Following a punt by the Design Review Board, the Planning Commission will take up consideration of the horrible Marina Point Project. (https://www.grandviewindependent.com/richmond-planning-commission-to-review-222-new-housing-units-across-three-sites/)

 

Item 3 on the Planning Commission Agenda:
“PLN23-117 Marina Point Residential Project Public hearing to consider the Design Review and vesting tentative map of 70 new single-family units and 30 Junior Accessory Dwelling Units (JADUs) on a 4.92-acre site at Terminus of Marina Way APN (560-181-121)
CM-5 Commercial Mixed-Use, Activity Center GUARDIAN COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE, L.P, owner, Glen Powles, applicant Planner: Avery Stark
Tentative Recommendation: None”

 

This project is unique in that the City (I would argue erroneously) conceded that it lost its ability to impose density-related and other conditions “due to a procedural error under SB 330.”

 

How did this happen? No one is talking, but we do know that the person heading the Planning Department at the time, Hector Rojas, mysteriously bailed out of Richmond and ended up as Vallejo’s
planning director. Was it incompetence, corruption, or something else? We just don’t know, but there was a serious lapse of civic responsibility.

 

For more background, see, “Marina Point Proposal is Richmond Riviera
All Over Again – Except Worse and ”
Design Review Board Caves on Marina Point”

 

From the staff report (For the full staff report, see
3_PLN23-117_MARINA-POINT-RESIDENTIAL_DEC-10-2025):

 

 

Both SB 330 and the City’s staff report are so focused on density that the City is missing a significant opportunity to impose conditions on the project design. The Office of the City Attorney
should be advising the Planning Commission on tis rather than hiding out.

 

The key to this is that SB 330 does not provide a free pass to bypass CEQA. Section 655896.5 (d)(5)(e) states, “Nothing in this section shall be construed
to relieve the local agency from complying with the congestion management program required by Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 65088) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the California Coastal Act of 1976 (Division 20 (commencing with Section 30000) of the Public
Resources Code). Neither shall anything in this section be construed to relieve the local agency from making one or more of the findings required pursuant to Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code or otherwise complying with the California Environmental
Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code),” which is CEQA.

 

The staff report erroneously states:

 

 

However, an exemption under a Class 32 Section 15332 requires:

 

(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as
with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

(b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban
uses.

(c) The project site has no value, as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

(e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

 

The project does not meet the test of “The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable
zoning designation and regulations” and should not qualify for a Section 32 exemption.

 

Following are numerous General Plan policies to which the project does not conform:

 

• Table 3.3 Activity High-Intensity Mixed-Use (Major Activity Center): “ Includes mid and high-rise mixed-use development at major activity centers
  to serve the community and region. Office, retail, entertainment and residential uses are allowed. Areas with this designation are characterized by streets with minimal setbacks,
  wide sidewalks and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders. Medium-Intensity Mixed-Use (Commercial Emphasis) is allowed within this land use designation.” The project is clearly not an “activity center.” It does not have “wide sidewalks
  and public spaces that cater to pedestrians and transit riders.”

 

• Policy LU1.1 Policy LU1.2  “Higher-Density and Infill Mixed-Use Development Provide higher-density and infill mixed-use development affordable to all incomes
  on vacant and underutilized parcels throughout the City. Ensure efficient use of land and existing circulation infrastructure by: • Promoting higher-density, transit-oriented and pedestrian-friendly development along key commercial corridors, at key intersections
  (community nodes and gateways); and • Supporting local-serving commercial activities in residential areas to provide needed services and amenities close to where people live and work. See also: ED4.1, ED5.1, ED6.1; HW7.1” The projects dos not provide, “provide
  higher-density and infill mixed-use development affordable to all incomes,” and does not provide, “local-serving commercial activities in residential areas to provide needed services and amenities close to where people live and work.”

 

• Action LU1.I “Ferry Terminal Specific Plan Implement the ferry terminal specific plan to develop the area as a higher-density, mixed-use community that includes
  housing opportunities for a range of household income groups including low to moderate income. See also: ED8.A” The project et is not a,
  “ higher-density, mixed-use community that includes housing opportunities for a range of household income groups including low to moderate income.”

 

• Policy LU4.1  Policy LU4.2  Notes: Richmond Shoreline Minimize the impacts of development on the shoreline with special attention to intensity, density, and proximity
  to the water. Conserve, protect and enhance natural and cultural resources along the Richmond shoreline.
  Promote a balance of uses along the shoreline that supports multiple community needs such as economic development, job creation, renewable energy generation, recreation, historic preservation and natural resource protection.*
   The project does not accomplish any of these.

 

• Policy LU5.3 Land Use Compatibility “Minimize conflicts between land uses to protect wetlands, marshlands, and creeks, human and environmental health and safety,
  preserve community character and retain job generating activities that have long-term viability. Types, intensities and ranges of use and development should
  be compatible with existing uses and should minimize or eliminate conflicts that adversely impact wetlands, marshlands, creeks, mudflats, public safety, human or environmental health or generate nuisances. All new development must avoid or mitigate to
  the greatest extent feasible potential negative impacts such as noise, odors, and pollution. Consistent with the City’s Industrial Buffer Zone Ordinance, prohibit the location of residential uses in the area between Harbour Way South and Marina Way South and
  between Interstate 580 and Hall Avenue. Encourage existing larger industries that have surplus land to develop modern industrial parks that could attract new and existing industries and facilitate a reduction of existing and future land use conflicts. New
  development should complement the character and scale of existing neighborhoods, cultural resources, historic structures and landscapes. In particular, existing industrial and residential uses can successfully coexist through well-conceived circulation
  and urban design strategies including buffers (which may be in the form of sound walls and/or enclosed buildings and appropriate transitional habitat zones between wetlands, marshlands, creeks, and mudflats) and transitional uses, rerouting of truck traffic
  and design components that mark transitions in land use. Similar to other cities that host mixed uses, consider requiring land use covenants for new development in areas where new uses may generate a perception of conflict with existing uses. Require sufficient
  visual open space and/or landscaped screening between industrial operations and adjacent residential or recreational activities in order to create adequate buffers. See also: ED7.2; ED8.2; SN4.2”
  The project makes no effort to relate to the adjacent national park and Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front Visitor Center.

 

• Policy LU6.5 High-Quality Design, Planning and Construction “Promote high-quality design, planning, construction and maintenance of development and infrastructure
  projects. Require higher standards for affordable housing, streetscape improvements and
  development proximate to local and regional transit, the shoreline and industrial uses. Provide guidance regarding green building standards, seismic requirements, and
  pedestrian friendly design by implementing the Green Building Ordinance. Promote best practices for crime prevention.”  The project makes no effort to relate to the shoreline. It could be anywhere. The Richmond Ferry Terminal was supposed to be part
  of a transit oriented development, which is the basis for the allowable and encouraged high densities of the site, but this project is just the opposite.

 

• Policy HR1.3 Policy HR1.4 Preservation of Diverse Resources “Protect, preserve and enhance the diverse range of
  historic, cultural and archaeological sites and resources in the City for the benefit of current and future residents and visitors. Adaptive Reuse of Resources Promote adaptive reuse, rehabilitation and retrofitting of historic buildings that are no
  longer in their original use and explore approaches to integrate preservation with economic revitalization objectives. Compatibility of New Development Promote context-sensitive design that respects and celebrates the history and historical character of
  sites and resources while meeting contemporary needs of the community. Encourage compatibility between new development, adaptive reuse, retrofitting and rehabilitating of historic properties and areas in the City within the historical context of the resource.
  Maintain consistency with the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s “Main Street” principles and the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which include guidance for buildings and cultural landscapes. Ensure that
  commercial facilities such as those in the Point Richmond Historic District are developed in a way that complements and preserves the historic, “village-like” appearance and character of the district.” The project design has no relationship to
  the adjacent national park and Rosie the Riveter WWII Home Front Visitor Center.

 

It is ironic that SB 30 was conceived to prevent local jurisdictions from limiting the density of projects that have allowable higher densities. In this case, the developer is using ASB 330 to
force the city to accept a density far below the allowable.
The developers acquired the site with full knowledge of the General Plan’s intent and the community’s clear opposition to the original "Richmond Riviera" project. The flood of State legislation (much of which is poorly written) was intended to build more affordable
housing per site — not less. This is a TOD site and the City Council adopted a resolution supporting a WETA study that committed the City (in principle) to supporting high density on surrounding sites.

 

The City erred in finding the projects in full conformance with CEQA.

 

 

If the city attorney and the Planning Commission fail to do their job next week, the City can expect yet another lawsuit from me.

 

 

 

Want to receive TOM BUTT E-FORUM delivered to your email address?

Click here to sign-up to receive the E-Forum. Tom Butt is the former mayor of Richmond, CA, having served 27+ years until January of 2023, eight of those as elected mayor. Tom Butt is an architect and founder of the 50-year
old Richmond architecture-engineering firm Interactive Resources. He serves on the board of two Richmond nonprofits,
Rosie the Riveter Trust and
East Brother Light Station, Inc. Visit the
Tom
Butt website for additional information about Tom Butt’s activities and a digest of past E-FORUMS going back to 2000,
http://www.tombutt.com. Subscription to this service is at the personal discretion of the recipient and may be terminated by selecting “unsubscribe from
this list” at the bottom of this email. This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental,
political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section
107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml.
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.