIMElpBlfl
u) uwitjs CT pesHpcuu pue paufBi&i ect uatis Lustats BunaeH Sunspta siu. :ujBtS<s Bune®H sm st luo^piutsuoo fi wsfi^ fijm m oouotiodxs |at&u&fi fl^^ottJtuoQ sql uo pwnq pepudxB ^qmweBW aq NROS tpmwtSpieiUt«n(pajqp«>M^r oq liBtjC tuicp ON •PS nn Buiffiuiqw eg jottd siusuinaop uon3ru]su» wfl fnje aue sm jo UOSCUJUWB luay paiw^ii uaeq ^[(IBUOSBU BABM pfnoa leifl pajeiunosua ssspiagtip jqi pwoiie eq yems mep w TWi^duoo SQ {MHW ^mujB TVOW MS pomone ocj jjBtp tuap ON T)JOM atfl wn Buipwooid wot»q wpanuoo utft Aq peuGpt pue WWW OW A| pwsdaKl wt uet»s jepio ceueyo uoayw v -soSueqo sisoo meposse pue itiort pftjp&tti em BujiiqBp jBpuo •Bumo joj ]iwn&»y WBPM s PB)!ipW enfl 01 iiuxifis omts XIpRJtU03 BLB •WUBKdUtCKt BpOO JO SB)BUIt|E •»CTI|U°3 '«UO(n|U» •SMlUB 0| p«ttiuit ?>u inq lhi[pnpu! I(WM eqi 01 saSwp aqnbw jo fo8Sr>s >p)>4» d^eASp SUORIPIKO A»e pjnoijg saSiato yt •iHOM we ww Sy|po83cud ^ aptq
•esimunw l«o flumiuqw wow WUMQ am pua patWuy tfl jo uojiueae oifl ot itjBnoiq Ateietpewuj! «q ueys tuoffipuoo Bt[fl Bunspta pun quouinaop uonoiutmoa ntfi uiioMinq jo Btueujnaw uoipru|8ttoo oiftp sysii sno»i«A aft U! punoi Sfsstwaja •SUOIBSSUO 'WW9 Auv :spyiuo3 V euoissjiuo 'saaug et •quBiirouoo pus seaAotdiua 01 loaiww sm •<u«o
aq) p uou^tto O|0t a»fl ttjoy Suiiyo AiiflqeB jq BundB!»w-pBfay qifl uo i(iowp aoueuucstied uifl Wt uaipauuoa n 'pofleUB w jeai '^ittqaB IJB PUB AUB uiaii w9|tui8i( •cme'ijneuos pue saafojduo sii •poijtpiv oqi *^UMO am ppy pue 'Ai|UtU8pu( -pueiep uais jqmaiuoo aiu. :iMBKqjEuui8pt< z\ •8tU8tU8(BA)eO|
eBameo Jcy JBUMO etfl aieauediuto w Boeidej aeiff jopefluoo tiuau»)B sye jamo PUB BuidKwpuei •wyssn •tyntMu»<«0"l Sugapa )!B pettud ymis JOp&quoo :80Bin3Bj SuRsp(3 io iMRaaiay 11 •uwq
SupfWft pnuwu of pnipug «q iou pw ,t(w>onui)uoo ^d«t» jiatja tiauw^nbai aim mi PU« ^pudtud pue tuosjod J[B |o A)BiES otfl Oujpnput ipefcud stfl JOj uotpnittuai jo eainco em Bujinp auofiipuoo ens q^atnjqtiiEBuodBuAwBltfuKopya^oaoqo^ewjBBJoputuossuj. w»fljpuoo aijg qof oi •B)i» uo pftfnt^ia tad ON :»|Bd •P
•sianui jo soipni fluipnput mnuiiujiu e 01 idei) nq BBW espN ;»st<^l •q •9SSS UO fWMVB Ote «H»B3|W(UJ jeiflo JQ 'o!»eqo» 'sflnqi 'jatooiB ON .-sBrttp PUB qu&aptaiu] •B ;t»tfuflu(mot|dtat(|
Xq epjCfB BBttB a^« aifl BU[BS)A Btiousd JIB PUB uoputuoaqna •|eyuoeaed s^opBduoo '10(30,4003 siu. •seBroritWBWUi8uo3«flinm<SnQBflsjmiNwg^Aqpa^^sqn)wo^sut»yo)|^4«»a«tlS '8 luoRipuoo ptatt WA peieposte w ne Bauinne pmt 8»nnpei afiejos pun apotflaui fww -BUonipuos ^6 ir KH»A aeif NK jo BH -BiBUinn t«03 w w ftm)W» 0) w|rf aiopwiuooqTO pus uqichine iBfluepd >aiwijnsut» pun 'mwsa^ eGBjqa pua spomBui Aw>|tflp 'auofiipuoo pw ae j0 jijB^uBoa AOT aq pue Ofis Bifi ]!w BBtf jopeutuos siy. :su(q)!pyoo aas 9 •UOfpfUlSUOO
HUM Bujpwmud uojflo eopuedftoop puinbai jo pBfaMns A» |a SUBM* uj panipuB atfl Afflou pw BI|< pus Bqpgnq jo SU^MWIUIP ne joi Atiuqisyodaaj eujnsae pun MSIA&I fie«p) jopEjis»o siu. -BBuiiwip <nfl ^sas }ou oa •pnn "I BKMB mrotBueiujp uoiiyM A{UO s6u)Mejp uo 3uo|>usuija 2. •eywya peupode uo ae ROM n auoR«aap[Buoo lauBuiuojtAijo uo pfliBnicAa sq UM Bwwba) uosrqntqnt /uv -pepuajtfl OT HIOM aifl fluftetdtuco joi BiqftuodBW ^B(OC «t pus pUBflai im uj ^grqwea suojiKiypads pun BUBid Btfl MS|ABJ ptpi jcpftttuoo «u. •JBUJJOU ueifl UOBUOBB tuoui &i{nboj <»ui pua lenanun wa ttpotflwu uoB3fU)BU03 puc sguiep stfl p wuos •Bluoiuaijnt)B4 Amwp «n»nun joawgddm pe^p aABt( jfem spnpiud aqi jo muos-^Iptow B»wu3H)»» B)ssm >xwani»su<» aonptti ipwrt Bpoiftau ucqpruisuoa pue fipsdiuj iniUBiuuQijMiB iwnpw ip(4M ^B|»|BUJ uo|pru)auoa ^? og^ iflc^eut <q BAtmwdmui P^ Aaw <w ip(i^ aSiqf^q iut^u<» <aiut» prupuoo 0] «t IUBM (MU. •BSBiu puuafi •seAfsnijpe pue s|uw9S *siu|8(f oproimou 'poo/m fwwyao 33^ an peiiuua icu inq fluipnptif tpOtfietu pye si«{iieut pmpUBttt-Aqsnput^wu sazimn n •joejay ^pueftj 1uWHio^Ai^w»qa|^BRwro«jp^wdBtUL:«poyiewpim^B^iBwpuBpus>s-Ai|8^)Ui^oN 9 •ttttmt^p MUBS ifflw tou jo flflufnrejp
tij papfdBp j8tfl«t» 'BUOBBIUOO WQ sv pue siieiep feaiiMWtw BB ^IOA ipcw /ue p uo^getsu} pue Buyepjo ajcKBq tiuai&ts jenp|Atpu| so vftiwuwptmi PUB 8uofBHH» BumpcB euywyw s^»ry>u| wu. •s6utwup uoff»ta»d <u|) PUB (KW»^U 'euiquj^d •[Ba^impttui 'BAP •junpnqfl 'luiqoeiwajB i»^a(iuoBBtqfuotoja{q(t|suod«ajeq8CH8JOpequo36tU.:>a^Bti|pjoooitm,uiaoa S TOSHifuv am 01 pouiniai aq nsys
suejd ne ^M ^ JO uoB«t<li"a> uodfi •}MI|IPW «M> JO wn«)m^(s pt» [BOS paujBMO Kft J»«t te>» ssajun esn Xus ^ POBA fou ftja eSu^up aswu. •spsiwajV usiatpanueA (uci, uoimuued UBHMM Wft inOtfifW BUfMBtp Sjtfl UO epeui eq wfitieip Aue uffijB jou •jBAsos)Bi4M esodjnd Ayn joj uofluodwi jo 'uuy 'uoa»d Aue 'q pesopsjp^o 'At posn sq geqssu^djo 'S]UBUJSGURUB ltu0(sep wmajo BUOH Tpoiq ens ^ u| W^BISBP p»fc^ ay) iffiw uoipBuifflo >fl (Hie uo »sn jcg pwtewrtep f»n (>»fttau •paieao BWA pin 'spatEWW wimpenuBA jo /yadatd »m fttB pus •A| PBUMO <ua sSu|Mai(> asatfl Aq paiuesariaj w psieojpuf fa^a •su8(d pue siiKnUBfiuBue 'reopf gs pun sCmMup eswu. ?4B(i<doo » •yoHoapid wy pw swyw* 'Suiquinid '(noiuatpsu*
•gAp 'tttinpruts •je.mtwisqaje :eiueiuroop t»|pruisu(» pjee p Aasjfose stfi jq ej(5suods<u Atmejdtuco
Noiidiaosaa loaroud viva loaroud
jo ^o atfl Act pepuBiuc SB •atuame)(tdng pue e)&ue Giflpnpui He :sfuepueis ^tiaua »Z effli fuoHPO PUS (UM^JBO) Bpjepueis Suipuns "aug '(3^3) epoo &wuny •{333} ^>OQ jM?^3 •OnO) eptO j»|uapatm -(oso) apoo Buspiing EStuo^BBO zzoz Wfnsin wuefuoooe ui adoos pefaid eift »t Cuipnnq am iarutsuoa a} ej moseaupods pue rihipwejp am ;o )uatq BIU. :rof>o3 aiqi»g<(dv z •sSu|Mejp e»4t jo Stx>ipssqms sifl u! psuieiuoo
SStOU 19W1S pUC «JORK>ap8dS SBS TfJOM 914) jS BUqslAjp JBjIUfltBd oj eiqB3(](t(fB siusuiaflnbaj p^ptepa<ou;JOjpe{pedswpatou9wpinu)aA(d)iyss8utMupne(ttA|d(fBwi(itiawiu.:9(fa>s >.

S310N -IVy3N30
349
S-I.V
:tpis
WWQ
t2S»^MWU are
•V
•V
•V
SNimnry
\K.»»St' W\HWVT^
lEZ.aaOGZ- ZSNIttWTd-''
K«rr
S310N WU3N39
dVW A11NIOIA
NVId 311S
NOiivwaojNi loaroad
V
0-0
co
1§^§ ^3
5 u> S
.5-^(3
n
=r (B
w 3
^li|a?
0 C.01 W
v
spsijipJvuetBtpawuBA
awAfflwo awmwuia ivaiinuyawatsn tionsua
SlBIWl}KO?3S™HSS3NlimnWOULWlffflU3U3
!S33¥dSi)SMS(Wd31SU!B
•3TBSS33WWA.N01iWEmiMKUW33ffi9NmWiOUSKW
c?(MoyE»ow3nrsvw3mtNitTrga-miNou^KUMa^T<iTOjuni®ss3m
fflTOai^WWVNaUNIHlJ^30?3MB^I^{ai?raiN3Btm»CTtJ^ (
•t^^^lWdliemNmVWNC^mBdKSJWBidOUAWHliM
? 1HTU38TWSS3W<S)WS :'SNiNOH£HiABUO'Wa3Wray3SAWtSTO?(BM£U •^ara BiQWMivwwaM(u.3Biii«iS3iniBBta iimgiosBdiiod (BBSI sivy 3ES33nT^mBw saynra mwffmi.sn stfcvuasiONS3W<B3ieiss33WiHLWGi^s MOSBwaot^.CTNEBunvwi WOTtyauKiMijomsBHsnnmvnmsfflmi
H!3iVJSATW3T3TWSHaffiTWOtU?M TCIHS3CTBAa3aWS3(OflUWHl.SS31 moNTiwsiasTvsxfflsvai ^jSsnEWdHwnotyjieisiAawMBtiVdaTsisszov 311&?ail»B3ff(»AaMi3^feWAtnCTJS(?IWdi£nil&A(OW013M?^
lV33n^SlKl3US1103VW(ttoHU3{aiSOd3BTNHSIt3iS-!niffliiQCTW '.OStBNyiUWM. 3lViSOSWTOHS^S'31SBmWWASV33V^MUl^lTfW®ClWaNnClE»Ort3ma
V?a^HW?A!nSIsm»^TOaUSmiQUVWBlW31iL38n»liTnHSlVU?BE -SHSSSS sid)tw<i30? JBTM tras^ r^oa HiwsatNrmsTOi^M3tm?issNoo
'S30fl3H?y ^NOGKO^nytU^aWdS 3HOI^ 03iMU331fllSAiat3aAOiy 3SWiSisss3aaavi33aisyodtWi33HS33s
•.sKOfaaANVivifloffiffDaaiAoihi •®mnB3iiCT33nsa
'Tvy3iviiaNBSflwiS)G^iMawyiuB3aNvwsiiadCTiiviamo3QiAoUii ( •SCNM AB ElKiMCna Id 13SW(CT ^aA3y«i
OASVU3NNmHWSt8a3ltQlS3gTIWfSSTffiBlWlt V3W9WEWS N01130111^(03 Yy7 •:Sa?'V3WNOaVS3ti3NG3yCX3(UnO.S?SIS3lS
-BHWUHri!&rW3ti3Hl?im30TIWfi>BA)10NSt.Un!WJ
3HldH(0'A8G010NafiasmSOQ3Kl301SNIW030T!WSNOttYCBlSN031N3R3 ( iwmts wnd wyu 335 'Sfirouuaa aw ^VHI
•ai3lONOSEnOIW3dHUM33V1tQli 31VKIS1-W 'iWySVSNUSCQNOklVdTOW aivojCTBAsrrrou
3iTONOSU3d
33N^HQIH^M3N
nooa Aimn s£»iicmnB sasNi aai3K OISIMB snusns
tBlSltSVSEMUSISQ
•m/nswsa aw IWJSSHS w SHOW/SQ 33s TWM nasyss HSIH Afr
SNiatSOdnootiwormusu •asruati
dCUSTSHM
•a)UIK)OyG3aHffl9AOaMUSatJ£8NV3aiAOMdOi3TaiSKldl'ji
nsnwtonnou aiwlBaisvsEWtiSDsamdyiysAOinnoMaovdSSNSNiOfw 3HlW33V<fSTIB)SS33WtWAVtgy^Na<3a!ntea3KlCm«Ml<BOX3!WSS33S .mOytJ3HLSNOUV.UWn3USCJl3nO '3TSIVSS333V(SW33Vifi9NDIWd3Tifl!SS3CT •1'wiaaHS'» 3ioN iwii 3do •aAjt 335 "sovds swinffd reaiwi S-IVJ3BB M310N WTd WUriClHSa 3:S ^NIdlUlS 33VrfS SNtSIWdSNUSDS 3ACWHU •awwBSiy dOUOAB (Huaaa aw (Banoaa wnuieais SNUSDQ mvd3u iro ams awAVAB?ia SNUSSG
dlWB S333VM3N HUM 30Wyire StimUB SiatSSSMVONEKBSABN/&N11SOG 33WIUN3 SNKDinB VSW IU«W SNLtSOO
S3afU3nHlSWa3WH03(lWS3SriOH3ftty09M9aN
3?imot»amtne
Iffi/ldSUS
NVU 311S '< I-
anN3AVTi3ssia
W II
350
'13^ NORTH (RIGHT) EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
i1.6Y 1/8* - I'-O-
DENOUTKtft NOTES
0 BOSTINS OffiVEWAY AND CURB Off 10 RBttiN.
2") EXISTINO SAS ilETBlTO RBWN.
l1 EXISTS ELECTRIC MEtffi SNSBIE SUIOINGTO R2MWI
0 RSUOUE BCTERSOR RUtP.
?1 REMOVE EXtSTINGWOOD SCREBt STOUCTURES.
rtRaWVEEXSTINGPARKIMG STRIPES. EXBHNSPARK1N6DOESMOTCOMPIYWHHOTY OF RICHMOND PARBNG STANDARDS AS BTtCS THE SPACES ARE TOO SHORT OR THE DfiiTC ABLE IS TOO HARROW.
^ CUT BGCTNGSLAS AS fEQUIREDFOROFttiNUNES.CBt REMOVE BmSESSM ^ REMOVE DdSTWS WAOS, OMIRS. WINDOWS, RiJMa&IG FEmjRESAS ITOICATai.

SALVAGE PSt OWIBTS DIRECTQN, AW DISPOSE PER REQUBtEMSiTS OF CALGR^N AND OTY OFWCHMOND WASTE DIVERSION REQOiRBtBffS
^ REMOVE EMSTWG DOCKAND RWUtEAND PREP OPBdJTO FORNEW RRE RATED DOCS. ) REUCW BOSTWO SLCtNS WiNDOW AND Pi©> OPENING FOR INFIU. FHC FATED WKL ) REMOffi SECTTOi W SaSTMG WU1 AS iSQUiRED PER RXXmPUUI Wl SHEET All. ) EXISTOS ROUJNG GATE AT RTOW DOOR KiAiiBE REMOVHi OR PEffittNStTLY DISABiaiNTHEOPENPOSnm
) PROVIDE KNOX BOX WK PRE OEPARTUEKT ACCESS.

VanModwtonArehHada
'14^ WEST (REAR) EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
^).ey 1/8"-r-o"
"15'\ SOUTH (LEFT) EXISTING/DEMO ELD/ATION
^W 1/8--r-o"
.| I (^-Y-J U^,--.,J(«)^..-,'
0)
c
co
0 j! X
(B
0)
<B
I
^
Q.
u
co
^n
&M
10 §s
g
T3
c0
-c
u
K

EXISTING

DEMOLITION PLANS

AND ELEVATIONS
'W~\ EAST (FRONT) EXISTING/ DEMO ELEVATION
il.6/ l/8'ar-o-
4 ^i LEVEL ONE EXISTING/ DEMOLITION PLAN
^1.0, i/8-=r-o-
A.PUWIING2 .Z9Dec'a|
A-PUNWS .2BUar'Z<|
A-PUNiWffi .3Apr'2<
A.

Date 21 Htirtmbef2a23
Dranrc
ScA:

A1.6
351
^
NEW CORRIDOR #127NEW CORRIDOR *122
c^L
l£VEL ONE PUN NOTES
ALLDIMfflSIONSARETO FACE OF {WISH. UNLESS
OfTMBWBENCfiEO.
[J}—SS FOR_A_WK1 TYPES
4--MiE HOUl FSE RATED IKTEffiCHl WAIL WTH M IWItiTE
RA1H» DOORS.

EXBTING ORiVEWAV. SEE. SfTE PUNA1.1
WAiuwy, ssnsmi PUW AI.I
EXISTING GAS METBt
EBSnNGELECIRiCMEIER
PSt DQ^OUnON NOTE US, SEETA15THE EXBHNG
PARBNS DOES NOT COMPLY Wtffl RICHMOND MUNICIPAL
COOEMimUMSTANDWOS. JNMOTONTHSSISNO
ACCESSIBU SPACE. THE RECOWIGURS) PARKING
PROVIDES THESAMEQUANTnYCTPARSaNGWiTHTANOai
PARKMS.VWIffl WOULD BE FOR BfilOYS USE.

NEW/ EXISTING fBKS. SS SRE PUtflAU
EXTERIOR SUPWTH MAX tUSLOPE. PFIOVIDE IjTB
WOOOKAMMAiL BOTH SIDES, M-ABOVE RAyp,^ CLEAR
ROMRte.RETUfMATEKOS. iWHPaiMLHAVEAifflNIMUM
WtBdti OF W ABOVE HATORAit, *? Ci£W ffiGHT W ?^.

PROViDESOUDWALLOSCUARDSftiLATOPEN SiDE OF
RAMP. M?fc STNSH. O^SNffiTO PREWNr PASSAGE Iff A
4*0 SPHERE
TRASH WO SECYOJNS SCRE01 WAU, SS4M1
PROTOE MIN. 36-DEEP tANDWGAT BCTSUOR DOQKS, MAX
J* BB.OW WTBUffit NNISH, MUC. 2% S.OPE
NEW CONSTRUCTION VESTBiJlE. WALLS UNDER SOSDffi
ROOF OVERHANG. MATBWlSTOMATOHiSTWG.
1 HOtB RATS ROO DOWK anmBt AT INTBWH WI?OW.

PROTOEGR ELECTRCAL OUTlSiS ON SBE SO THAT NO
COUWBt SPACE IS NO MORE 1NAN7.0'FROM AN OUTLET.

PROVS6 MIK. (2)20 AMP ORUIETS TO COUNTERTQP
OUHETS FORSMAU-AmJANCES.

PROVSESEPARATE CRCUET FORREFniGStATOtl WTlEr.

WASHSVDRYCT. PROVIDE SHUT-WFW.VE.roRANTCAS
UNS. VOfTDRYEnTOtHEWUiORWROUGH-mEROGF.

PROV!OE30AMPORCUfTTOUUJNQR!f. PROVIDE LOWERED
DOOR FOR COheUSTiOKAR IFGAS FIRED DRYBt IS
1 ^ LEVEL ONE FLOOR PLAN
i/4- = r-v1 2 5
PROVSE24W wmsr FOR poremx aEamc wm.

PtW50EAOAiSTABl£ StSLVES iN UN£N CLOSET
NEWPIUMBINQ RXTURES SHWJLHAVE TtiE FOU.OWWO
R.OW RATES:

TOHETS: EFFECTIVE R^SHVOUJUE SHALL NOT
EKCaDUiBGAU.ONSPgt^USH
SHOVCTEADS: MUU.BGPMeBOPSI
lAWTOWFAUCETS: MMOiCPMfiaiPSI
l3TCt€NFAUC£rS:UW1.BGPM@SOPSl
WRAPAU. EXPOSSD HOTWTCRPircS yffm M!N. ft4

INSUATCT

NEWHOTWATERHEATER
SHOWER SWLLHAVEAMiN. 1(24 SQ IN OFIKTENORASEA.

AND PROVIDE SPACE FORAMIN.STB CIRCLE OASSN
SfflNES ENCIOSURES aUU. ? APPROVED SAFETf SASS,
AND SHOWER DOORS, IF PROVBEDSWU.SEMIN. 34-OJEAR
WitmANOSWUlOPatOytWTOFROMTOeSHCWei
COMPARTMENT. PROViDENOiUBSORBafl-WALL SURFACE
TO MIN.ff ABOVE FUX)RATTUa/SHOW8t.

AREA OF RESCUSASSISBWCE

KEWWINDOW
NEWE6RESS/RESCUEWSTOV AT BEDROOMS. SEE DOOR
ANS WITOOW SCTEDUUSHEETA25 FOR REQUIREMENTS.
@ INTBUORSECURnYDOORSSKUlBELOCKSFROMlJCSBy
SDE AND aiALL REMWt OTERAKE fflOM CCT^OR SIDE
ATAU.TJMES WTHOUT SPEOM.TQOLS OH KNOWLSDGE.

DOORS SKAU.AU30 HE aSCTTOIICUjLY COWTOU®
FROUOFRCE.

TBdlPEREDSAFHY GLAZING

WALL LEGEND

NEWWALL
DOST1HGWAU. TO REMAIN
EXISTING WALL REIffiSCT
VanMechaian AndiitedB
0)
c
'w
30 S I
I 5',
<u
w
X:
?Ra
E
UJ
<mEL
0 m
h-
0CM
§
co
s
^
•o
c
I'&

FLOOR PLAN
RevMon
A-?"NN!?2
A-PU^NG
A.PUHK1NG
A.

Date 21?iv?tb
ScriK
A2.
< of 6
OWWSH\
MRgNlRu
.23 Dec 23
.281^74
.3Ai)T'Z4
» 2023
1 Sheets
md
352
1 ^ LEVEL ONE CEILING PLAN
VanMechatonArehitacts
snsss
Btn^.cAwno
f
0 ;s
1?$11^1^1pl£ S
0 CEILING PLAN
A-P1^NNSNG2 .23 Dec 73\
^.PLANNING .261te'Z4|
A-PlANNiNG .3Apr'2<
A.

Data: 21Ftowrtw2023
Drairn;
SatK
A2.2
353
'14^ SOUTH ELEVATION AT WEST COURT
1/4" = r-y
"10\ WEST (REAR) ELEVATION
i.V •i/4*=i'-o"
^IJ-ta
'^ SOUTH (LEFT) ELEVATION
207^1
1_

FHOW HOUSE ELEVATION NOTES
EXlSmSSRADE
PAIWEO WOOD OR RBESfflASS WITOOWS AND TOORS, Tff.

STUCCOTO UMW EREWQ
ECTBtHK GUARD WSL, WOOD SUPPORTS Wffi DECOTmVE
METALfNFHL n-HiGHWiTHNOOPEraNGAHOWINQ
PASSAGE OF4-B SPHERE.

S1REET ADDRESS SIGN. SIGN SHAU-BEBEWfllC
NUMBERS MIM'iNHBSWWntiMIN.Q.5-STROKE
mCKNeSS, COLOR TO COKTRAST BACKGROUND.

BOSTWS WME. VENT TO SEWW.
»'-V ENCLOSNG WMLS FOR SOUD WASTC, SEE DETAIL

PERSON SATE
SISMINKCA-nHS THIS IS THE ACCESSIBLE B4TBANCEW
DIRECTIONS TO MAIN EKTRANCE. S5NSKAU.ALSO
INOUDE INSTOUCTONS TOR BUZmt ACCESS.

WELCOME SIGN ABOVE

VEHIOESATE
FENQffi

ACCESSIBLE ENTRANCE DIRECTION SSGNAGE
VanMBcheien Afchltacts
1 RBES CEMENT)
BUiLDING PAPER OR TfVSH-
2X4FRAMINGAT2VO.C.-
j'PLYVfOOD&WHSIDE-
4X4PTSiU.PiATE-
)-ANCHORK1TATWO.C-\ ^\s\'
CONCRETE i

EXTERIOR

ELEVATIONS

DETAILS
,JUNNtN62 .

A-PUNNBti* •
A-FLWNiNS .

Gate 21?>wnftar2
DiWK
Scale
23 Osc'23
28 Mar'24
3Apr'y
m
^ EAST (FRONT) ELEVATION'^ EAST (I
A) w =r-1 2 5
4 ^ SOLID WASTE SCREEN SECTION
A} 11/2- =r-o-
A3.1
354
5/7/24, 3:50 PM
M^rExhibit B
ncy housing
n <[email protected]>
Fw: Pln23-360 (CPSA emergency housing
2 messages
Pete Srivarom <[email protected]>
To: Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
Hello Virginia,
Tue, May 7, 2024 at 2:05 PM
I'm forwarding you a comment that I received from a resident regarding the CPSA Emergency Housing project (PLN23-360).

Best,
Itiflifmifnl
Pete Srivarom (he/him/his)
Assistant Planner
Community Development Department
450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804
Tel: (510)620-6785
Follow us: www.ci.richmond.ca.us ] Facebook [ Twitter
From:

Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2024 2:00 PM
To: Pete Srivarom <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Pln23-360 (CPSA emergency housing
This email originated from outside of the City's email system. Do not open links or attachments from untrusted sources.

Last year we already had emergency housing at that address. It was very traumatic when people who did not respect our property came with their cars to see if we were there. One day they took a piece of hose, and another time they were waiting for me at midnight next to my car, thank God the police arrived soon. I wouldn't like it, I don't want to live that again. Living in fear in my house. Not being able to rest even a day. It's not fair. I work 10 to 12 hours a day because no one gives us anything. Everything is expensive and the city. He wants to bring a big problem to my life and to the community in general, robberies, violence, drugs. Imagine for a second how bad we are having just thinking about repeating what we already experienced last year. The new law allows this to happen and the police can't do anything.

They can go with them every day, they had to be on the block. For one reason or another, the firefighters, the ambulances, were newspapers, I imagine they can search for that information and it was only a few months and now with permission from the cities, who is going to protect us? Gracias par responder
Yestareel 16
El may 7, 2024, a la(s) 10:47, Pete Srivarom <[email protected]> escribio:

Estimada Senora Mfa,
Soy un planificador y voy a responder a su pregunta. La proxima reunion de Planning Commission sera el 16 de mayo a las 6:30 PM. Lamentablemente, la reunion de Planning Commission solo se realiza en ingles y no se ofrece interpretacion al espanol. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1798429390633419582&simpl=msg-f:17984293906334195.1/3 355 5/2/24, 8:46 AM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - Concerns for 207 37th st Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
Concerns for 207 37th st
2 messages
Thu, May 2, 2024 at 7:55 AM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] To the City of Richmond (Contract Planner)
I am a concerned resident and home owner where the CPSA Emergency Housing is being Proposed at 207 37thSt Richmond.

A couple months ago in 2023 this same office was causing many issues and arising many concerns with all of our residing neighbors/owners. Many complaints and police calls were being made with concerns and nothing much was being done. There was suspicious activity all hours of the night. The most concerning was a neighbor's home was getting broken into and many cars were being broken into as well. This causes hardships and huge safety concerns on us home owners and the people causing this were those whom were just hanging around at 207 37th St.We have children walking and going from school and older parents and we do not need any drug usage, needles, etc. on the ground, and this behavior is unacceptable. Homeless individuals were throwing trash over another neighbor's home which is aside from this location, this just shows how it will become again. Trash was being brought and left making the community look filthy. Homeless people in cars were staying on the streets living in their cars occupying parking that was needed for the people residing here in our community. Things were not being done in the correct manner, which is why we are against this. One time another neighbor had to call the police as someone was slumped over in their car literally overdosing. At one point there was like a small fire as well, this can burn other nearby homes as individuals had a grill in these offices, and who would be to blame the owner of 207 37th st, so now I ask this question will that person pay for the cars, homes, trash, and other dangers being brought to this neighborhood? I doubt that.

This will be the person to blame. Another issue was someone passed away and they had set up candles and like a vigil (most likely an overdose). This poses a lot of danger within the community. We often heard disputes coming from this place, it was that chaotic. If these aren't crucial signs of the concerns all our community is having I'm not sure what is. These are the red flags. After living here for over 20 years we had never had any issues until the ones that arose when the building was being misused. Therefore, we are not in agreeance to this proposal, and we do not want emergency housing at all.

Best Regards, A concerned Resident/Owner
Doria Robinson <[email protected]> Thu, May 2, 2024 at 8:28 AM To: ' ' - , "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>, Michelle Milam <[email protected]> Thank you
I wonder if I can meet you sometime next week at the site to talk and better understand your experiences and concerns.

CM Robinson
Get Outlook for iOS
Sent: Thursday, May 2, 2024 10:55:56 AM
To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1797953187853621800&simpl=msg-f:17979531878536218... 1/2356 5/2/24, 1:53 PM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - Concerns for 207 37th st Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
Concerns for 207 37th st
Michelle Milam <[email protected]> Thu, May 2, 2024 at 11:26 AM To: Doria Robinson <[email protected]>
, "[email protected]" <[email protected]>, Eduardo Martinez <[email protected]>, Lina Velasco <[email protected]>, Jesus Morales <[email protected]>
Thank you for the outreach.

I would agree with you that the plans that are going forward need to include additional on site supports and safety measures.

It is absolutely critical that we have services available for people who are transitioning and have housing needs but it's also equally important at the services are safe, well managed and respect the neighbors in the community.

I am not with the planning department, but I do believe that some of these concerns were things that city staff was asking for them to address.

I would also suggest providing training to the staff about making sure that they are proactive about calling the police and handling safety issues around the facility.

I am willing to meet; I'm also including housing staff in the loop because they are making the recommendations. I'm sure that they would be interested in your feedback.

On May 2, 2024, at 8:28 AM, Doria Robinson <[email protected]> wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f:1797966395856621721&simpl=msg-f:1797966395856621721 1/1357 4/29/24, 9:08 AM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - Pln23-360 CPSA emergency housing Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
Pln23-360 CPSA emergency housing
1 message
Sat, Apr 27, 2024 at 8:51 AM
To: [email protected]
I do not agree with the conditional use permit to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds.

Last year it was already working in that direction one and it was a bad experience and very traumatic they were difficult months because all the time there were people in their cars as if they were watching. Car thefts increased, they enter our property
, he has needed the presence of the police more times
Personally, when I went to work one night one of them was waiting for me next to my car. it was a big scare, thanks to the prompt response of the police it didn't get older.

I imagine that they have a report of the number of times the police, firefiqhters, and ambulances had to arrive.

Living that again would be the worst, very bad thing.

We don't need more criminals in our community,
We pay a tax to live safely
I don't want this shelter again and return to live badly because of this No Enviado desde mi iPhone
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:179750369405474H22&simpl=msg-f:179750369405474H22 1/1358 5/2/24, 8:47 AM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - CPSA Emergency Housing The neighborhood doesn't accept that.

Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
CPSA Emergency Housing The neighborhood doesn't accept that. 1 message
Wed, May 1,2024 at 8:16 PM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Me dirijo a usted con el debido respeto. Mi nombre es Lorena Garci'a en nombre de mi familia, apoyamos al vecindario y no estamos de acuerdo en! que se habra un Emergency shelter en 207 37" Street . Cerca de un area tranquila y de nuestras casas ya que ese tipo de viviendas solo beneficia a la delincuencia y vandalismo . Eso es peligroso para nuestros hijos y hogares ,
https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1797909165147566262&simpl=msg-f:1797909165147566262 1/1359 5/1/24, 10:17AM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - Project NO PLN23-360 Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
Project NO PLN23-360
1 message
Wed, May 1, 2024 at 10:08 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
I don't want any shelters in front of my house I don't want any shelters in my neighborhood.

Shelters bring crimes .prostitution .drug addiction, drug users sexual offenders It's not safe for my family for our families in this neighborhood. I don't want to see these kind of people around my house in my neighborhood. Bring education bring teachers. Bring schools to our neighborhood .We want to live in peace . Shelters bring crime We Don't want shelters Thank you https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&seareh=all&permthid=thread-f:1797871008561918489&simpl=msg-f:1797871008561918489 1/1360 5/2/24, 9:39 AM Moore lacofano Goltsman Inc Mail - CONCERNS FOR 203 37TH AVE/ EMERGENCY HOUSING Virginia Morgan <[email protected]>
CONCERNS FOR 203 37TH AVE/ EMERGENCY HOUSING
1 message
Thu, May 2, 2024 at 9:29 AM
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To the City of Richmond,
I'm a very concern resident of 37th and Bissell Street, where the CPSA Emergency housing is being proposed.

A couple months ago in 2023 this same building was being used as a Shelter causing this neighborhood to experience unforgettable damages and concerns. I personally experience multiple suspicious activity around my property and towards my children. As I can recall, one afternoon my oldest child (teen boy) was practicing soccer in our backyard when one of the humans that was residing at the shelter home decided to enter our backyard and harassed my son by saying ;"what are you looking at" (many bad language/words were exposed)"blahh blahh blahh". As my child screamed "mom", I ran to him to confront him just so he can harassed us calling me a "Bitch, and treating us that he will be back to get me later on". I called the RDP just for them to tell me to do an online report. (Trespassing/harassed/safety-concems/children) Another situation I would like to address is that they also broke into my vehicle and damage my door and for some reason took out my son's booster seat and stole my prescribe glasses. Leaving me with a expense of having to re-purchase glasses, fixing my door and buying my child a new booster seat. I called RDP only to tell me to do an online report.

Around the time the shelter was being used there was a rise in car break ins. (Car break ins/theft) Overall having Emergency housing at 203 37th will raise safety concerns, theft, vandalism and harassment towards the individuals in our community. Most importantly to our children in this neigh hood and surrounding schools. These individuals are not in their right state of mind and I hope no child should experience what my child did. (Not to state that the individual was also shirtless next to our children play ground) Please, I demand to take my words and experience into consideration. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=6e2c52f87b&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1797959044271794537&simpl=msg-f:1797959044271794537 1/1361 MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 1 June 6, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RICHMOND CITY HALL
Council Chambers
June 6, 2024
6:30 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair - Vacant Vacant Gay Timmons
Jonathan Harrison, Vice Chair Alpa Agarwal Alexander Golovets Bruce Brubaker, Secretary Aaron He

The regular meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Harrison at 6:33 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Vice Chair Jonathan Harrison; Secretary Bruce Brubaker; Commissioner Aaron He; Commissioner Alexander Golovets; Commissioner Gay Timmons

Absent: Commissioner Alpa Agarwal

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff Present: Planning Staff: Senior Planner Matt Neuebaumer ; Community Development Director Lina Velasco; Pam Lee, City Attorney’s office

Absent: Planning Manager Hector Rojas

MINUTES – None

AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR –

Vice Chair Harrison stated there were no Consent Calendar items on the Agenda.

[The Commission moved to the Brown Act – Public Forum]

BROWN ACT – Public Forum

Community Development Director Lina Velasco indicated there were no public commenters on Zoom and called for public speakers in person, there were none.

[The Commission moved to New Business]

NEW ITEMS
362
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 2 June 6, 2024

1. PLN22-084: Homewood Suites Hotel
PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for the construction and operation of an ±80,000- square-foot, 103 -room, five -story hotel on a

1.69-acre vacant parcel. The project would include landscaping, stormwater treatment areas, and 81 off -street parking spaces. The project site is located at 3101 Garrity Way (APN: 405-290-054) in the CM-3, Commercial Mixed-Use, Commercial Zoning District. 510 Hospitality LLC, owner; Hill View Construction Inc, applicant Planner: Hector Lopez, Senior Planner
Tentative Recommendation: Hold Over to 6/20/2024

Vice Chair Harrison announced the item and called for staff’s report.

Community Development Director Velasco stated this item was a holdover and requested to be held over to a date certain of June 20, 2024.

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, He) to continue the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review for PLN22- 084 to a date certain of June 20, 2024, vote: 5-0-1 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, He, Timmons, Golovets); Noes: None. (Agarwal Absent and one seat vacant)

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the item and moved on to Item 3]

2. PLN23-309/PLN24-149: Bay Hills Community Church

PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Design Review for the proposed demolition of an existing church; construction of a new 33,700-square-foot church with a sanctuary, offices, parking, and landscaping; and operation of a community assembly use. The project site is located at 4555 Hilltop Drive (APN: 426-330-002, 426- 330-009) in the RL2, Single -Family Low Density Residential Zoning District.
100 W Ohio LLC, owner; Ronnie Turner, applicant
Planner: Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner
Tentative Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Vice Chair Harrison announced the item and called for staff’s report.

Community Development Director Velasco introduced the Contract Planners from MIG, Virginia Morgan and Shawna, who provided the presentation.

Contract Planner Morgan began the presentation by stating this presentation was for both PLN23-309 and PLN24-149, a site that is currently 5.75 acres with a lot line adjustment to 4.9 acres that fronts Hilltop Drive and abuts a vacant lot to the north. The site is zoned RL2 for low density residential with the surrounding uses being residential and community assembly. The existing building has similar setbacks as other lots in the area with a parking area on the side of the church, however, the parking area has no screening from the road. The project includes demolishing the current church and parking lot and developing a new parking lot and a new 363
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 3 June 6, 2024

church behind the parking lot. The new structure is planned to be about 33,700 square feet. The structure is planned to be a sprung tension fabric structure, a manufactured aluminum structure supporting a fabric membrane, with a three-tone exterior using brownstone red, bayberry green, and sandstone. There is a gradual incline in the roof with a height of fifteen feet above what is allowed in this zone, per RMC code on exceptions to height limitations, projections above the maximum height are allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit. The elevation from the south shows the front of the building where a low masonry retaining wall is shown that wraps around the west and rear of the building. There is a planned Plaza entry with decorative exposed beams with metal trellis and a floor to ceiling stained glass window effect created using colored film. The parking proposes 167 parking spaces; a maximum of 108 parking spaces are allowed, the remaining 59 spaces will be shared for public use. Shared spaces will include signage explaining parking lot rules and that shared spaces are available on a first come/first serve basis. The proposed landscaping includes adding 13,242 square feet of landscaping to the property. Landscaping exceeds the minimum 10% requirement within the parking area, with roughly 15% landscaped area. The project proposes removing nineteen trees from within the footprint of the new church and proposes adding sixty -six new trees in and around the parking area, the minimum required would be thirty -three total. The project also proposes a landscaped retention area, five landscaped parking islands, and plantings to create screening of the parking area from the frontage of the street and adjacent lot lines and the refuse area. The landscaping will be a mix of native and non- native plantings. The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the project on May 8 with four conditions of approval (COA), one of which is to include 15- gallon trees to be used for the screening of the parking area. The DRB also recommended the exterior color pallet be changed from the brownstone red to a more neutral dark taupe. The DRB recommended that all screening of mechanical equipment be compatible with the design of the rest of the structure, and that the left planter box at the main entrance includes only low plantings rather than the corked oak to preserve the view to the decorative welcome plaza. The project is compatible with all zoning standards. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as an infill development project as the project is less than 5 acres surrounded by primarily urban uses. Required technical reports included air, water, noise, biological resources and Historic Resource Evaluation. The Historic Resource Evaluation found that while the current structure is over fifty years old, it is not considered a historic resource. The applicant engaged in three community meetings which produced one public comment with regard to the degree of sound proofing of the proposed structure to which the applicant responded directly. The project supports all required findings for a CUP and a lot line adjustment. The project complies with the Transportation Demand Management as the proposed trip reduction measures are feasible and appropriate for the project considering the proposed use or mix of uses and the project’s location, size, and hours of operations, and the proposed vehicle trip reductions will ensure that the performance targets of the Article will be achieved and maintained. Planning staff have noted the following conditions of approval:
lighting, noise, performance standards, public art, street trees, outdoor activities , and bird collision zone, landscaped parking islands, EV -capable spaces, parking/loading, hours of operation, change the brownstone to a dark taupe, low plantings in the center planter, compatibility designed exterior screening of the mechanical equipment, 15-gallon street trees.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the Public Hearing.]

Vice Chair Harrison called for questions for staff.

Commissioner Brubaker inquired about the lot line adjustment , noting the adjustment exempts the project from CEQA review and asked what happens to the remaining original lot ; he requested clarification that the project does not propose a future fence, and inquired if the 364
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 4 June 6, 2024

building would be accessed using a sidewalk from Hilltop and if there was a proposed connection and if so, would it be Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant ; and the definition of shared parking.

Consultant Planner Morgan responded that the decrease was to ensure the lot won’t straddle any lot lines and is located at the rear of the property. The zoning is RL2-residential. The project does not have a connecting sidewalk from Hilltop Drive. The Shared parking is along the perimeter of the parking lot and available to whoever in the neighborhood needs it. If they kept the entire parking lot private, it would require an additional CUP.

Community Development Director Velasco responded that if the applicant wanted to add a future fence it would be held by the residential standards of 4- feet in height, up to six feet with an exception through a zoning administrator approval.

Commissioner He inquired if the eastern parking lot was a separate parcel of land and if the proposed curb cuts match the existing curb cuts; and if the proposed 24- foot drive aisles are permitted by City Code; and if a slope analysis was performed onsite.

Consultant Planner Morgan replied that her understanding was it was two portions of a single lot with two APN numbers. The curb cuts will remain the same. The drive aisles were created based on zoning code requirements. A slope analysis was completed on the site.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired if there was a loading zone in front of the plaza for people to be dropped off. Consultant Planner Morgan responded that may be better answered by the applicant, and her understanding was there would be one and it would be two-way.

[Vice Chair Harrison called for the applicants presentation, all of what was information covered from staff’s presentation.]

Applicant Ronnie Turner stated they are currently renting a complex that has recently been sold which puts the burden on the worship center to find another location. It made sense to tear down what they currently have on land. Their current configuration cuts time and money from having to find a new piece of property. They do a great deal of outreach in the community and generally serve over 10,000 people over Easter. The seats will be removable in the sanctuary so that the building can also be used by the community when needed. They will manage the parking lot on Sundays for use by their congregation and it will be managed by City code requirements.

The design team Project Manager David spoke about the building design and how they were more focused on interior programming versus budget. They needed a large interior that could hold a large volume of people, which would also fit their budget. The gable shape was selected to use with the tension sprung with the intent to match the character of the neighborhood.

Regarding Commissioner He’s question about the height , by using the tension sprung siding, it breaks down the scale of a traditional two story building with a parapet. The design is both energy efficient and acoustic friendly.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired if they planned to use traditional HVAC or heat pumps. David stated they are using their plan to use ground mounted R2 units.

Commissioner Brubaker inquired if there was an accessible sidewalk from the parking lot to the building and commented that there would likely be a Commission discussion regarding 365
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 5 June 6, 2024

accessibility, and the applicants should want the accessible features to be welcoming for the congregation as they make their way up to the entrance plaza.

The applicant’s Project Manager David stated there is stripping on the asphalt recognizing ADA accessibility and there is a decorative walkway as they walk through the landscape buffer. Mr.

Turner added that they are still working on funding and intend to make future improvements, the plans as presented were the beginning plans to get them into the building.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened Public Comment]

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Vice Chair Harrison opened the item to public comments, Community Development Director Velasco stated there were two cards submitted in person.

Victoria Williams Turner spoke in favor of the project and believed the applicant had very user- friendly plans for a beautiful building and is a huge improvement from the current building.

Manny Martinez spoke in favor of the project and as a native Richmond resident stated the church is making a huge commitment to the City with a great group of people as their congregation. The community is requesting the City help them to get the project going as quickly as possible.

Fred Sahakian spoke about his experience with CEQA and placement of religious affiliated buildings and commented that the church leadership of this church are responsive and responsible and encouraged the Commission to approve the plans as they have been presented. This is an opportunity to help bring back the vitality of the bay area.

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.]

Commissioner Golovets inquired if the church was still actively using the current building. Mr.

Turner responded they are using the older small building during the week for offices, choir rehearsals, and youth group activities.

Commissioner He commented he appreciates the project and believed it would be a benefit to the community and really liked the large gathering space; it would be a good plan to offer it as rental space for the general public’s use. Additionally, adding a sidewalk from the welcoming plaza that travels down and connects with the sidewalk on Hilltop Avenue would also be a great idea. It’s important for pedestrian connectivity.

Commissioner Brubaker inquired about the current Transportation Demand Management results, without the addition of the new church.

Consultant Planner Morgan explained the report stated that the proposed measures would add up to a potential reduction of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) of up to 17.1%; the measurement may not add up to 15% lower than a single occupant vehicle would generate, it does have the potential to bring the projects average VMT below the average citywide VMT per the stated goal in the Richmond code.

366
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 6 June 6, 2024

Commissioner Brubaker commented that this church would be a great addition to the neighborhood; they are requesting a CUP because they are exceeding the height limit and for this project, he didn’t see an issue with that. His concern wa s given the goal to have vehicle travel decreased and active transportation increased, community members walking or biking from Hilltop Avenue up to the building through an active parking lot didn’t seem safe or welcoming. A sidewalk should be added from the ADA landscaped parking island and curb cut it out to Hilltop Avenue and would be inclined to include that an additional condition of approval.

Commissioner Timmons inquired if any of the other design conditions of approval were large barriers for the applicant. Project Planner David answered they were not.

Community Development Director Velasco responded to Commissioner Brubaker’s sidewalk request stating the applicant said they did not for see a problem with adding the sidewalk as described so long as it didn’t need to be specialty pavers. Commissioner Brubaker commented he envisioned a standard concrete sidewalk.

Mr. Turner added if they could do stamped concrete instead of the pavers at the welcoming plaza that would solve a good bit of concern from the women in the congregation. Vice Chair Harrison commented he too is not big on pavers. They can be a safety issue for seniors who are less stable on their feet.

Vice Chair Harrison asked staff if the DRB recommendations needed to be included in the final motion for the Planning Commission’s conditions of approval. Community Development Director Velasco confirmed they were included in the staff’s recommendation for the Planning Commission.

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, He) to approve a Conditional Use Permit, Lot Line Adjustment, and Design Review for the proposed demolition of an existing church; construction of a new 33,700- square-foot church with a sanctuary, offices, parking, and landscaping, and operation of a community assembly use located at 4555 Hilltop Drive; with two additional conditions 1) the welcome plaza does not have to be pavers and 2) a sidewalk is added from the ADA parking area to connect from the front door of the church to the sidewalk on Hilltop Avenue. APN: 426-330-002, 426-330-009 and Resolution 24-05 vote: 5-0- 1 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, He, Timmons, Golovets); Noes: None. (Agarwal Absent and one seat vacant)

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the item and called for a break]

[The Planning Commission reconvened with all members present except for Commission Agarwal.]

3. PLN23-360: CPSA Emergency Housing Shelter

PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an existing office building to an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds. The project site is located at 207 37
th Street (APN: 516-210-020) in the T5MS-O, Main Street Open Zoning District.

Joanne Joey Tang, owner; Greg Van Mechelen, applicant
Planner: Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner
367
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 7 June 6, 2024

Tentative Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Vice Chair Harrison introduced the item and called for staff’s report.

Community Development Director Velasco stated that Consultant Planner Morgan would be providing the staff report.

Consultant Planner Morgan provided the information regarding the CPSA Emergency Housing Shelter project PLN23-360 to allow conversion of an existing office building to an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds. Staff recommend reviewing the project and that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 24-06 and approve PLN 23-360. The project site is located at 207 37th Street at the corner of 37th Street and Thistle Avenue. The pre- existing use was an emergency shelter within the last two years. Zoning for the parcel is T5MS -O mixed use with a commercial emphasis and is surrounded by residential commercial uses. The proposal involved a few changes to the original structure and most of those changes are for the rear portion of the building and in the parking area. P er Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) standards for emergency shelters, an office at the entrance of the building will remain an office for management staff. Two offices will be combined to create two new bathrooms for the residents.

Exterior improvements to the building include adding windows in the rear bedrooms, which is required for egress requirements per California Building Code Appendix P for emergency housing. Demolition in the rear parking area includes removing the existing non -conforming wheelchair ramp and non- conforming parking stripes. A 30- square-foot addition to the rear entrance is proposed to accommodate a vestibule and reconstructed wheelchair ramp per ADA requirements. A 340 square foot courtyard area is proposed as required for congregation area per RMC standards for emergency shelters. Additional improvements include a walkway, short - and long-term bicycle parking, a refuse area, and a reconfigured parking area to include two tandem parking spaces and an accessible space. A six -foot fence is proposed around the parking area for security, as well as a person gate and rolling vehicle gate for access. Staff recommend the fence be required to be an open metalwork or semi open wood design to allow surveillance. The project is exempt from CEQA per Sections 15303 New Construction or Conversion of small structures and 15269(c) for Emergency projects. The project is compliant with all standards in Article 15. The following required findings are consistent with General Plan and applicable specific plan and land use designation. The following findings are required for approval of a conditional use permit (CUP): t he location, size, design and operating characteristics are compatible with and will not adversely affect livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and surrounding neighborhood, will not create nuisances from emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, vibration, smoke, heat or glare of level exceeding ambient conditions; complies with all applicable provisions of Articles XV; and adequately served by highways, streets, water, sewer, and other public facilities and services. Staff have developed a number of conditions of approval to address the issue of neighborhood compatibility which included : main entry reconfiguration to front 37 th Street and such that
queuing not take place in public open space, noise and performance standards, sanitary facilities and conditions, air quality, paint and removal of metal screen, graffiti abatement, parking, and capacity limited to 16. Notice was posted on April 15, 2024. Pullman Neighborhood Council was contacted, and 7 public comments have been submitted against the project.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the Public Hearing and called for the applicant’s presentation.]

Applicant Greg Van Mechelen provided a presentation for the Commission and introduced the owners Lonnie Holmes and Joanne Tang and explained he wanted to address staff’s reduction 368
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 8 June 6, 2024

of the occupancy of the project from twenty -five to sixteen. The owners will address the operation and other questions. The application was submitted with a proposed occupancy of 25 which the building and stated allows , and believes staff miscalculated their suggested 16 occupancy rate based on the data from Red Bluff, where staff’s report states the living space is 125 square feet (sf) per resident and is indicative of the area of the building, not individual bedrooms. Red Bluff’s code for emergency shelter was based on the State’s data from 2008 and they are currently undergoing a major overhaul and long update of their City’s codes. The Los Angeles code makes the most sense where they require seventy square feet in a bedroom for the first person and an additional fifty square feet per bedroom for each occupant thereafter.

That would allow two occupants per 125 square feet. Per the California Building Code a dining room required fifteen sf per person. Solano requires fifty sf per resident per bedroom. In reviewing ordinances that include standards for area requirements per resident, there are three options: provide an overall area for the facility or building, typically expressed as building area or gross square footage; provide minimum requirements for private space per resident, and in some cases minimum requirements for common recreation space; the third option is defer to the Building Codes, Fire Codes and/or Health and Safety Codes. If they were to calculate based on the overall area, Contra Costa County and the City of Red Bluff use 125 sf per person. San Gabriel uses 130 sf of gross building area per person, Alhambra and San Bernardino County use 150 sf per person. If using personal private space, most S outhern California cities and counties use 50 sf per person. If utilizing the building and fire codes, which most have to comply anyway, Emeryville, Corona, and Eureka use this method and refer to the Occupancy Load factors from Section 1004 of the California Building Code (CBC). The CBC provides load Factors for many types of occupancies, but not yet emergency shelters. Dormitories might be a good comparison, and they use 50 sf of gross living area. The applicant provided a full listing of all neighboring areas and is requesting a Condition of Approval to use one of the aforementioned standards or use the Fire Code and Building Code occupancy rate. An overall gross building area of 5,000 square feet would allow 40 occupants at 125 sf, 38 occupants for 130 sf, and 33 occupants for 150 sf. At 5,000 sf, which translates to roughly 200 sf per occupant with twenty -five occupants. The applicants are asking the Commission to provide the CUP under the Los Angeles regulations of 70- sf per first occupant and 50- sf for each occupant there after due to a couple of the bedrooms being five feet under the 125 sf space. Additionally, changing from three spaces to two provides them with more options for the courtyard.

Lonnie Holmes, CEO for CPSA, spoke regarding The City of Richmond, Way 2 Love and HCEB out of Oakland approaching CPSA, after the closing of Castro Encampment , with a need to address the unsheltered that were displaced following that closing. The way it was originally set up put them in the situation where they were landlords with all the occupants having their own leases, and the housing authority managing any programs. Moving forward they would like to contract with the Department of Corrections where the residents would also be supervised by their probation officers. This would help the adjacent neighbor’s concerns and provide additional monitoring of the residents.

JoAnne Tang, owner of the building, explained she had no knowledge of there being any issues with the residents as only one person had approached her regarding any issues. She was not aware of any police reports.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the item to public comments]

Community Development Director Velasco stated there were eight cards submitted to speak in person, each speaker would get three minutes for comments.

369
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 9 June 6, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Pam Saucer spoke in favor of the project and the program because of the need in Richmond to address the unsheltered, particularly for those reentering the population from being incarcerated. Transitional housing is needed as are the programs that help make a difference.

Roxanna Molina spoke as a direct adjacent neighbor and against the project due to the neglect of the property and using the property as a shelter without a permit or any community outreach.

The children in the neighborhood were being abused by the residents and in the past the building housed many more than twenty -five people. Neighbors have witnessed prostitution, crimes, vandalism, and the police have indicated unless weapons are involved, they cannot respond. There are noise concerns due to fights at all hours of the night. There is a challenge with the unsheltered, however, this house is not being managed as a shelter, the permit should not be issued.

Ronald Sanchez spoke against the shelter in his neighborhood due to past concerns with behaviors and crimes. When he went to City Hall to address the concerns the City claimed the building was not being run as a shelter when it was, it just wasn’t permitted. He had to call the police almost every day due to fights. The house is one block from the middle school, which is also concerning. This is a transition house for inmates, there should be security, and it should not be so close to a school.

Abigail Corado spoke against the shelter because of past issues with residents. Everything that Mr. Sanchez said was true. It’s a dangerous spot to have the transition house so close to a school.

Carol Lopez provided comment against the project in Spanish (translated by Community Development Director Velasco) due to the reasons of crime, they broke her windows, she has police reports, they stole personal information from her son, and she has a four -year-old son that also feels unsafe. Since the building has vacated peace is back in the neighborhood. It’s near a school and many children travel on foot near the house as a pathway. She is in favor of supporting the unsheltered but believes this building is too small. Based on the previous experience she doesn’t believe the applicants can appropriately manage the facility.

Sergio Joshua Vega Vargas spoke regarding the history of the residents who screamed at him and his friends while trying to play outside, which made them feel unsafe. He understands they need a home and deserve a second chance, but it’s too close to a neighborhood with many children. Even when the police were called, there were always fights.

Mario Retana Barbosa spoke against the project because of the safety of his children. He works and pays taxes and deserves some peace in his neighborhood. The facility is too close to a school with children who walk by the building daily . Transitional housing doesn’t belong near a school or in a neighborhood with children and should be managed correctly.

Evelyn Morales provided written comments against the project which were read into the record by Senior Planner Matt Neuebaumer. Safety concerns such as drugs, violence and filthy living conditions plagued the neighborhood when the building was being used as an unpermitted shelter, and police did not respond to calls relating violence. It was an unsafe environment. The building is close to a school, children should not see people injecting themselves while walking to and from school.
370
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 10 June 6, 2024

Raul Garrido spoke in Spanish, with Community Development Director Velasco as translator, against the project due to the safety concerns from prior residents and didn’t believe this neighborhood was appropriate for a shelter. There are already issues in the neighbor with prostitution, drugs and violence, having a shelter would add to that problem. This is a neighborhood with children with residents who pay their taxes. It’s difficult when police don’t respond until hours after they’ve been called. The project should not be allowed as it will add to the delinquencies already taking place and there are not enough police to handle all the current problems.

Jessica spoke against the project as prior to the unpermitted shelter there were no issues with crime or break -ins. Multiple emails have been submitted to the City regarding drug trafficking and there had not been any response. There have been people outside that have been overdosed on the ground. There are too many young children in the neighborhood. If the owner was unaware of any prior issues, that just shows how neglectful she was with the property.

Alexia Garcia spoke against the project because prior residents harassed her children . They have community activity equipment in her backyard for the children in the neighborhood and one of the residents walked into her backyard shirtless and began harassing her children and yelling at them. The owners should have known what was happening on her property. These problems weren’t happening before the unpermitted shelter began. The police are nonresponsive, there has to be another location for the shelter, somewhere not near a school and neighborhood with children.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the rebuttal portion of Public Comment.]

Lonnie Holmes, CEO for CPSA, stated they do have a license with the City and have had for a long time. There appears to be a racial issue with individuals who occupy the shelter. They want the place to be safe, there are and have been cameras on the building. Additionally, there is no evidence of residents being involved in vandalism or crime. There is no clear -cut affiliation of this activity from the residents. They could not be addressed without having knowledge of that taking place. Going forward there are cameras on the building, there is a fence in place, there will be management on location. They are concerned with keeping the neighborhood safe and will do what they can to make sure that happens, including posting information on who to contact when there is a future problem.

Roxanna Molina spoke the rebuttal for the opposition and stated they are united in wanting safety and peace and a fence is not the answer. They already proved they don’t care about the trash and crime the shelter inflicts upon the tax paying citizens of the neighborhood. A human life was lost due to neglect, the neighborhood has witnessed sexual activity in the parking lot with children walking by. The houseless need a home, not just a house that allows them to go unchecked.

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Planning Commission for discussion.]

Community Development Director Velasco responded to Commissioner Golovets’ inquiry that staff found a business license on hand for the prior building, however under the Fire and Building Code, it was not officially converted into housing or emergency sheltering. Business licenses are a taxing document and don’t always apply to land use. Further explaining that once the City was aware of the situation the license was revoked and they are now trying to get 371
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 11 June 6, 2024

the permitting needed, along with the proper zoning, to open the building as a permitted shelter which meets the City and Fire requirements.

Commissioner Golovets inquired about the leases in place and if the residents would be paying rent, and what services would be available for residents, as well as a series of other questions

Lonnie Holmes, CEO for CPSA, explained the lease was required from the City and the nonprofits. The owners do not make money on the project. That all came about because the Fire Department wasn’t aware that the building was being used as housing. Moving forward the State will be funding the property per residents that transition from jail. Residents will be receiving transitional services, vocational services, and program services through the state and city. Mental Health services will be deferred to the state and county. There will be a psychologist clinician on call 24/7. Residents needing detox will not be allowed at the facility, they will not have services for those needs. Security cameras were and are accessible to the city and nonprofits and span three or four houses to the right and left of the facility. There will be 24-hour staff onsite for security. Individuals on parole and probation will be visited and managed by those personnel during the day.

Commissioner Timmons inquired about the Castro Encampment’s involvement in the project.

Lonnie Holmes, CEO for CPSA, responded that they were requested to help with the transitional housing when it became apparent Castro Encampment would be closing. Their plan was to work with the California Department of Corrections (CDR), that has not yet happened. The prior residents came from the Castro Encampment without services in place.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired how many current shelters such as this are in place and if they went through the CUP process, if any are located near schools and if they had the same type of complaints.

Community Development Director Velasco answered the major shelters include Brookside managed by the county, the Bay Area Rescue Mission including their facility for women and children, and the Greater Richmond Interfaith Program (GRIP). Some of them have gone through the Use Permit process, some of them pre- dated those requirements. The most recently built shelter was the Bay Area Rescue Mission for Women and Children shelter and that did go through Design Review with a Use permit for conditional approval. There are residential uses to the south of the Bay Area Rescue Mission and a school that is a few block s to the north. Community Development Director Velasco was not aware of complaints but those most likely went through the police department if there were. They are getting a lot of complaints around GRIP and Bay Area Rescue Mission for loitering from encampment population.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired if there need to be conditions written up should the Commission choose to deny the CUP.

Community Development Director Velasco responded they would need to revise the findings and get Commission direction on which findings could not be met as a basis of that denial.

City Attorney Pam Lee stated that under California Law emergency shelters have been elevated to the same level as affordable housing, which means they are now expedited and receive special consideration. There are conditions of approval, one of which is the maximum number of beds. Under State Law, Government code 65583 Emergency Shelters are l ent to specific written objective standards that are enumerated by the City and in the City’s code. Staff have to 372
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 12 June 6, 2024

look through that to ensure that all of the standards Richmond is imposing meet the written objective criteria. The parking issue and the maximum beds are two items still under review.

Currently the project does not meet the requirements of approval so it needs to be continued to finalize those conditions with respect to those two items. If the Commission would like to deny the project, because it’s an emergency shelter, it has to meet specific findings under State Law because of the need for emergency shelters and other types of housing. That required finding is basically that the Commission has to find that the emergency shelter would have direct adverse impacts on the public’s health and safety of the community or the city and that there is no feasible method to mitigate those adverse impacts, to render the project financially infeasible.

Staff would have to go back to review the findings to ensure they meet that very high threshold of specific adverse impacts and there is no feasible method of mitigation. If the cameras, the staff of the facility, and the fencing are not enough to mitigate the safety risks, the Commission would deny the permit. Additional facts and evidence would be required t o prove such. Her suggestion would be to continue the item based on the information provided at this hearing.

Vice Chair Harrison commented that the problems noted by the neighbors were happening off the site of the facility and once those residents leave the property, the facility doesn’t have the authority to manage those behaviors and concerns once the residents leave the property, and the Commission needs to make findings for denial.

Commissioner Timmons requested the exact Code for emergency shelter and denial findings.

Ms. Leet responded Written Objective Standards Government Code 65583, and Denial Findings Government Code Section 65589.5 Subdivision D, Paragraph II.

Commissioner Brubaker commented that under the proposed resolution that includes finding that staff has written that the project satisfies the findings, making specific note of finding number two, the location, size, design and operating characteristics are compatible with and will not adversely affect livability or appropriate development of abutting properties and surrounding neighborhood. There is room for interpretation that this facility may adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of the neighboring community. In his opinion, the Commission gets stuck with this point because if they justify it in this neighborhood, they could justify it in every neighborhood and how does the Commission make that work when there is such a need for emergency shelters. Maybe it’s a case -by-case basis, there’s a different neighborhood that is more appropriate than this one and requested that it be opened as a discussion.

Vice Chair Harrison agreed, and his biggest concern is the close proximity of the school. The re are many uses that are not allowed within specific proximity of schools. Currently there is no such restriction on emergency shelters. It is potentially a reason to deny the project because of the impacts on school children, and the reason he wanted to find justification for denial.

City Attorney Pam Lee stated due to the process of making a denial, she suggested continuing the hearing to allow the City to work with the applicant to see what would be needed to mitigate the adverse impacts on the community and what that would look like for the applicant in terms of financial feasibility while ensuring the safety of the neighborhood and its health. There is not a specific time limit for approving emergency housing, however the City would want to work expeditiously to provide resolution.

Commissioner Brubaker commented that no matter what the Commission finds on the item it would likely be appealed to City Council, fast action is likely appropriate. It seemed the previous situation was not a positive experience and suggested consideration of a professional management company might be beneficial.
373
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 13 June 6, 2024

Commission Golovets inquired if the City Attorney’s office could provide the standards the Commission needs to follow at the continued hearing.

City Attorney Lee stated they could do that.

ACTION: It was M/S/C ( Timmons, Golovets) to Continue the Hearing to a Date Certain of July 18th for a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an existing office building located at 207 37th Street to an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds (APN: 516 -210-020) in the T5MS -O, Main Street Open Zoning District. Vote: 5-0-1 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, He, Timmons, Golovets); Noes: None. (Agarwal Absent and one seat vacant)

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the item and moved on to Commission Business]

COMMISSION BUSINESS

4. R eports of Officers, Commissioners and Staff

Community Development Director Velasco expressed excitement to introduce Planner Matt Neuebaumer and stated there were no other comments from staff.

Commissioner Brubaker inquired about the Commission elections. Community Development Director Velasco stated typically they are held in June; her understanding was a subcommittee was formed that deferred the elections until July.

5. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 9:20 p.m.

The next regular meeting is on June 20, 2024.
374
Attachment 7

Planning Commission Agenda Report dated July 18, 2024

Available via link above or at Planning Division, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804

375
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 1 July 18, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RICHMOND CITY HALL
Council Chambers
July 18, 2024
6:30 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair - Vacant Vacant Gay Timmons
Jonathan Harrison, Vice Chair Vacant Alexander Golovets Bruce Brubaker, Secretary Aaron He

The regular meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Jonathan Harrison at 6:33 p.m.

Audio became available at [TIMESTAMP 24:49]

ROLL CALL

Present: Vice Chair Jonathan Harrison; Secretary Bruce Brubaker; Commissioner Aaron He; Commissioner Gay Timmons

Absent: Commissioner Alexander Golovets

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff Present: Planning Staff: Planning Manager Hector Rojas; Community Development Director Lina Velasco; Contract Planner Virginia Morgan ; Pam Lee , City Attorney’s office

Absent: None

MINUTES – There were no minutes to approve.

AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR –

Vice Chair Harrison stated there were no Consent Calendar items on the Agenda.

[The Commission moved to the Brown Act – Public Forum]

BROWN ACT – Public Forum

Planning Manager Hector Rojas indicated there were no public commenters on open forum.

[Vice Chair Harrison moved the Commission to Item 1, a holdover from June 6, 2024]

HOLD OVER ITEM
376
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 2 July 18, 2024

1. PLN23-360: CPSA Emergency Housing
PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds at 207 37th Street (APN: 516-210-020) in the T5MS-O, Main Street Open District. This item was continued from the June 6th Planning Commission meeting.

Joanne Joey Tang; Greg Van Meche, applicant
Planner: Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner
Tentative Recommendation: Provide Direction
.

Vice Chair Harrison announced the item and called for staff’s report. The meeting was paused for technical issues. The meeting resumed at [TIMESTAMP 24:49] and Vice Chair Harrison started the meeting over.

Planning Manager Hector Rojas introduced MIG Contract Planner Virgina Morgan, who began the staff presentation with an explanation of staff’s recommendation and provided an outline of the presentation, which included new information based on the Planning Commission’s concerns and questions, and the public comments, from the June 6, 2024 meeting.

Supplemental project information from the applicant and Richmond Police Department (PD) and applicable regulations/standards were also brought forward. The proposed site was operating as an emergency shelter without an operating license from approximately January to August of 2023. The current proposal is for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the conversion of the existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to twenty -five beds. The June 6 th
meeting determined there was not sufficient information to either approve or deny the project.

This is a continuation of the hearing. The proposal involves few changes to the interior of the structure, most proposed alterations are at the rear of the structure in the proposed parking and courtyard area. State and local regulations involve changes such as adding windows for egress and the addition of an outdoor congregation area. There is an estimate for four proposed onsite personnel, including two management team members which car pool, for an expected need of three parking spaces. Should the Commission deem addition security personnel or service provider is necessary, an additional CUP would be required for par king less than the minimum.

Four public comments have been received since the June 6 th hearing, which have expressed
concern over the proximity of the proposed shelter to the Montessori school and middle school, increase police activity during previous operations, and issues of neighborhood safety including illegal parking and inadequate public illumination. All comments to date were complied and included in the staff report as Exhibit B, with the exception of three comments received since the publishing of the staff report. The applicant’s representative, who would oversee operations of the site, submitted a letter that addressed the Planning Commission’s previous concerns and questions that was passed out to the Commission prior to the start of this meeting. Potential resident’s would be identified by referrals from a combination of sources which include local and state parole offices , California Portsmouth Square Association (CPSA) , and churches who support the unhoused on a local, state or federal level. The list of sources is subject to change based on the funding requirements and the needs of the residents. The CPSA expects that staffing would include at a minimum a two person management team, one security personnel, and potentially several service providers during service hours. The Richmond PD released information regarding total dispatched calls related to the site’s address from January to July as 567 calls dispatched in 2023 and 625 dispatched calls in 2024. In 2023 there were more calls for eight di fferent categories, in 2024 the calls spanned eighteen categories. State law limits applicable standards for emergency shelters to the following and the City could require 377
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 3 July 18, 2024

conditions on the following: Management and Security, Parking, Outdoor Congregation, Exterior improvements and Health and Safety. Existing standards for emergency shelters in the Richmond Municipal Code also apply to include a maximum capacity of twenty -five beds, a minimum distance requirement from other shelters; facility requirements such as security lighting, an outdoor courtyard, and onsite management; common facilities and services that are allowed but not required; and bicycle parking. The Planning Commission’s procedural options moving forward are to approve the project, making the required findings for both the CUP and the parking reduction, utilizing conditions of approval as allowed by State Law, which would not render the project financially infeasible. Ms. Morgan provided the information on the findings required to issue a CUP of the proposed use as well as the reduced parking. The requirements for the findings for reduced parking include documented parking demand reduction measures and that there would not be a substantial reduction in on- street parking for the surrounding uses. The second option would be to deny the project, in which the Commission must demonstrate a quantifiable threat to public health or safety, which could not be mitigated by conditions of approval. In accordance with State Law, the City would need to identify one or more impacts on public health or safety that has all of the following qualities: quantifiable information supported by data, a near term impact that can be linked to the project, and one impact that is unavoidable and can not be mitigated or that the mitigation would not render the project financially infeasible. Staff asked the Planning Commission to consider the information and provide direction to either approve the project with conditions of approval to the extent feasible or deny the project by documenting a quantifiable threat to health or safety.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired about the previous request to reduce the maximum number of beds to sixteen. Mr. Morgan stated that due to the Richmond Municipal Code maximum number of beds being twenty-five, the reduction to sixteen maximum beds would not be allowed.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the Public Hearing and called for the applicant’s presentation.]

Lonnie Holmes, CEO for CPSA began his presentation by stating that the previous shelter did in fact have an operating permit from the City of Richmond, and while it seemed that all the dispatched calls appeared to be depicted as coming only from the shelter , which was not possible because the residents included mostly women and children. Going forward, all of the anticipated future residents would be affiliated with a program on the local, state or federal level, with rules that would have to be followed from those programs as well. Moving forward after the approval, the residents will have strict guidelines to follow in order to be allowed to stay in the program. Mr. VanMecheler referenced racial overtones he perceived from the previous meeting and expressed the program’s mission of supplying a wide cornucopia of individuals service that is provided through the program and noted that there were more calls dispatched from Richmond PD to the neighborhood in 2024 when the shelter was not operating than in 2023 when it was operating. He stated the staff report provided was a clear depiction of what their intentions are moving forward.

Vice Chair Harrison questioned the intended timeframe for the property to be ready to take on new residents. Mr. Holmes replied they are not yet sure of the time period, given the permitting process and procedures for the construction changes planned for the property.

Vice Chair Harrison asked staff if there is procedurally a time limit on the CUP if approved that it could sunset. Planning Manager Rojas explained that once the CUP is approved, there would be an expiration on the CUP if operation is not taken place within a year of the issuance of the CUP.

378
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 4 July 18, 2024

Applicant Greg Van Mechelen inquired if the CUP expires only if there has been no progress on the project and not submitted for a building permit. Planning Manager Rojas stated he would have to read the zoning code to provide accurate clarification.

PUBLIC COMMENT

Vice Chair Harrison opened the hearing up for Public Comment and requested those in favor of the project first.

Gwen Boozè commented in favor of the project citing the emergency need for housing for the unhoused given the exemplary increase in crisis for the unhoused population since the pandemic, particularly for families with children.

Dountèz McQuarters agreed with Ms. Boozè regarding the increased number of unhoused since the pandemic and stated he was one of those until Mr. Van Mechelen helped him through those programs. He is no longer unhoused and spoke about those individuals who are homeless simply because they fell into hard times. Programs like this are important because they help groups of people, not just individuals.

Daniel Butt commented that the area for this project is a bit of a dead commercial zone, and he doesn’t see the downside to this project, rather sees it addressing what has become one of the biggest crisis right now, which is housing the homeless. He supports the project and hopes the Commission will work with the applicant to make it happen.

Elliott Davis commented as a homeowner in the city of Richmond, he manages a multifamily property in San Francisco and sees programs like these be very successful. He has seen an increase in the number of homeless people within Richmond and believes this will help address a great need.

Pam Saucer commented that Richmond has always been really good about supplying services to the needy until and did so quietly and respectfully and because of this it is an area that will always be respected by many including agencies, programs, and deliveries. Ms. Saucer spoke of several programs that used to be in Richmond that are no longer available due to the pandemic. This program has the potential to offset the programs that were lost due to the pandemic.

Planning Manager Rojas stated that concluded the speakers in favor of the project and continued calling on those who spoke against the project.

Roxanna Molina spoke as an adjacent neighbor to the property and against the project. She spoke on behalf of the neighbors who live on her block. They came together because they all had negative experiences from when the shelter operated in 2023. There has been loss of property, vandalism, and verbally abusive behavior from past residents. A business license is not a building permit that allows the operation of a shelter. The neighborhood children were afraid to play in the front and would often be heckled by residents. The only time a manager would come to the property was the day before trash pickup to collect garbage left each week by the people living in the shelter. Because a manager was not on property, those authorized to stay there were letting in additional people and at one point there were seventy people living in the building. The majority of the residents were men who would work on cars in the parking lot and not clean up the mess. Both the men and women residents were verbally abusive to the single-family residents leaving the neighborhood feeling unsafe. Management onsite will help, 379
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 5 July 18, 2024

but they don’t manage the unhoused residents when they leave the property, which leaves the current neighbors open to verbal abuse and vandalism of property. The calls can be made to the PD, they are also short staffed and cannot always respond in a timely manner. There are many other places that are appropriate for a shelter.

Ronald Sanchez spoke against the shelter as a neighbor of the proposed project, and confirmed what Ms. Molina said regarding vandalism and verbal abuse and stated there are three schools within the general vicinity of the property. The student’s safety should be considered. The safety of the neighborhood should be considered.

Alejandra Garcia spoke regarding the past residents of the shelter having harassed her children and other children in the neighborhood and trespassed into her backyard. The experience traumatized her son. When the police were called, she was told to file a police report online. The middle school is only 800 feet from the shelter. The children in Richmond deserve to feel safe.

John spoke against the project and expressed concerns about it being run by the same organization that ran the previous shelter without permits. He has witnessed the negative effects the previous shelter had on the community. The owner lacked accountability with the previous shelter regarding drug abuse, lack of management and police protection for the surrounding community. It made for an unsafe environment for the neighborhood. The are other suitable locations for a shelter that are not within proximity to schools.

Apostle Frederick Hamilton spoke in favor of the project to help with the influx of unhoused and those in need due to other shelters being closed during the pandemic, particularly for women and children. Neighbors should help neighbors, there’s an epidemic of homelessness, this project would work in the right direction of lowering those numbers.

David Barksdale spoke in favor of the project and stated he is one of the individuals that would be providing services to the residents of the shelter if approved. Up and Away is an outstanding program and realizes the world is bigger tha n them; it takes that kind of mentality to actually make a difference in the epic rise of current unhoused people. This program provides services that are currently nonexistent. They plan to do better than the last shelter in this location.

LaDaysha Lall spoke in favor of the project and expressed the need for shelter housing for family members. Crime is a risk in all locations. Part of being a community is coming together and helping those in need.

Edward Williams spoke in favor of the project and explained the importance of housing for those returning to society from prison. It is also the most lacking service for those without the means to pay for it after being released. The benefits of providing housing are far greater than if housing is not provided.

Dewanda Joseph White spoke in favor of the project and expressed her understanding of the neighbors, she too has called the police for incidents in her neighborhood endlessly. There are over 500 unhoused people in the city of Richmond and 1,600 in Contra Costa County . There is a huge issue right now with people being displaced because rents are too high. The opportunities this program provides are necessary in order for the City to thrive. Everyone in the community matters.

Danny Godfrey spoke in favor of the program and stated the opposing sides need to come together and develop a program that keeps the community and the residents of the shelter safe. 380
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 6 July 18, 2024

There are bad apples, vetting the programs would help eliminate those bad apples so the people who deserve and need the services can utilize those programs.

Jaul Continas was translated by Planning Manager Rojas who stated Mr. Continas is a resident in the neighborhood who would like the Commission to take into consideration the families already in the neighborhood. He believes housing is important, however this location may not be the best location due to the proximity of nearby schools, when residents call the police, they do not respond promptly and that should also be taken into consideration. Some have indicated that people are vending in the streets, those people are just trying to survive.

Nyzare Davis spoke in favor of the shelter and told of his personal experience of family benefiting from having the use of a shelter. Without the support of the shelter there would have been no hope; instead, the program was able to provide the resources for them to find a job and a suitable place to live. Structure and guidance from a shelter is what lowers the crime rate.

Mario Retana spoke in favor of providing housing and against this project because the police are not ready to handle the influx of people in the shelter; additionally, the number of schools within close proximity of the shelter is concerning. He requested the Commission consider the safety of the families already in place in the area.

Charlie Slowkey spoke in favor of the project stating that the probation office is directly across the street from the location, which means the low number of residents in the shelter is nothing compared to the number of sex offenders and criminals who are in the probation office registering and checking in for court appearances all day every day . The CPSA is attempting to mitigate the crime and unhoused challenges and offer those people a way out of the system and a path for a better life.

Mr. Holmes, CPSA CEO, rebutted that it is unfortunate the community can’t come together to find a solution for those people in need. The Program is trying to make a difference in helping those who need help.

Roxana Molina responded they still oppose the permit based on the lack of responsibility in managing the shelter that was in place in 2023 , and requested the Commission consider the safety of the residents already in place.

Sergio Joshua Vega Vargas spoke against the project and acknowledged the need for housing, citing there are other areas where the shelter could be located that likely have less children.

There is a middle school and preschool within a couple blocks of the property. Everyone is fighting to survive and suffer hard situations, an area near a rehabilitation center would be more appropriate.

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the Public Hearing and suggested a five-minute break.]

The Planning Commission took a 5-minute break.

The Planning Commission returned with Vice Chair Harrison, Secretary Brubaker, and Commissioners He and Timmons in attendance.

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the public hearing and opened the item for Commission discussion and deliberation.]

381
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 7 July 18, 2024

Commissioner Gay Timmons expressed an interest in understanding who would be running the project and how it will be organized. Mr. Lonnie Holmes stated the City of Richmond approached the applicant and requested they provide lease agreements within their facility for some of the unhoused. The City and their resources would be the agencies that provide the services and programs, he would be responsible for managing those programs for the shelter if the project is approved.

Commissioner Timmons inquired if by definition of emergency housing, there would be a time limit that people could stay in the shelter. Planning Manager Rojas answered yes, six months or less for each occupant.

Secretary Jonathan Brubaker requested the difference between the program moving forward versus what it was in 2023. Mr. Holmes replied the prior shelter wasn’t a program, they were landlords providing housing based on renting out the facility. The new project will be residents who are affiliated with programs with rules structured towards helping the residents find jobs and permanent housing.

Secretary Brubaker asked who would be doing the hiring for the staff of the shelter. Mr. Holmes stated CPSA would do the hiring.

Commissioner Aaron He inquired if there would be a lease involved again. Mr. Holmes confirmed no, there would not be leases. The main difference in that is if a resident is not complying with the rules and regulations of the program, they can be removed from the shelter.

Someone with a lease cannot be forced to leave.

Commissioner He asked if rent would be paid. Mr. Holmes explained rent would not be paid, the agencies that provide the programming generally receive federal and state assistance, thus providing them with the means to remove people who don’t follow the rules as it would jeopardize the funding.

Planning Manager Rojas stated the City’s Housing Manager Jesus Morales was available to speak regarding to the City’s responsibility of the previous shelter and the City’s responsibility for the current project, if approved.

Housing Manager Morales clarified that the City did approach Mr. Holmes regarding housing some of the residents in 2023 temporarily until permanent housing could be found. The City requested individual leases due to their assistance that was available was based on providing individual assistance, rental assistance, and other services to individuals. In early fall the Fire Department deemed the building unlivable, so those leases ended, and they had to remove the residents. Moving forward it is not clear if the City will be using the facility. The City now has a different approach going forward. In 2023 it was an emergency situation, the current situation is the City has a local hotel they can house people temporarily while a place to live becomes available.

Community Development Director Velasco noted all of the housing programs are grant funded and unless additional funds are secured, they are limited in what services can be provided based on grants received.

Secretary Brubaker inquired what the ratio is for women and women with children to men in the current programs. Mr. Holmes stated that is hard to predict, based on which organizations will have the funding to do their programs.
382
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 8 July 18, 2024

Commissioner He expressed concern regarding the parking situation both on street and off street and stated it’s a big assumption to make that the two manager would always be able to carpool.

Secretary Brubaker asked if the project could be approved as proposed and if the applicant were to come back needing parking for additional staff members, it would trigger a need for an amendment on the CUP. Planning Manager Rojas responded that was correct and that amendment would be heard by the Planning Commission.

Secretary Brubaker asked if it could be approved without the conditional use permit and if there was a need they could apply for the CUP at that time. Vice Chair Harrison inquired if Richmond had a program where parking could be leased offsite. Community Director Velasco answered she could look at the code section, she believed the City could have required parking within a certain distance from a subject property, but she wasn’t aware of the specific standards. It sounds like additional staff would be beneficial to the project so adding additional parking could be prohibitive to that. Offsite parking could prove beneficial.

Mr. Holmes stated the mechanic across the street is consistently out of compliance with City parking constraints for on street parking, if that were to be addressed, there wouldn’t be a need to find additional parking for extra staff members.

Vice Chair Harrison suggested staff bring up the code enforcement issue with the code enforcement team.

Commissioner He suggested earlier data for 2019 through 2022 from the Police Department would be helpful. Planning Manager Rojas stated that could be requested.

Mr. Holmes noted that during that period the building housed a different nonprofit.

Secretary Brubaker questioned what caused the change from the original request for 16 beds to 25 beds. Planning Manager Rojas answered that a State Law was found that prohibits limiting the number of residents at the location if the zoning code already specifies a limitation.

Secretary Brubaker inquired if the step in the front of the building was going to be made accessible. Applicant Greg Van Mechelen responded that there wasn’t enough room to create a ramp so the accessible entrance will be from the courtyard. The appropriate signage would be provided to direct disability accessibility to that entrance.

Vice Chair Harrison inquired about staffing requirements for a number of residents over the quantity of fifteen. City Attorney Pam Lee stated that there isn’t a specific objective standard applicable to staffing for emergency shelters. If they go by the CPSA and California Code of Regulations, ten staff per every ten residents. If there are twenty-five residents, that would mean three staff members during the day hours and two during the night hours. That would put the required parking at four spots instead of three. Because that isn’t a requirement for emergency shelters, that requirement was not listed in the staff report.

Vice Chair Harrison suggested more information with regard to how the City manages the staffing requirements would be appreciated for the next time the item appears before the Planning Commission.

383
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 9 July 18, 2024

Vice Chair Harrison inquired about consistency with the standards of the General Plan. Planning Manager Rojas stated that is usually addressed when there is a recommended action to either approve or deny a project, since the recommended action is to provide direction, the analysis for General Plan consistency would depend on the direction from the Commission. If the Planning Commission were to direct staff to deny the project, staff would look at the General Plan for justification of that denial.

Vice Chair Harrison suggested staff look at the General Plan compatibility regardless of the Commissions direction. It could also apply to an approval, based on the Commission’s desire to mitigate potential negative impacts to the neighborhood.

City Attorney Lee stated that with an approval, one of the biggest concerns from the neighbors is there needs to be additional safety and security personnel. That was one of the conditions staff were suggesting, as it addresses one of the objective standards that the City is allowed to address as part of an emergency shelter.

Commissioner He asked if any members of the Richmond PD were present. Lieutenant D.

Decious stated he is unfamiliar with the topic and would prefer to do the research needed to conduct a critical analysis.

Secretary Brubaker noted the letter from Richmond PD to City Council stating they agreed that if the plans moved forward additional support and safety measures should be considered.

Vice Chair Harrison suggested that a number of cameras and their locations would be important as well; and inquired if the Commission could prohibit gathering in the front of the building as part of the condition. City Attorney Lee stated for safety accessibility for the right of way, which could be part of the condition providing the applicant met gathering requirements for the property in another location such as a courtyard or in the building. Applicant Greg Van Mechelen stated it is part of State regulation that queuing be allowed so they already have space in the building and in the rear courtyard to allow for queuing.

Commissioner He commented that before the next meeting he hoped that the applicant and staff could arrive at a number of personnel onsite. The current assessment seems quite fluid.

Code dictates that three management staff members are required, security is something that the Commission and the Police Department need to discuss ; information regarding the number of service providers and/or parole officers and how those might be scheduled would be helpful information so the Commission can derive at a more accurate estimate of what would suffice, as well as determining a better estimate of parking availability that would be needed.

Secretary Brubaker commented that he hoped the neighborhood understands the Commission is struggling with this request. There is a definite need for housing, however, there needs to be as many measures as possible in place to ensure the security and wellbeing of the surrounding neighbors.

Commissioner Timmons commented that she appreciated the public comment regarding the proximity of the parole/probation office in relation to local schools and neighborhood and expressed concern that it should be considered in some way going forward. She is conflicted with the project, as she completely related to the need for the shelter but remained concerned about the security of the neighborhood families.

384
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 10 July 18, 2024

Vice Chair Harrison commented that it seemed like the prior shelter was a horrific situation and there seemed to be an effort in place to do it right this time, unfortunately it would take a leap of faith for the neighborhood to believe that. He agreed with Secretary Brubaker and would lean towards passing the item if the Commission was able to condition the project in such a way the neighborhood is impacted the least. Inspections should also be put in place and the parking situation will need to be resolved.

Commissioner He agreed there’s a need for affordable housing, however, the concern about safety is not unfound and more issues need to be resolved. There would need to be a robust of conditions in place and a strong program of periodic inspections, he would prefer to make his decision after seeing the new package and updates.

Planning Manager Rojas stated if they prepare a package for approval, they can include a robust list of conditions and based on that information, the Commission can approve the CUP or deny it.

Vice Chair Harrison stated that would be his preference to proceed.

Secretary summarized a list of potential conditions to include additional security personnel and measures, access to camera footage, parking requirements need to be sorted out assuming a need for more and not less, an inspection program to update the Planning Commission, and some sort of liaison to the neighborhood, possibly one of the management team, that is bilingual with Spanish, that will enable the neighborhood to communicate their concerns directly with the shelter.

ACTION: It was M/S/C ( He, Brubaker) to Continue the Public Hearing to a Date Uncertain for the Conditional Use Permit to allow conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds at 207 37th Street (APN: 516- 210-020) in the T5MS- O, Main Street Open District to enable staff to prepare a package to approve. Vote: 4-0-3 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Timmons, He ); Noes: None. (Golovets Absent; two seats vacant)

The Planning Commission took a 14 minute break.

The Planning Commission returned with Vice Chair Harrison, Secretary Brubaker, and Commissioners He and Timmons in attendance.

NEW ITEM

2. PLN23-267: Wave Karaoke Club

PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow operation of a karaoke club with on-sale beer and wine (ABC License Type 42) at 5221 Central Ave (APN: 510- 081-055) in CR, Regional Commercial District.

Northern Properties LLC, owner; Tommy Chen, applicant
Planner: Hector Rojas
Tentative Recommendation: Denial

385
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 11 July 18, 2024

Vice Chair Harrison announced the item and stated the applicant requested Public Comment prior to the staff report so those who had been waiting for hours could participate. In addition, there would be a vote to continue past 10:30, or continue the meeting to another night if needed.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

[Vice Chair Harrison Opened the Public Hearing for Public Comment]

Glenn Nate was not present.

Lonnie Holmes spoke on Pam Saucer’s behalf because she had to leave for an emergency. He is in favor of the karaoke club as it provides cultural enrichment, tax revenue, and makes the dreams come true for people who want to be singers.

Yau Lu said he was in favor of the project as it provides a place for young aspiring singers to practice since there was not that option available in school.

Qiping Chen provided comment that she hoped the project opens.

Huina Cheng commented by a translator that he fully supports the club opening.

Steven Zhu commented Richmond is a safer place than the larger cities and needs a club like this for parties.

Yuan Bin Tan expressed he fully supported the project as Richmond needs good entertainment.

Yonglie Tan commented by a translator that he supports the project for more entertainment with his friends and family.

Pam Cheng commented that she supports the karaoke club.

Yu Uing Tse supports the karaoke club as Richmond city is a very boring place. It would provide good entertainment and opportunity.

Maggie Zhang spoke through a translator that they were in support of the project for a place to go after dinner with her friends. She would like to see something open later than 9, and a place to celebrate special occasions and the karaoke gives her a place to practice singing without being too loud at home.

Angela Ye commented that she supports the project as it gives the community a place to enjoy when they aren’t working.

Apostle Frederick Hamilton was not present.

Yan Li Zhu commented by a translator that she supported the project for a place to enjoy in the evenings, it would be a good place to celebrate special occasions.

Ruan commented through a translator that he fully supports the project for a place to hang out in Richmond and job opportunities. It will help the City’s economy.

386
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 12 July 18, 2024

Xiaoyi Wu commented through a translator that he supports the project as it will bring him and his family entertainment.

Bich Haa Vy spoke in favor of the club as it gives her a place to go with her friends.

Men Zhang Hu spoke in favor of the club, and it gives her a place to go when she’s homesick.

Planning Manager Rojas apologized for any mispronunciations and offered to let anyone speak that did not approach the microphone. Several people.

Haixing Wu spoke through a translator and offered support for the project as a place to hang out.

Huina Chen spoke through a translator that she was in support of the project as a place for entertainment and fun with her friends.

JJ McKenna spoke in favor of the project because music is a language of love and healing and there is an outpouring in the community of people in support of a place to enjoy their friends while sharing music. There should not be a reason for the Commission to deny the inclusion of this facility for leisure in a place where there are no homes. This business would be a great asset for the Asian community in Richmond.

Manzuan Au spoke through a translator that he supports the club as a place to relax after work and on the weekends.

The following names were called, and no one approached the microphone:

Charlie Slowkey
Hai Hong Wu
Yu Chen
Jeff Chi
Sagat Cheung
Yao wen Chen
Hui Deng
Leli Lin Chao
Wei Qiang Kuang
Thaywei Bin
Shao Yi Li
Ze Ming
Xianbao Chen
Shenlin Rum
Jeffie Chen
Zin Cheng Do
Jialin Ma
Xinai Qiu

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the Public Comments and called for the Staff report.]

Planning Manager Hector Rojas provided the staff report and stated he had online City Attorney Pam Lee and Richmond PD representatives Christopher Tong and Lieutenant Decious . This is 387
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 13 July 18, 2024

a public hearing to consider a request for a conditional use permit (CUP) to operate a Karaoke Club with on and off -sale beer and wine (ABC License Type 42). Staff recommends the Commission hold a public hearing and adopt Resolution Number 24- 09, denying PLN 23- 267.

The project site is located in the southwest annex neighborhood just north of Central Avenue.

The sight contains two shared buildings, a parking lot with 82 stalls and limited landscaping.

Surrounding land uses include light industrial and residential. The site is zoned CR Regional Commercial, General Plan designation being Regional Commercial mixed use. Much of the interior has been demolished including the walls and to some extent the electrical. Staff noted that within the last two weeks the applicant submitted an application for a building permit that has not yet been issued, however work has already begun. The karaoke club would span two floors with 23 private rooms and 1 VIP room. The applicant has applied for a Type 42 alcohol license for on-sale beer and wine only; if issued minors would not be allowed on premises. The club would have 16 employees plus security personnel and would operate 2 PM to 2 AM daily.

Proposed improvements as part of the CUP are interior remodel of Building B, replacement of 5 rooftop HVAC units on Building B, Conversion of 2 parking stalls east of Building B to ADA - accessible stalls; and installation of a striped pathway between the lobby of Building B and the new ADA stalls. Richmond PD completed a Crime Prevention Through Environment Design Assessment (CPTED) for the project site which indicated there have been 99 calls for service in the last year within 600 feet that included burglary, theft, and vehicle tampering. They responded to 437 calls in the larger vicinity which includes Costco, Wholesale, and the Pacific East Mall. The project site is poorly illuminated during evening hours, the assessment suggested increasing the number and intensity of lighting fixtures throughout the facility to help detour crime during nighttime operation. The result of the assessment indicated that the project site would not be suitable for a karaoke club, even with the lighting, window , security, signage and camera recommendations were implemented because of the parking, access and police surveillance issues. The zoning analysis is included in the staff report and does not meet the standard conditions of approval for uses involving the sale of alcohol, as established by City Code, for lighting, security cameras, sound walls, and windows. The operation of the club at the proposed location would not align with several of the City’s General Plan, thus the project is not consistent with the General Plan. The Richmond Neighborhood Coordinating Council and adjacent neighborhood council were notified, there have been no objections. Staff recommend that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, adopt resolution No. 24- 09, denying PLN 23-267, based on the PD’s CPTED assessment, the project’s noncompliance with the General Plan and the project’s non compliance with the City’s standard conditions of approval for alcoholic beverage sales.

[Vice Chair Harrison called for the applicant’s presentation.]

Daniel Butt, attorney for the applicant, spoke on behalf of Tommy Chang, the principal applicant, and noted he submitted a letter to the Commission as well as an email from Lieutenant Decious expressing support for the project in March of 2024. He doesn’t understand why the City won’t engage in conversations to mitigate their concerns. The alcohol license type 42 is on -sale only.

The property is defined under the General Plan as a major activity corridor in Richmond, next to Costco and between the two freeways. The description of the project is a standard karaoke floor plan and all of the private karaoke rooms would have windowed doors and monitored security cameras in each room. The CPTED assessment indicated this project is the same ownership of the karaoke club that shut down and that is incorrect. There are very few areas that allow for clubs in Richmond is this one. Mr. Butt talked about the reason for the CPTED is to establish if a use would be appropriate for the land and area. It isn’t supposed to be used to determine eligibility for businesses. The idea is to do the assessment and find out what’s needed in order to create those businesses opportunities, and what can’t be done. The way to mitigate crime in 388
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 14 July 18, 2024

the area is to put businesses in vacant buildings that would allow for traffic and regular use and natural surveillance. He has never seen the City perform a CPTED for a karaoke business before and it was conducted nine months after the project was submitted. The applicant reached out to the planning department in May to try to mitigate their concerns and find out why they were opposed to the project and the response given was they were just against the project.

Planning staff offered to refund the application fee if they would withdraw the project, and the applicant didn’t want to do that. There is a huge desire for the club and there hasn’t been a single opposition against it. All of the concerns from the planning department are relatively easy things to fix. Attorney Butt went through some of the General Plan land use goals in an attempt to contradict staff’s reasoning for denial.

ACTION: It was M/S/C ( Brubaker, Timmons) to Continue the meeting past 11 PM vote: 4- 0-3 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, He, Timmons); Noes: Agarwal. (Golovets Absent; two seats vacant)

Vice Chair Harrison commented that he felt the project was worth considering to see if there was a way for staff to support it.

Planning Manager Rojas suggested allowing Lieutenant Decious to speak on his initial response versus the latest response. While there are issues that could be mitigatable, when looking at parking and access to surveillance, the site is designed in a way that doesn’t lend itself best to a use such as this. Specifically with the proposed hours of operation. If the hours were different, perhaps the take would be different as well. It’s in a business area where there are no businesses that operate into that late hour. In particular with the layout of the property and the proposed site being isolated toward the rear of the property.

RPD Lieutenant Decious spoke about the difference between his original response and the one after the CPTED Assessment was completed. Originally, he hadn’t done a deep dive analysis and was making a decision based on more topical information. At no point did he give a stamp of approval on any project. When he originally stated he didn’t see any issues with the business, he was basing that on a list of calls for services and reports that were taken for a span of time last year. Those numbers are low because there are no bars or liquor stores in that area. He also wasn’t happy with the closing time being 2 AM and felt a more appropriate closing time might be midnight.

RPD Sargeant K Tong provided insight into the CPTED Assessment and explained what he considered during the analysis. Parking security is an issue due to the site configuration but most importantly, with there being only one access point to the proposed project, it could make response time challenging for first responders in the event of an emergency.

Secretary Brubaker suggested if the Planning Commission is going to deliberate on the item in the near future, a condition of approval needs to be included. The maximum capacity for the building and plans is not consistent with the number of exits and that was found. There is not enough information to understand any resolve to the other items that could be mitigated, and he didn’t know what to expect to come forward.

Attorney Butt responded that generally it’s 10 to 12 spaces per 10,000 square foot building space. The property has multiple opportunities for egress access to the property. Many of the other local dining and bar establishments are also isolated.

389
MINUTES APPROVED AT THE PC MEETING ON NOVEMBER 7, 2024
Planning Commission Minutes 15 July 18, 2024

Commissioner He expressed concern about the parking and circulation of the project and inquired if there is a parking minimum for it’s current zoning.

Vice Chair Harrison suggested that his opinion is the item should be continued and allow staff to do more research and work with the applicant for some of the mitigation measures that the police officers suggested. If they can’t be addressed, that is what the Commission needs. If they can be addressed, a list of suggested conditions would also be helpful to the Commission.

Secretary Brubaker requested an accurate status of the other two karaoke bars upon return to the Commission, and if there have been dispatched calls to those other bars. If the closed bar is the same owner that is submitting this project, he’s like clarification as to what went wrong that caused it to close.

Attorney Butt stated the closed bar is different ownership and they had some challenges with their landlord.

Sargeant Tong added that there was a shooting at the W Club that occurred in 2022, and a commercial burglary at the other location in the Pacific East mall in 2024.

Commissioner Timmons mentioned that she’d be interested in how the other businesses feel about an influx of vehicles at 2 PM and if that would interfere with their daily business.

Attorney Butt stated that in talking with other business owners in that location, they stated that with the proposed business hours, the additional traffic would be less of a problem than with a business that was also open during business day hours.

Commissioner He stated that a traffic study could be useful if at all possible.

ACTION: It was M/S/C ( Timmons, He) to Continue the hearing to a date uncertain for the Conditional Use Permit for a karaoke club with on-sale beer and wine (ABC License Type 42) at 5221 Central Ave (APN: 510 -081-055) in CR, Regional Commercial District ; APN:
510-081-055 to allow staff time to work with the applicant further for ways that may be acceptable for a recommended approval. vote: 4-0-3 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, He, Timmons); Noes: Agarwal. (Golovets Absent; two seats vacant)

[Vice Chair Harrison closed the item and deferred the remaining Agenda items to a future meeting.]

COMMISSION BUSINESS

3. Election of Officers

4. R eports of Officers, Commissioners and Staff

5. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 11:10 p.m.

390
Attachment 9

Planning Commission Agenda Report dated November 7, 2024.

Available via link above or at Planning Division, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804

391
Planning Commission Minutes 1 November 7, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RICHMOND CITY HALL
Council Chambers
November 7, 2024
6:30 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair Jonathan Harrison Gay Timmons Vacant
Bruce Brubaker, Vice Chair Alexander Golovets Vacant
Gay Timmons, Secretary Rachel Lockett

The regular meeting was called to order by Chair Jonathan Harrison at 6:35 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Jonathan Harrison; Vice Chair Bruce Brubaker; Commissioner Alexander Golovets

Absent: Secretary Gay Timmons; Commissioner Rachel Locket

INTRODUCTIONS

Staff Present: Planning Staff: Avery Stark, Principal Planner and Acting Planning Manager; Community Development Director Lina Velasco ; Contractors Sarah Manzano, Ramboll.

Absent: None

MINUTES April 4, 2024; April 18, 2024; June 6, 2024; June 20, 2024; July 18, 2024.

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Harrison) to Approve the Minutes of the April 4, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as revised. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Harrison) to Approve the Minutes of the April 18, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as revised. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Harrison) to Approve the Minutes of the June 6, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as revised. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Harrison) to Approve the Minutes of the June 20, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as revised. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0
392
Planning Commission Minutes 2 November 7, 2024

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Harrison) to Approve the Minutes of the July 18, 2024 Planning Commission meeting as revised. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0

AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR

Chair Harrison stated there were no Consent Calendar items on the Agenda.

[The Commission moved to the Brown Act – Public Forum]

BROWN ACT – Public Forum

[Chair Harrison Opened Public Comment]

Acting Planning Manager Avery Stark indicated there was one public comment on open forum.

Cordell Hindler, member of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council and Richmond resident, provided public comment about the impact on traffic due to the expansion project of Fair Media Hilltop and requested that all neighborhood councils be informed of community outreach meetings.

Chair Harrison requested staff to ensure they are notifying the neighborhood councils of future items.

[Chair Harrison Closed Public Comment and moved the Commission to Item 1]

NEW ITEM

1. PLN24-277: Chevron Modernization Project Annual Compliance Report

PRESENTATION on the Chevron Refinery Modernization Project Annual Compliance Report pursuant to Condition of Approval H5 of Conditional Use Permit PLN11-089 at 841 Chevron Way/100 Chevron Way (APNs: 561-030-001; 561-030-002; 561-030-003; 561-030-005; 561-040-013; 561-040-014; 561-040-015; 561-040-016; 561-040-017; 561-080-001; 561-080-002; 561-080-003; 561-080-005; 561-080-006; 561-080-007; 561-090-003; 561-090-004; 561-100-003; 561-100-009; 561-100-010; 561-100-017; 561-110-020; 561-100-025; 561-100-037; 561-100-038; 561-100-042; 561-100-043; 561-100-044; 561-100-047; 561-100-048; 561-100-049; 561-110-022; 561-100-029; 561-110-034; 561-110-035; 561-110-036; 561-110-041; 561-110-044; 561-390-001; 561-390-003; 561-390-004; 561-390-016; 561-400-008; 561-410-002; 561-410-003) IG, Industrial, General District.

Chevron USA Inc, owner.

Chevron Products Company, A Division of Chevron USA Inc., applicant 393
Planning Commission Minutes 3 November 7, 2024

Planner: Lina Velasco
Tentative Recommendation: Receive and Provide Comments

Chair Harrison announced the item and requested the staff report.

Director of Community Development Lina Velasco introduced contractor Sarah Manzano, of Ramboll, who provided the staff report on the annual update. The Modernization Project consists of construction of a new hydrogen plant and equipment improvements that remove naturally occurring sulfur contained in feedstocks processed at the facility, including modifications to the Refinery’s existing sulfur recovery units (SRUs) (collectively, the Sulfur Removal Improvements). The Project would also construct infrastruc ture improvements to facility piping, utility lines, and electrical systems. The Modernization Project also includes several Project Design Features proposed to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. The Project requires the Refinery to achieve no net increase in “criteria” air pollutants and health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) and no physical increase in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The CUP for the Project requires that, every year beginning after the first full year of Project construction, Chevron submit to the City an annual report documenting compliance with the conditions of approval of the CUP, the mitigation measures and improvement measures in the MMRP, and covering costs and fees of third- party experts retained by the City. Chevron submitted its seventh annual compliance report (see Attachment 1) on August 30, 2024, which covers the period from January 2023 through December 2023. The City contracted Ramboll to verify Project compliance, which includes detailed reviews of the annual report, reviewing emissions estimates, meetings with Chevron, and cross -checking emissions data with the BAAQMD and other agencies, as needed to verify data. Chevron will continue to provide reports detailing compliance with all CUP and MMRP operations obligations and the City will continue to track such compliance via the CUP and MMRP spreadsheets within Tables 1 and 2 of Attachment 1. As various conditions of approval and mitigation measures are complied with and no longer applicable to the project, the Cit y removed these obligations from Tables 1 and 2 in the 2020 annual report and beyond to streamline future City review of the Project’s compliance with applicable requirements. The major Project activity during 2023 was the continuation of field work associated with the removal of instrumentation and electrical equipment located at the old Hydrogen Plant. This report will mostly focus on compliance with the operational conditions of the CUP since minimal construction occurred in 2023. Quarterly reports have been submitted for the duration of construction and Chevron will continue to submit quarterly construction reports until construction is concluded. GHG emissions from construction in 2023 were 10.0 MT CO2e. Tables 1 and 2 within Attachment 1 provide more details about Chevron’s compliance with specific mitigation measures and CUP conditions of approval that apply during the construction period. Thus far, all construction obligations have been met and verified by the City or relevant local or state agency. Pursuant with the City’s approval of the Project, the Project must demonstrate No Net Increase (NNI) in Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPs) and health risks from Toxic Air Pollutants (TACs) compared with 2008-2010 baseline Refinery emissions (Baseline).

The Refinery uses the Operations Emission Tracking Tool (OETT) to calculate CAP and TAC emissions to compare against Baseline. Annual facility emissions must use the same calculation methodology as the baseline calculations in the EIR. Prior to commencing the Modernization project, the City’s consultant, Ramboll, developed the Operation Emissions Tracking Tool (OETT), which calculates emissions of CAPs and TACs from refinery operations, rail, and trucking. The OETT calculates emissions from refinery operations, rail, and trucking. These emissions are combined with shipping emissions and then compared to the Baseline established in the Environmental Impact Report ( EIR). The annual operational emissions must use the same calculation methods as the Baseline emissions, so they are directly comparable.

The direct comparison approach is used to evaluate compliance with the Refinery’s No Net 394
Planning Commission Minutes 4 November 7, 2024

Increase in emissions obligation. As required by the conditions set forth in the CUP, Chevron will work with the City to review emissions annually. Chevron reported the 2023 Refinery utilization to be 80%, and all operational emissions are below the relevant emissions from the baseline period. Staff recommendation is that the Planning Commission receive the annual compliance report regarding compliance with MMRP and CUP requirements for the Project and for members of the public and the Planning Commission to comment on the report.

Chair Harrison inquired if the baseline data is on a continual downward trend or if it is variable year by year. Contractor Sarah Manzano responded that their data indicates it is variable year by year based on activities at the refinery.

Vice Chair Brubaker asked if the data is received through the year or if it looked at as a whole once a year. Contractor Sarah Manzano explained that they review the data once per year, it is the responsibility of Chevron to ensure they stay below the baseline throughout the year.

Ramboll created a tool to calculate the emissions and monitor usage based on the data provided by Chevron.

Vice Chair Brubaker inquired how Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is involved. Contractor Sarah Manzano replied that BAAQMD also reviews the emissions through the emissions inventory. It is slightly different as Ramboll compares the data to the EIR to fairly judge the NONA increase requirement. BAAQMD reviews the emissions inventory on a separate scale.

Commissioner Bruker asked if there was continual real -world monitoring. Contractor Sarah Manzano explained that some units have continual monitoring systems which feeds into their tool for analyzing the data.

Vice Chair Brubaker noted that in one of the minutes approved in this meeting included a report from Chevron and inquired about the timing of this report as an annual report. Community Development Director Velasco stated the report was delayed last year because they found some inscription errors from manual input of data that through the numbers off. It took some time to investigate and figure out where the original error was located.

Tom Leeds, an operations manager with Chevron, provided comments regarding the results of the report and stated that while the 2024 data has not yet been verified, Chevron continues to operate under the baseline emissions allowed. Mr. Leeds provided the history of the modernization project , how Chevron continues to promote education, provide jobs, and continues to benefit the City of Richmond through community programs, scholarships, and economic development. The Modernization project allows Chevron Richmond to improve environmental performance and is a great example of how Richmond can make investments in the facility that also help reduce the carbon intensity of their products , while reducing air emissions overall.

Chair Harrison requested clarification on if the report reflects data solely from the modernization project on not on the site as a whole. Community Director Velasco confirmed that was correct.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

[Chair Harrison opened the item for Public Comment and there was none.]

395
Planning Commission Minutes 5 November 7, 2024

Chair Harrison expressed his appreciation for the presentation and stated he was looking forward to the report next year.

[Chair Harrison closed the item.]

HELD OVER ITEM

2. PLN23-360: CPSA Emergency Housing

PUBLIC HEARING to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds at 207 37th Street (APN: 516-210-020) in the T5MS-O, Main Street Open District. This item is continued from the July 18th Planning Commission meeting.

Joanne Joey Tang, owner; Gregory VanMechelen, applicant Planner: Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner

Tentative Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Chair Harrison announced the item and requested the staff report.

Acting Planning Manager Stark introduced Contract Planner Virgina Morgan of MIG who provided the presentation for the Planning Commission.

Contract Planner Morgan, MIG , explained that the applicant and architect, Gregory VanMechelen, is requesting a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter for up to 25 persons. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at two previous public hearings on June 6 and July 18, 2024. Following a staff presentation of State law and public comment at the most recent hearing on July 18
th, the Commission directed staff to prepare findings and draft conditions to support approval within the allowable framework of State law. Specifically, local agencies may only apply adopted objective standards, and State law limits local agencies review of emergency housing shelters, similar to all housing projects. The subject site is developed with an existing 5,045-square-foot office building that is currently vacant. The building is in disrepair, including dilapidated wood screening, peeling paint, and litter around the site. The parking area at the rear of the building includes minimal landscaping and three parking spaces, which do not meet the required stall length nor include any accessible spaces. The subject property has been mostly vacant for the last few years, with the exception of May to August of 2023, when the structure was used as an emergency shelter .Starting in May of 2023, the nonprofit California Portsmouth Square Association (CPSA) assisted the City of Richmond and the nonprofits 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. The residents primarily consisted of women, some of whom had children. No land use permits were needed at the time since the City was involved with the three-way arrangement to address an emergency situation at the Castro encampment.

Subsequently, in early August 2023, the Fire Department advised Community Development staff that the use could not continue because the structure had code deficiencies that did not allow for housing-type use. The City discontinued its involvement with CPSA, and the occupants moved out in August of 2023, at which point the use was fully discontinued. The applicant proposes converting the existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds.

The facility would provide housing; individual residents would individually obtain supportive 396
Planning Commission Minutes 6 November 7, 2024

services based on their case management programs, such as therapist, vocational, and occupational and related services, as detailed in Exhibit A, page 1. The shelter facility would include seven rooms (six dorm -style and one private), a women’s restroom, a men’s restroom, one private restroom, an entertainment room, a dining hall, an office area for management staff, and a rear courtyard area. The primary entrance would be on 37th Street, and an accessible entrance would be provided on Bissell Avenue, through the rear courtyard. Residency would be limited to six months or less. Exterior improvements to the site include adding egress windows at the rear of the building to comply with building codes for the new occupancy type, a 30- square-foot addition to accommodate a rear vestibule and wheelchair access ramp, and removal of existing non-compliant parking stripes. The newly striped parking area would include three parking spaces (including two tandem spaces and one accessible space), five short term bicycle parking spaces, a new wheelchair ramp at the rear of the building, a new 340-square- foot courtyard area at the rear of the building, a refuse area with screening wall in the center of the parking area, and a six -foot-tall fence (including a metal person gate and rolling vehicle access gate) surrounding the parking area for security purposes. Page 4 of 10 Agenda Item #2 CPSA Emergency Housing (PLN23- 360 November 7, 2024 . Per the applicant’s description, CPSA would not directly hire service providers for the shelter. Instead, individual residents would be placed at the shelter with existing management plans in place. CPSA would solely provide staffing management/security personnel responsible for intake, supervising residents, and any other daily requirements of shelter operations. State law does not allow the City to reduce occupancy beyond what is identified in the current regulations; in this case, up to 25 beds are allowed in accordance with RMC Section 15.04.610.180. The proposed emergency shelter use is conditionally allowed in the T5MS-O (T5 Main Street – Open) zone and does not require Design Review pursuant to RMC Section 15.04.805.010. The proposed improvements are consistent with the development standards outlined in RMC Section 15.04.402.050. The proposed use is also subject to standards for emergency shelters in accordance with RMC Section 15.04.610.180. With the addition of conditions of approval, the proposal would be compliant with all applicable standards.

Chair Harrison requested information on whether staff could tie cameras into the Police Department. Community Development Director Velasco responded that it could be added as a Condition for approval if the Planning Commission wished. Chair Harrison responded that he was interested in tying the outdoor cameras to the police Department.

[Chair Harrison opened the Public Hearing and requested the applicants presentation.]

Lonnie Holm es spoke on behalf of the owner as the applicant and requested that the Commission requested an attorney to oversee the ruling and provide findings as to whether hate speech can be limited. Staff recommendation on item number six regarding security, one would need probably cause to make contact with someone on the street; the language may need to be modified. Item number 14, regarding trash on the sidewalk, which is public property and not the responsibility of the shelter. Item number 16, the applicant requested modification of that language as they can not control parking on the public street, but they will agree to make posts requesting staff avoid parking on Bissel. Item 23, the applicant requested the language to be modified to include compliance time frame of ten days if inadvertently missed due to circumstances out of the applicant’s control. Item 24, regarding consent of inspection, increase notice from 24 to 72 hours, possible HIPPA violations with turning over records. There should be a compliance period before revocation. Item 26, the applicant requests there be a notice and compliance time frame of 42 prior to applicant revocation or modification. Item 27, the applicant requested that the time frame regarding the administrative compliance required by Richmond not be included in the two year period for final approval. Item 28, the indemnification clause is 397
Planning Commission Minutes 7 November 7, 2024

overly broad, and the applicant request ed that it be modified regarding so negligence by the agency, with the requested changed to be supplied to city staff within fifteen days. Staff have the applicant’s response that was submitted on November 1, 2024 based on recommendations Mr. Holmes received a few days prior. Since that time some of those items have been modified to reflect requested changes.

Gregory VanMechelen, the applicants architect, stated that the alternate plan for the fence that has not yet been adopted, there is no gate in the fence. He proposed that they provide an enclosed wood fence, six feet high on the west side and four feet night on the north (street) side which allows observation without changing privacy. The person gate would match the four foot fence. He was pleased to hear that they should work with the building department regarding parking, which enforces accessibility parking. Item 1D, the roof for the waste containers, Waste Management District requires 96 gallon rolling carts. A roof would inherently crowd the small exterior space. The elements are less than four feet high and would fit behind a four foot fence.

Item 10 the main entrance, the applicant believes the best place for bicycle parking is within the fence rather than outside the fence. Item 11, ease of access, they have already installed a knocks box for the facility. That was the request of the fire department for ease of access to the facility if needed. Item 16 for parking conduct, there are limitations for what they are allowed to control. It should be reasonable to allow some parking on Bissel on the north side of the building up to the point of the parking area, in front of the building.

[Chair Harrison called for Public Comment.]

PUBLIC COMMENTS

Ronald Sanchez, Richmond Resident, spoke against the project for security reasons. The building doesn’t have a space for parking. Parking permits may help the parking situation, but they won’t help the people camped outside. There is a middle school one block away and the intent of the building is to shelter criminals being let out on parole.

Cordell Hindler, member of the Park Plaza Neighborhood Council, clarified that the project is part of Park Plaza and part is in Pulman. He is concerns were also against the project due to the safety of the neighborhood and the children walking to and from school.

Robert Sloat, Richmond resident, provided public comment against the project but recognized there is a need for a shelter. The zoning laws are in place for the safety of the residents and those should not be ignored. The period with the highest number of calls to police was during the time the shelter was shut down. There are safety concerns regarding the middle school that is located a block from the site, with some students already in therapy due to traumas. There is already an element of safety concerns for that corridor, a shelter will make it worse. The building was zoned for an office building, not an overnight shelter.

Andrea Costa, Richmond resident, spoke against the project because it is a shelter for criminals, not Richmond families, which raises a number of safety concerns. It will attract crime, prostitution, drugs, and the shelter would not be responsible for any illegal dumping that could occur. There are already issues at the City Bank. Poor economic development is already a problem along the corridor . Additionally, a shelter would bring down property values for residents who have invested everything they have into their homes and their businesses.

Sergio Joshua Vega Vargas, Richmond resident, provided public comment and spoke against the project due to the issues from the prior shelter surrounding dumping, drug paraphernalia, 398
Planning Commission Minutes 8 November 7, 2024

fighting and crime. Anything that happens outside of the property, the shelter has no recourse for action. It will become the police’s problem, and they are not staffed to handle additional issues along the corridor. It’s a safety issue for the school a block away.

Naomi Williams, Richmond resident and president of the Pulman neighborhood, provided public comment stating she did not receive any notification for the project and spoke against it due to safety concerns. None of the residential community are in favor of the shelter. Parolees should not be living next to a bank and a block away from a middle school. There are many other places in Richmond more suitable for a shelter for parolees.

John stated he is not against shelter, rather a shelter in that neighborhood due to the safety concerns. The applicants have not given any thought about the impacts of the residents already in their homes. There are three schools in the vicinity, one of them is an elementary school. The shelter will put children walking to school in jeopardy.

Roxanne provided public comment against the project as a neighbor directly adjacent to the site. The number of meetings this item is taking to be approved should be an indication that it is putting the immediate community at risk. She also did not receive a notification prior to this meeting. It’s unfair that the noticing is not being made. The residents of the neighborhood are working families who all chip in to keep the area safe and clean. The prior shelter had many issues, this new one will be the same.

Sabian addressed safety concerns, and the last few years the neighborhood has worked hard to improve safety and increase values. Adding a parolee shelter will sharply decrease values and residents will lose their equity. Most families have invested all they have into their homes.

[Chair Harrison brought the item back to the Commission to hear the applicants rebuttal.]

Mr. Holmes spoke about the former residents and the background checks for residents of the former shelter. There were zero incident reports and zero arrests. The shelter applicants are also members of the community who want to see the area safe.

Mr. Vega supplied a community rebuttal on behalf of the neighborhood and the community members who spoke. There have been police calls made and there have been times when they were so busy they weren’t able to come. There is a history of armed violence on the priority.

[Chair Harrison closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.]

Vice Chair Brubaker spoke about the concerns of the community and most of them touch on safety. The CUP outlines conditions of approval and they were designed to address the safety concerns. The community believes it is not enough. There has also been mention as to whether or not this facility qualifies as an emergency facility because it’s not a temporary shelter.

Assistant City Attorney James Atencio explained that the City has reviewed the applicants letter from November 1, and his office is comfortable with staff’s recommendations. As far as the emergency shelter classification, staff has made the determination, and his office concurred that the proposed use would be an emergency shelter. With respect to conditions that would be imposed, the Planning Commission can approve an application with conditions that are imposed by the Commission as recommended by staff and if the applicant doesn’t agree to those conditions, the applicant has the right to appeal the conditions to City Council. 399
Planning Commission Minutes 9 November 7, 2024

Community Development Director Velasco added that part of what determines an emergency shelter is the period of occupancy. The shelter is a temporary shelter, not a permanent place of residency.

Vice Chair Brubaker inquired about the Department of Corrections involvement in determining the classification of the shelter. Community Director Velasco answered that some of the individuals may come through the Department of Corrections but not exclusively. Principal Planner Stark added that according to California code 66582 emergency shelter is a housing with a minimal support of support for homeless persons that is limited to occupancy of six months or less by a homeless person. No individual or person shall be denied emergency shelter because of an inability to pay.

Chair Harrison expressed frustration that conditions two and three cannot be met in terms of the impacts on the neighborhood, in part because the applicants already expressed that they would not be able to meet them and thus does not support the application.

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Harrison, Golovets) to Continue the item to a date certain of December 19th to allow staff to return with alternate findings that the conditions cannot be met specifically regarding the safety, noise, and potential shelter resident activities that are incompatible with the neighborhood and surrounding uses for t he Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion of an existing office building into an emergency shelter with up to 25 beds at 207 37th Street (APN: 516- 210-020) in the T5MS-O, Main Street Open District, based on the history of the prior shelter and the number of those residents being less than what is currently proposed. vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Golovets ; Absent: Timmons, Lockett); Noes: 0

[Chair Harrison closed the item.]

COMMISSION BUSINESS

3. R eports of Officers, Commissioners and Staff

Acting Planning Manager Stark reported that the department will be hiring two additional planning technicians within the next two weeks. It will be nice to be able to handle the requests of the residents in the normal fashion through walk -ins, on the phone and via email. They are also in the process of recruiting for additional senior planner to help facilitate the Historic Preservation Commission, long range planning, advanced planning, and general maintenance of ordinances.

Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.

400
Attachment 11

Planning Commission Agenda Report dated December 19, 2024

Available via link above or at Planning Division, 450 Civic Center Plaza, Richmond, CA 94804

401
Planning Commission Minutes 1 December 19, 2024

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, RICHMOND CITY HALL
Council Chambers
December 19, 2024
6:30 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS

Chair – Jonathan Harrison Alexander
Golovets
Vacant
Bruce Brubaker, Vice Chair Rachel Lockett Vacant
Gay Timmons, Secretary

The regular meeting was called to order by Vice Chair Harrison at 6:33 p.m.

ROLL CALL

Present: Chair Jonathan Harrison; Vice Chair Bruce Brubaker; Secretary Gay Timmons

Absent: Commissioner Alexander Golovets; Commissioner Rachel Lockett

INTRODUCTIONS
Staff Present: Planning Staff: Senior Planner Matt Neuebaumer; James Atencio, City Attorney’s office; Acting Planning Manager Avery Stark

Absent: None.

MINUTES –
October 17, 2024 and November 7, 2024

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Timmons) to approve October 17, 2024 and November 7, 2024 draft meeting minutes, which carried by the following vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Timmons Noes: None; Absent: Golovets, Lockett).

AGENDA

CONSENT CALENDAR –

Chair Harrison stated there were no Consent Calendar items on the Agenda. [The Commission moved to the Brown Act – Public Forum]
BROWN ACT – Public Forum

Cordell Hendler, resident, reminded the Planning Commission to direct staff to let applicants discuss projects with the applicable Neighborhood Council. [The Commission moved to Item 1]

402
Planning Commission Minutes 2 December 19, 2024

NEW ITEMS

1. PLN24-273: Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Relief Application PUBLIC HEARING to consider a relief request to connect a new Single-Family dwelling to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer line per Section 8 of Ordinance No. 03-23 at 707 Golden Gate Avenue (APN: 558-242-012) RL-2, Single Family Low Density Residential District.

Stephen Parker, owner/applicant
Planner: Matthew Neuebaumer
Tentative Recommendation: Conditional Approval

Chair Harrison announced the item and called for staff’s report.

Senior Planner Matt Neuebaumer stated the item was for the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Relief Application. It is a public hearing to consider a Relief Request to connect a new single- family dwelling to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer (KBSS) Line per Section 8 of Ordinance No. 03-23.

The sewer line was constructed in 1959 and is approximately 5,392 linear feet. It is located off Keller Beach within the San Francisco Bay, and it is submerged during average tides. Approximately 290 parcels are connected to the existing sewer line. In 2021, the City received a Commission study and assessment on the Keller Beach System. The study indicated that the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Line had reached the end of its useful design life , vehicular access to the beach was challenging , limited walkability due to existing terrain, and development of private property. As a result, the City Council adopted four ordinances over the past three years establishing and extending a moratorium on the issuance of building permits requiring sewer connections to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer Line. Ordinance No. 03-23 was adopted by the City Council on Aprill 4, 2023, and it was an interim ordinance establishing a twenty-two month and fifteen-day extension of the Urgency Ordinance No. 02-23. The ordinance is currently in effect until Tuesday, February 19, 2025. Section 8 of Ordinance 03-23 states that any person who has applied for a permit from the City to construct a project requiring a Keller Beach sewer connection on or before February 21, 2023, may submit to the Planning Commission an application requesting relief from the moratorium currently in effect. The Historic Preservation Commission approved the single-family home on October 13, 2020, and those entitlements are active and remain valid. The applicant also submitted a Building Permit on September 26, 2022, and paid the associated building permit plan check fees on January 17, 2023.

Staff has verified that only two properties meet the requirements in Section 8 of Ordinance No. 03- 23 for sewer relief from the current moratorium. Staff coordinated with the Deputy Director of Public Works, who indicated that due to only two single- family homes qualifying for the relief request, it would have a negligible impact. The Deputy Director of Public Works determined that the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer line would have the capacity to accommodate the new sewer connection without affecting stability or service to existing users. The Deputy Director’s findings are included as an attachment to the staff report. The Planning Commission shall make findings as to the applicant’s reasonable, investment -backed expectation; reasonable, economic use of subject property; the timing and impact of adding the KBSS connection; and if the impacts to the Project are reasonable under the circumstances. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 24-11, approving the proposed Relief Request, subject to conditions.

[Vice Chair Harrison opened the Public Hearing and called for the applicant’s presentation.]

Stephen Parker, applicant, stated that construction would ideally start around March or April of next year and should be completed in approximately ten months. 403
Planning Commission Minutes 3 December 19, 2024

PUBLIC COMMENT
A member of the public stated that she was signing in from a State of California device not representing the State but coming with technical knowledge and questions about the project. She stated that she was a new neighbor in the vicinity of the subject site, and expressed concerns about traffic planning, storm water drainage, seismic concerns of separation distances between the proposed building and existing buildings.

Chair Harrison explained that the Commission was strictly addressing whether or not the property can be connected to the sewer system through a variation from the ordinances controlling that.

[Chair Harrison closed the Public Hearing and brought the item back to the Planning Commission]

Vice Chair Brubaker commended the staff for a straightforward and clear depiction of the issues and the clear presentation of the findings.

[Chair Harrison closed the item and moved on to Item 2]

2. PLN23-360: CPSA Emergency Housing

Joanne Joey Tang, owner; Gregory VanMechelen, applicant Planner: Virginia Morgan, Contract Planner
Tentative Recommendation: Denial
Chair Harrison announced the item and advised that should the denial go forward, the applicant can appeal to the City Council by January 2, 2025.

Vice Chair Brubaker stated that the project agenda report was well put together, the findings are conclusive, and it is a good job of presenting all of the issues.

Chair Harrison stated that the challenge was getting the applicant and the neighborhood to dialogue with one another. Hopefully that dialogue can occur in the near future so the project can be resolved.

ACTION: It was M/S/C (Brubaker, Timmons) to approve the Planning Application PLN24 - 273, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in the resolution, and that the Planning Commission allow the applicant to connect to the Keller Beach Sanitary Sewer System, vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Timmons); Noes: None. (Absent: Golovets, Lockett)
ACTION: It was M/S/C ( Timmons, Brubaker) to adopt Resolution No. 24-06, denying the planning application PLN23-360, vote: 3-0-2 (Ayes: Harrison, Brubaker, Timmons); Noes:

None. (Golovets, Lockett)
404
Planning Commission Minutes 4 December 19, 2024

COMMISSION BUSINESS

3. Reports of Officers, Commissioners and Staff

Acting Planning Manager Avery Stark introduced Senior Planner Matt Neuebaumer, and he also introduced recently hired Planning Technicians Nino and Nora. Senior Planner Michelle Morris will be coming from the City of Oakland and will begin overseeing long- range planning and advanced planning on January 6, 2025
Commissioner Brubaker inquired about the possibility of asking for a staff update to the Commission on the status of Hilltop and include the item in it.

4. Adjournment - The meeting was adjourned at 6:57 p.m.

405
APPLICATION NUMBER PLN23-360;APN 516-210-020; DATE OF HEARING DECEMBER 19, 2024

1 | Page

CPSA [Hereinafter Applicant], hereby request that the following statement be read into the record in preparation for tonight’s hearing and that it be included as an attachment and read into the record and becomes an official part of the City of Richmond planning commission meeting.

We further request that it be reflected in the minutes of the subject meeting.

Applicant further request a continuance of the hearing in consideration of the following:
 APPLICANT DID NOT REFUSE CONDITIONS PROPOSED

BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Contrary to the current staff report, and the statements made by Commissioner Jonathan Harrison during the hearing on November 7, 2024, Applicant never rejected the proposed conditions.

The applicant merely requested modifications [ if feasible] and clarification regarding the scope of the conditions to better understand the proposals and proposed conditions.

The conditions were never rejected and making simple inquiries does not constitute a rejection of the proposed conditions.

Applicant therefore requests that the hearing be continued for reconsideration.

Applicant also request waiver of any and all appellate fees to appeal the matter to the Governing Body or City Council if the request for continuance is not granted.
 APPLICANT WAS SOLICITED BY THE CITY OF

RICHMOND TO ENGAGE IN THIS VENTURE ON THE
CITY’S BEHALF AND TO BENEFIT THE CITY AND IS
NOW BEING SUBSEQUENTLY TARGETED FOR DENIAL.
406
APPLICATION NUMBER PLN23-360;APN 516-210-020; DATE OF HEARING DECEMBER 19, 2024

2 | Page

Contrary to the assertions of the commission and the staff report, this project was approved by the City of Richmond and was a functioning entity/nonprofit organization acting directly under the authority of the City of Richmond.

In reliance upon this authority, entity/nonprofit organization and applicant expended significant nonprofit resources, engaged in subleases and contracts and is financially and contractually committed to several third parties resulting in significant financial exposure to CPSA. Denial of the application will result in a significant financial blow to the organization and expose it to several third party lawsuits.

Additionally, it should be noted that this program was originally The City of Richmond’s program and will remain a program Conducted On Behalf Of the City of Richmond. Applicant is being treated unfairly and inaccurately portrayed as a rogue entity attempting to disrupt a neighborhood, when in fact, entity/CPSA was at all times acting on behalf of the city of Richmond.
 BARRAGE OF HATEFUL RACIALLY CHARGED

CONDUCT BY ATTENDEES AT THE SUBJECT MEETING

IN WHICH NO ACTION WAS TAKEN BY THE CITY OF

RICHMOND PLANNING COMMISSION
Applicant has been subjected to a barrage of hateful and discriminatory conduct by several members of the community including the use of blatant illegal racial slurs such as “Niggers”, and “Go Back to Africa” among other threats.

Therefore, applicant believes that it has never been given a fair and impartial hearing. Applicant has due process rights including equal protection under the laws.

There is no demonstrative evidence of any criminal activity at the subject site, only speculation, and conjecture recited by a few loud and bolsters members of the community.
407
APPLICATION NUMBER PLN23-360;APN 516-210-020; DATE OF HEARING DECEMBER 19, 2024

3 | Page

Richmond is a “Drug Ridden City” and this project is an opportunity to mitigate the impact of such substance abuse upon the City.

Nonetheless, Applicant is being treated unfairly because Applicant is being task with completely resolving the cities drug problem and ensuring that crime will not occur, when neither the US Government, the State of California nor the City of Richmond have been able to do so.

CPSA should be given proper consideration by the planning commission to realize that CPSA is providing a service to the community to mitigate the City’s current drug problems and is not a disservice to the community, nor harmful to the city, in spite of hyperbole and diatribe from a few members of the community based entirely upon hearsay.

As a public entity, the planning commission is obligated to do a further analysis as to whether this venture would be a root cause of increasing crime in the neighborhood.

Reliance upon hearsay is insufficient to establish a denial of the subject application. In fact, a more scientific and reasoned approach will reveal that CPSA is providing a service which will mitigate crime, drug use and substance abuse in the area, substantially benefiting the City of Richmond.

The racial comments referenced herein above and corresponding conduct were made and committed openly during the various meetings and no action was taken to curtail or prevent such conduct. Most egregiously, the comments, threats and hate speech was simply ignored by the planning commission.

Additionally, the conduct in question was prohibited by Resolution Number 106.16 adopted December 6, 2016 by the City of Richmond.

The planning commission had a duty to take affirmative action to ensure that the applicants had a fair hearing, free of hate speech and attacks.

Nonetheless, no action was taken.
408
APPLICATION NUMBER PLN23-360;APN 516-210-020; DATE OF HEARING DECEMBER 19, 2024

4 | Page

Although free speech is protected, hate speech is not protected in a public meeting. See Acosta v. City of Costa Mesa, 718 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 2013), and Steinburg v. Chesterfield County Planning Comm’n, 527 F.3d 377 (4th Cir. 2008),
Officials presiding over such meetings have a duty and obligation to cut off speech which they reasonably perceive to be, or imminently to threaten, a disruption of the orderly and fair progress of the discussion, whether by virtue of its irrelevance, its duration, or its very tone and manner.

Conclusion: Applicant request a continuance of the hearing for reconsideration of its application and an opportunity to meet with planning commission staff prior to the next meeting to resolve any concerns with the conditions, and to determine whether modifications of any of the conditions are appropriate.

CPSA Electronically Acknowledged and Signed.

Date: December 19, 2024.

409

Page 1 of 2 ends

Richmond City CouncilMarch 4, 2025

Richmond City Council
March 4, 2025