RICHMOND — An empty lot next door to Richmond’s Rosie the Riveter Museum was envisioned as part of a major residential and commercial hub meant to spark vitality in the city. A developer wants to put single-family homes there instead.
Guardian Capital, a Southern California development firm, owns a 4.9-acre vacant lot just near a historic World War II landmark – a former Ford plant turned military vehicle assembly site. The developer plans to build 70 single-family homes and 30 accessory dwelling units, a small park, fitness area and pathways.
Of the 70 homes, all marketed for sale, seven would be listed at affordable rates.
“We really wanted to make sure we brought home and linked into the Rosie the Riveter World War II Home Front National Monument,” said Marcia Vallier, a senior landscape architect, while leading a presentation on the project to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s Design Review Board on Monday night.
The proposal is a controversial one. The lot where the project is proposed is part of the Ford Peninsula, one of three hubs called out in Richmond’s General Plan as future major activity centers that could bring “transformative” change, making the city an “economically, culturally and socially thriving community” through concentrated and high-intensity development.
The Ford Peninsula was selected as a major community hub because of its close proximity to a ferry terminal, Highway 580, historic sites and the heavily frequented marina. The specific parcel in question has a high-intensity mixed-use designation which would permit anywhere from 200 units to more than 600 units of housing to be built on the lot.
Between 2023 and 2031, Richmond is expected to welcome 3,614 new homes, as part of the state mandated Housing Element process.
Bryan Wenter, a land use attorney for the developer, said the project adheres to zoning regulations in the general plan because the site could welcome “up to” 125 units per acre. The general plan does not specify a minimum development requirement, he noted during the commission’s meeting.
Regardless of city zoning, Wenter argued the plan presented is the only option that would financially pencil out.
“You have to have a project that makes financial sense and, for better or worse, unfortunately many times projects with higher density are not financially feasible and won’t happen for decades if ever,” Wenter said. “If the obligation is to develop it with something near 125 units per acre, nothing will happen. The site will sit vacant for decades.”
Wenter also explained that the city had “gone dark” on the developers and failed to respond within two legally binding 30-day windows, resulting in the project application being deemed legally complete and consistent with zoning requirements. The project qualifies for an expedited environmental review, needs a subdivision map approval and could require a design review, Wenters said.
Former Mayor Tom Butt called the proposal “disastrous” and the site layout and architecture “horrible” in a newsletter. Butt also asserted the city “abdicated its responsibilities” by allegedly failing to respond to the proposal with a letter finding that the project does not meet land use regulations.
“What a waste of an incomparable site,” Butt said.
Bruce Beyaert, chair of the Trails for Richmond Action Committee, and Šárka Volejníková, Bay Area Parks for People program director, also shared concerns for how the project would impact development of the Richmond Wellness Trail – a bike and pedestrian corridor linking the Richmond waterfront to downtown Richmond.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission members also critiqued the project but for different reasons. A dozen of the proposed homes would fall within a 100-foot shoreline band that’s meant to protect public access and the developers are only proposing to raise the site 3 feet, the minimum amount required to prepare for sea-level rise.
Boardmembers ultimately agreed they’d like to review the project for a second time at a later date.
“We really are at the beginning of a process here even though it might seem like it’s a long way down the track,” said Design Review Board Chair Jacinta McCann. “For a project of this importance and significance … one would have to expect there’s a realistic, legitimate community process.”