Planning Commission

>>> CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:02 . WHAT IS THIS? WHAT IS TODAY? MAY 13th. LET'S START WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE NATION UNDER GOD INDIVISIBLE WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. WILL CALL? [ ROLL BEING CALLED ] DONNA ZIEGLER IS EXCUSED. >> OKAY, WE WILL START OUT WITH OUR CIVILITY STATEMENT. AS YOUR APPOINTED GOVERNING BOARD, WE WILL TREAT EACH OTHER AND THE PUBLIC WITH PATIENCE, CIVILITY, AND COURTESY AS A MODEL OF THE SAME BEHAVIOR WE WISH TO REFLECT IN MARTINEZ FOR THE CONDUCT OF ALL CITY BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. THIS INCLUDES RESPECT FOR EVERYONE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO VOICE THEIR OPINION ON MATTERS WITHIN THE CITY'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION, EVEN IF THAT OPINION IS DIFFERENT FROM OUR OWN. THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT WILL BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MARTINEZ COMMUNITY AND NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN. WE WILL START WITH PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA. THESE ARE NON-AGENDA PUBLIC COMMENT, LIMITED TO MATTERS WITHIN THE SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSION, AND WHICH ARE NOT ACTION ITEMS LISTED ELSEWHERE ON THE AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY ONLINE? NO? SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE TO CONSENT. WE NEED TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTES DATED APRIL 27, 2025. >> I WILL MOTION WE APPROVED THE ACTION MINUTES FROM APRIL 22nd. >> I WILL SECOND. >> LOCAL? >> ? SUSAN MURANISHI? NIKKI FORUNATO BAS? NATE MILEY ? AND . >> TO CLARIFY, COMMISSIONER MARQUEZ, IS ABSTAINED . NOT UP SKEWED -- EXCUSED. >> THANK YOU, ABSTAINED. >> WE WILL MOVE TO THE REGULAR PART OF THE MEETING. SHOULD I GO AHEAD AND READ THE WHOLE THING HERE, MICHAEL? >> NO NEED. >> LET'S GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE STAFF REPORT. SPENT A GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE THE MAIN ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, A PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USED OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS. WORKING WITH A TEAM FROM WRT AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THE FACES OF MATT AND BOB , WHO WE MET AT A JOINT MEETING WHEN WE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED THIS ITEM EARLIER THIS YEAR. WE WILL BE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF TAG TEAMING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS PRESENTATION. A LOT OF THIS IS INFORMATION THAT YOU SAW AT THE JOINT MEETING . WE ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE REPETITIVE TONIGHT'S MEETING AND THAT'S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC AND OTHER MEMBERS WHO MAY NOT HAVE HER THE INFORMATION WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED PREVIOUSLY. THE FOUR MAIN ITEMS WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AS PART OF TODAY'S AGENDA IS, WHY OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ? GOING OVER THE NEW OBJECTIVE AND DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT CHAPTERS AS WELL AS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO OUR CURRENT CODE. GOING OVER THE RECOMMENDATIONS . AND FINALLY, GOING THROUGH THE REQUESTED ACTIONS. WILL WE HAVE DONE TO MAKE THINGS A LITTLE EASIER, ITEMS THAT HAVE CHANGED HAVE LARGELY BEEN BOLTED OUT TO MAKE SURE THOSE STAND OUT FROM THE PREVIOUS TIME THIS WAS DISCUSSED BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. AS INDICATED, THERE WAS A JOINT MEETING ON MARCH 25th OF THIS YEAR, AT WHICH POINT, THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL WERE LARGELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND STANDARDS AS PROPOSED. THERE WERE TWO AREAS WHERE THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. MOST NOTABLY , THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT TEAM TO PREPARE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT RELATE TO BUILDING MASS AND MODULATION. TWO SECTIONS HAVE BEEN CREATED. ONE FOR THE STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY REGULATIONS, AND THE SECOND FOR MIXED-USE. I'VE CITED THE SECTION NUMBERS ON THE SCREEN. SECONDLY, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO DO A HIGH LEVEL EVALUATION OF THE STANDARDS AGAINST THE PROJECT. WE DID MAKE ONE MINOR MODIFICATION RELATED TO WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT THE PROJECT. WHICH WE WILL SPEAK TO AS PART OF THIS PRESENTATION. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT AS PART OF THE RECORD, WE DID HAVE THE DEVELOPER FOR THE AMARE PROJECT ATTENDING JOINT MEETING, WHO WAS LARGELY SUPPORTIVE OF THE REGULATIONS. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS IN REGARDS TO THE TEST FOR THAT PARTICULAR PROJECT. IT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THESE REGULATIONS BEING IN PLACE. THERE WOULD BE SOME FLEXIBILITY UNLIKELY IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT PROJECT HAD THESE BEEN EMPLACED AT THE TIME THE REGULATIONS WENT FORWARD. I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, WHICH WAS EMPHASIZED, IS IT IS A DENSITY BONUS PROJECT. THEY WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO NOT ADHERE TO A NUMBER OF THE STANDARDS. NOW I AM GOING TO ACTUALLY TURN IT OVER TO MATT AND BOB TO GO OVER --AGAIN, LARGELY INFORMATION YOU HEARD PREVIOUSLY. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? IS THIS GOOD? THE REASON WE ARE RECOMMENDING YOU ADOPT OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT AND DESIGN STANDARDS IS THE RESULT OF NEW STATE LAWS. IN SOME CASES, QUALIFYING PROJECTS ARE NO YOUNGER SUBJECT TO YOUR DISCRETIONARY DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS. IT WAS THROUGH THAT DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS THAT CITIES, INCLUDING MARTINEZ, WERE ALLOWED DISCRETION IN TERMS OF REQUIRING MODIFICATIONS TO THE DESIGN TO BEST ADHERE TO THE COMMUNITY STANDARDS. WITH APPROVALS YOU WILL LOSE THAT ABILITY. INSTEAD, THE IDEA IS TO DEVELOP OBJECT STANDERS AS THE STATE LAW REQUIRES , THAT DO NOT AND -- REQUIRE INTERPRETATION, DO NOT REQUIRE A SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEFORE YOU. CHECK THE BOX FOR DEVELOPERS. IN THAT MANNER, THE STATE LEGISLATURE HOPES TO INCREASE PRODUCTION. THE WAY THE NEW STATE LAWS READ IS, ESSENTIALLY PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE TWO MORE --TWO OR MORE MULTIFAMILY UNITS . THEY ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ODDS. IF THEY DO, CITIES CANNOT REDUCE THE DENSITY. CANNOT REDUCE THE FLOOR AREA BUT IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE FOR THOSE PROJECTS. IN THE CASE OF PROJECTS THAT MEETS CERTAIN ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR OTHER STATE LAWS, SUCH AS SB 35, A.B. 2011, I'M SURE MORE TO LEGISLATION DOWN THE ROAD, THOSE PROJECTS ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER TO HAVE MINISTERIAL PROCESSING BY THE CITY. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT , IN PARTICULAR, THE STANDARDS WILL BENEFIT. AS WE SAID AT THE STUDY SESSION, MARCH 25th, OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, REALLY THOSE THAT DON'T REQUIRE US --PERSONAL OR SUBJECT DECISION MAKERS. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE VERIFIABLE , BY REFERENCE, OR EXTERNAL UNIFORM BENCHMARK IN TERMS OF REGULATIONS. MUST BE KNOWABLE TO THE DEVELOPER IN ADVANCE. THE IDEA BEHIND THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS THEY REQUIRE SPECIFICITY , SUCH AS NUMERIC METRICS. YOU HAVE THOSE CURRENTLY WITH YOUR RATIOS, SETBACKS, PSYCH COVERAGE LIMITS, ET CETERA. WE HAVE LOOKED AT THOSE STANDARDS. WRT, WITH EXPERTISE, HAS TRIED TO DISCERN IF THOSE CURRENT STANDARDS WILL ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF THE DENSITIES YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT AS APPROVED. WE'VE MADE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A FEW INSTANCES TO MODIFY THOSE STANDARDS , AGAIN, TO ALLOW FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT FOR HOUSING PROJECTS AT THOSE DENSITIES. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT, AS MICHAEL JUST IT, THAT PROJECTS THAT DO HAVE FIVE OR MORE UNITS, AND MEET CERTAIN AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENTS, ARE ALSO AFFORDED THE ABILITY TO USE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. WHICH NOT ONLY INCREASES THE NUMBER OF UNITS BUT ALLOWS DEVELOPERS TO WEIGH ANY OF YOUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AGAIN, A BIT OF A WILD CARD THERE. >> GETTING INTO THE NEW ODD STANDARDS, --SLIDE. YUP. >> LET'S TRY THAT WAY. >> OKAY, VERY GOOD. WE ARE INTRODUCING TWO NEW CHAPTERS THAT DEAL WITH DESIGN CHARACTER FEATURES AND THEN MODIFICATION AMENDMENTS TO OTHER PARTS OF THE ZONING CODE. LARGELY FOR THE REASONS THAT BOB MENTIONED, WHICH IS TO MAINTAIN THE VISIBILITY OF THE DENSITIES YOU ALREADY ALLOW AND THAT OUR -- ARE EXPECT THAT BY THE STATE FOR YOUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. THE OUTLINES OF THESE SECTIONS, YOU KNOW, ARE AS FOLLOWS. FAMILIAR WITH IT, NO DOUBT, AT THIS POINT. BEGINNING WITH APPLICABILITY. PERMITTED AND CONDITIONAL USES. THIS IS A REFERENCE BACK TO THE UNDERLYING DISTRICTS. AS AN APPROACH, THIS ALSO ILLUSTRATES A GENERAL APPROACH, WHICH IS WHERE RULES ARE IN PLACE , JUST LEAVING THEM ALONE EXCEPT TO WORRY ABOUT THE FEASIBILITY. NOT WANTING TO REVISIT POLICY DECISIONS THAT ARE REFLECTED IN THE ZONING , ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE ZONING. SITE PLANNING STANDARDS , THESE HAVE TO DO WITH HOW IT SITS ON THE SITE, AND WHAT THE BASIC SIZE OF THE BUILDING IS. NO CHANGE IN THE PARKING RATES , ALTHOUGH, THERE ARE REFERENCES TO THINGS ALREADY REQUIRED, SUCH AS THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION . I'M SORRY, RELATED TO DENSITY , AND THEN THERE IS ALSO SOME STATE REQUIREMENTS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH PARKING FOR CERTAIN KINDS OF PROJECTS. OUR KEY CONSIDERATIONS, STANDARD OBJECTIVE , CAN WE GET TO THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY? IS THERE A STANDARD THAT WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE? WE TOOK A REPRESENTATIVE SITE, THIS HAPPENS TO BE HALF A BLOCK IN YOUR DOWNTOWN, NEAR DOWNTOWN AREA . LARGE ENOUGH TO SHOW WHAT A BIGGER PROJECT MIGHT LOOK LIKE, AND SMALL ENOUGH WHERE IT TESTS --A SMALLER SITE IS USUALLY --IT'S HARDER TO GET TO THE ALLOWABLE DENSITY OF THE SMALLER SITES. THIS IS THE SWEET SPOT WITH THAT. IT ILLUSTRATES THE THINGS WE RECOMMENDED , AND ALTERATION OF YOUR METRICS. STARTING FROM TOP AND WORKING YOUR WAY DOWN ON THE LEFT THERE. A REDUCTION IN THE REAR SET BACK FOR GARAGES. BECAUSE WE WANT TO GET THE PARKING FARTHER FROM THE STREET SO THE BUILDING CAN HAVE MORE ACTIVE FRONTAGE ALONG THE STREET , IT'S NECESSARY TO ALLOW PARKING , WHETHER IT IS A SHARED GARAGE, INDIVIDUAL DETACHED GARAGES. ALLOW THAT TO BE CLOSER TO THE INTERIOR PROPERTY LINE. WE LOOKED AT YOUR LAW COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS IN OUR VIEW. REQUIREMENT IN THE R 1.5. IT IS TOO STRINGENT. RELAX AND NOT SLIGHTLY ALLEVIATES TO 65% FROM 75%. BUILDING FRONTAGE, IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS WE OFFERED. REDUCING THE USABLE AMOUNT OF OUTDOOR SPACE. YOUR CURRENT STANDARDS ASSUME A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WITH A YARD . IT WORKS WELL ENOUGH, AS FAR AS TOWNHOUSES GO, BOAT WITH STACKED UNITS, ONCE THEY ARE BOTH ATTACHED AND STACKED, APARTMENT BUILDING, THEY BECOME VERY DIFFICULT TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. FURTHERMORE, THE MODIFICATIONS SPELL OUT HOW YOU CAN USE SHARED IN COMMON OPEN SPACE IN ORDER TO MAKE PART OF THAT REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THE FINAL NOTE ON THE LEFT-HAND SIDE THERE, JUST AS WE ARE MANDATING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF THE FRONTAGE FACING THE STREET, A BUILDING WITH WINDOWS AND ENTRANCES, ALSO ON THE SIDE --ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDINGS, ALSO A REQUIREMENT, BUT NOT ESTROGEN SO YOU CAN MORE EASILY DEAL WITH PARKING ACCESS. THE CROSS-SECTION THAT IS ON THE LEFT OF THEIR SHOWS HOW GOING FROM A TWO-STORY MAXIMUM TO 2.45 STORY MAXIMUM SHOWS HOW YOU CAN DO AN APARTMENT WITH A TOWNHOUSE. AS A SMALL UPPER STORY TO IT. THIS IS A VERY , AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION COSTS GO, VERY AFFORDABLE. IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT , A GOOD WAY TO GET AT THE DENSITIES YOU ARE ANTICIPATING IN YOUR HOUSING ELEMENT. TO THE RIGHT OF THAT IS A REITERATION OF OUTDOOR SPACE AND THE REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND THEN BELOW IS A REITERATION OF THE STREET FACING BUILDING . AGAIN, WANTING TO HAVE WINDOWS AND ENTRANCES FACING THE STREET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. ADDITIONAL CHANGES AND SETBACKS, THIS NOTE ON BUILDING SIZE, THAT IS ACTUALLY AN ALTERATION. I DON'T THINK IT GOT CAUGHT AS PART OF THE AMARE PROJECT. THERE WERE BUILDINGS THAT WERE 34 UNITS. WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT AMENDMENT TO YOUR CODE --THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE JOINT MEETING , BE UP TO 36 DWELLINGS --OR HAS THIS CHANGED? OKAY, IT IS CHANGED, THANK YOU, MICHAEL. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SENSE OF IT. 24 DWELLINGS, 13-ISH OWNED. THE AMARE PROJECT SHOWED 23 AND ONE OF THE BUILDINGS. WE WERE REFLECTING THAT IN THIS CHANGE. OKAY? YEAH. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS SAID CLEARLY. I THINK THERE IS CONFUSION. THE PREVIOUS ITERATION RECOMMENDED 16 UNITS PER BUILDING . THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS 24 , BASED UPON THE AMARE PROJECT WHICH I HAD --WHICH HAD A HIGH OF 23 UNITS IN ONE BUILDING. >> YEAH. FOR THIS FIT TEST, THE SHOWS 13 UNITS. OUR PRIOR RECOMMENDATION WAS 16 UNITS. AGAIN, BECAUSE WE WERE ANTICIPATING SOMETHING MORE LIKE A HALF A BLOCK . MORE TRADITIONAL AREAS. AS BEING A PREFERRED SCALE, BUT THE AMARE PROJECT , WHICH IS ON A MUCH BIGGER SIGH, IN MY VIEW IT IS A VERY WELL DESIGNED FRAUD --PROJECT. A SMALLER UNITS . SOMEWHAT LARGER BUILDING FOR PRINT . I CAN EXPLAIN THAT. IT GOT UP TO 23. THE REASON IS A LARGE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, ALL OF THESE UNITS HAVE AN ENTRANCE FACING IN ONE DIRECTION AND NO CORE DOOR. THE AMARE PROJECT USES A CORE DOOR . DOUBLE LOADED CORE DOOR BUILDING, WHICH MEANS THAT YOU CAN JUST GET MORE UNITS IN A BUILDING THAT IS THE SAME LENGTH. THAT WAS A USEFUL SUGGESTION TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. THAT ROSE OUT OF THE JOINT MEETING. USABLE OPEN SPACE . YARD EXCEPTIONS. THE BUILDING PROJECTIONS. OKAY. THERE IS A MORE --MORE POSSIBILITIES OF BUILDINGS PUSHING OUT INTO THE YARD THEN ARE IN YOUR PRESENT CODE . AND CLARIFICATION IN TERMS OF WHAT METRICS, IN MY VIEW, BETTER FOR THE PROJECTIONS ALLOWED. PARKING SPACE -- OH, THIS IS -- WHEN YOU PUT A LOT OF PROJECTS TOGETHER, AND YOU ARE TRYING TO FIT IT ON A REALLY TIGHT SITE, GOING FROM 9 1/2 FEET PER UNIT FOR EACH SPACE TO NINE FEET PER UNIT REALLY CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IT CAN BE TWO MORE SPACES, WHICH MEANS YOU CAN GET TWO MORE UNITS AND MAKE THE PROJECT JUST THAT MUCH MORE FEASIBLE. SITE DESIGN STANDARDS . WE HAVE TOUCHED ON A LOT OF THESE. HERE IS YOUR USABLE OPEN SPACE STANDARDS. THE ALTERATION IS TO INTRODUCE A LOWER MINIMUM PER SQUARE FOOT STANDARD FOR SMALLER UNITS. STILL REQUIRING PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE. NOT GETTING AWAY WITH THE PRIVATE SPACE ALTOGETHER, BUT RECOGNIZING THAT FOR YOUR DENSER UNITS , BALCONIES AND DECKS, THINGS LIKE THAT , THAT ARE ON THE UPPER FLOORS MAKE PERFECT SENSE. THERE ARE THINGS NOT COVERED BY YOUR CODE THAT WERE INTRODUCED. SCREENING, GROUND-LEVEL UTILITY BOXES. SERVICE AREAS, LANDSCAPE SETBACK. WE WANT TO BOIL IT DOWN TO BEING OBJECTIVE . REQUIREMENTS, MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF HOW MUCH LANDSCAPE... HOW TALL IS THE LIGHT? HOW DO YOU MAKE SURE THE LIGHT DOESN'T SHINE INTO YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? THE BUILDING FACADE WITH --THESE ARE ATTRIBUTES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH BUILDING. WE WENT OVER THEM LAST TIME. ALL OF THEM, EXCEPT FOR THE BUILDING MASKING MODULATION. THAT CAME OUT OF THE DISCUSSION WE HEARD AT THE JOINT MEETING. WE ALREADY INTRODUCE THE IDEA OF THE BUILDING RECESS . THIS IS THE NEW MATERIAL. ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE IT AS A MENU APPROACH. YOU HAVE TO DO AT LEAST ONE. THE OPTIONS ARE THE SAME, EXCEPT FOR THE MIXED-USE. THERE'S ALSO AN OPTION FOR HAVING STOREFRONT CANOPIES . AN AWNING WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE OF A CANOPY. GO OVER THE WINDOWS, GROUND FLOOR AND MAKE IT MORE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. THE OPTIONS, STARTING FROM THE TOP UPPER STORY SETBACK, THAT WOULD BE AN EXAMPLE --AN EXAMPLE OF THAT WOULD BE THE UPPER LEFT IMAGE. YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING RISES UP. AFTER IT GETS TO ABOUT 30 FEET IN HEIGHT IT STEPS BACK. FOR SOME PARTS OF THE FLOOR. THAT IS MODULATING OR SHAPING THE BUILDING BY CARVING SOMETHING AWAY. ANOTHER WAY TO CARVE WOULD BE TO -- A PASSAGE OR ARCADE. YOUR UPPER RIGHT SHOWS LARGE PEDESTRIAN PASSAGE THAT IS GOING INTO THE MIDDLE OF THE BLOCK THERE. IT IS ABOUT THE SCALE THAT IS RECOMMENDED HERE. ANOTHER WAY OF CARVING THINGS AWAY IS THE VERTICAL SIDE --FACADE RECESS. THE LOWER LEFT IS AN EXAMPLE OF THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS RECOMMENDED PREVIOUSLY. THE FACADE PROJECTION. YOU CAN ALSO PUSH OUT. THAT DEALS WITH THINGS, LIKE, BAY WINDOWS. CANOPIES, I MENTION THE STOREFRONT CANOPY. WINDOW CANOPIES WOULD ALSO BE A WAY OF ADDING IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDING. CORNER TOWERS WOULD BE ANOTHER PROJECTION WHERE THERE IS A STREET INTERSECTION, AND WITHIN, I THINK IT WAS 20 FEET OF THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING YOU COULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET OF HEIGHT. THAT'S THE CORNER TOWER. COMPOSITION IS REFLECTED, MAYBE, IN THE LOWER RIGHT, WHICH SHOWS THE TOWER ELEMENTS. THAT'S THE IDEA THAT THE GROUND-LEVEL, THE MIDDLE , AND THE TOP OF THE BUILDING ARE EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY. THAT CAN BE DONE THROUGH THE USE OF --IT CAN BE DONE WITH COLOR, IT CAN BE DONE WITH MATERIAL. HERE IS THE TRIPARTITE ON THE LEFT. THE TOP, WITH THE EAVES AND THE BRACKET ARE OUR WAY OF DOING THAT. THE STOREFRONT CANOPY OR THE WINDOW CANOPIES. >> I WANT TO INTERJECT FOR A QUICK SECOND. AS MATT INDICATED, THE WAY THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE DRAFTED, IT'S A MENU APPROACH FOR THE BUILDING MASSING AND MODULATION. AS DRAFTED, AS MATT INDICATED, WE ARE RECOMMENDING JUST ONE ITEM FROM THE MENU BE REQUIRED FOR PROJECTS. THAT IS, IN PART, TO THE SPLIT DECISION WE HEARD AT THE JOINT MEETING THAT WE ARE CERTAIN COMMISSIONERS AND MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL WERE LEANING TOWARD STILL ADD THE ADDITIONAL STANDARDS. AND SOME LEANING TOWARDS WE DO WANT TO ADDRESS MASSING. WE TRIED TO FIND A HAPPY MEDIUM. THAT IS SOMETHING THE COMMISSION COULD GIVE DIRECTION ON IF YOU WANTED A HIGHER NUMBER OR LOWER NUMBER OF THOSE STANDARDS TO BE REQUIRED. >> THANKS. THIS IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF THE METRICS WITH STREET FRONTAGE STANDARDS. YOU'VE GOT BUILDING AND WINDOWS, ENTRANCES FACING THE STREETS. NOT LESS THAN 50% OF THE STREET FRONTAGE WITH THE BUILDING. ENTRY REQUIREMENTS, ALSO, ATTACHED TO THE FACADE STANDARDS. YOU WOULD MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING ALONG THE STREET. YOU ARE 25%, 25 FEET. WHICHEVER IS GREATER. 25 FEET IS WHAT YOU NEED FOR A DRIVEWAY AND NORA PATH --NARROW PATH ALONG IT. THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED, AS LONG AS YOU'RE GETTING THESE --ADDRESSING THE STANDARDS. OKAY, WE LOOKED AT THIS BEFORE. THE TYPES OF ENTRANCES. BECAUSE ENTRANCES ARE SO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACTIVITY, AND ALSO BECAUSE THEY ARE HIGH-LEVEL ALONG THE STREET , THEY ARE SUGGESTIVE OF NEIGHBORHOOD LIFESTYLE. WE DRILL INTO THOSE A LITTLE MORE IN THE STANDARDS. FACADE DESIGN . WINDOWS, MAKING SURE NOT HAVING BLANK WALLS ALONG THE STREETS. SOME ATTENTION TO THE EXTERIOR MATERIALS. OUR RIGHT PROHIBITING CERTAIN MATERIALS THAT ARE GENERALLY PROBLEMATIC. ATTENTION TO HOW THE MATERIALS ARE APPLIED. IN OTHER WORDS, THOUGHTFUL DETAILING. NOT CHANGING A MATERIAL ON AN OUTER CORNER, WHICH MEANS YOU SEE IT AS BEING A VENEER THEM BUT RATHER CHANGING MATERIALS ON AN INTERIOR CORNER BECAUSE IT IS TWO MATERIALS COMING TOGETHER, YOU CANNOT SEE WHAT IS BEHIND IT. YOU WOULDN'T KNOW IT IS VENEER. ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING WE INTRODUCED WE THOUGHT WAS IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS. STANDARDS FOR FACADE COMPATIBILITY. PERHAPS ONE OF THE MORE CHALLENGING FOR OBJECTIVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. IT IS SOMEWHAT CHALLENGING TO DEAL WITH COMPATIBILITY ISSUES , BECAUSE THE CONTEXT IS ALWAYS CHANGING, RIGHT? YOUR NEIGHBORS MIGHT --IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM PROJECT TO PROJECT. THIS IS ALSO A MENU APPROACH . THESE STANDARDS KEY OFF OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, OR THE BUILDING THAT IS ACROSS THE STREET . OKAY. STREET FRONTAGE. OH, THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS ROUTINE FOR CITIES TO REQUIRE PROJECTS TO REPLACE THE SIDEWALK, OR FIX THE CURB , OR IF THERE IS A STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN IN PLACE TO BUILD THEIR FRONTED --FRONTAGE OUT ACCORDING TO THE STREET IMPROVEMENT MASTER PLAN. THESE ARE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEY ARE NOT ON THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, PER SE, BUT THEY ARE ADJACENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SITES. THIS IS A CLEAR EXPECTATION THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, AND HOW THEY WOULD BE MADE. THE AMENDMENTS. THE CHANGE FROM 16 TO 24, WE ALREADY DISCUSSED. THE SITE AREA. SITE AREA, R1 .5, ALLOWS YOU TO --THERE'S A GREAT MANY PARCELS THAT ARE IN YOUR DOWNTOWN AREA AND VICINITY WHERE YOU COULD PUT TWO PARCELS TOGETHER AND GET THREE UNITS OUT OF IT. THE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SITE AREA , THE 1.5 ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT. THE DENSITY . UNIFORM DENSITY USING 29 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. IN OUR VIEW, THAT IS GOING TO YIELD MORE DEVELOPMENT . THE VARIATION BETWEEN DENSITY AND LOT SIZE , IN MY VIEW, THE URBAN DESIGNER IS UNNECESSARY. ESTABLISHING DENSITY FOR THE PROFESSIONAL AREAS. DENSITY THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITIES --TRANSIT-ORIENTATED COMMUNITIES POLICY. THEY WOULD APPLY REGARDLESS, BUT WE PLACE THEM IN THERE SO THAT COMMUNITY MEMBERS, DEVELOPERS COULD SEE IT SPELLED OUT AND NOT HAVE TO KNOW ABOUT IT. A LOT WITH SITE COVERAGE, REAR SET BACKS. TALKED ABOUT THAT . BUILDING HEIGHT. MODEST INCREASE FROM TWO TO 2.5. I THINK IT'S FROM 25 TO 30. IT'S GOING TO ALLOW A DEVELOPER WITH A GOOD DESIGNER TO GET A LITTLE MORE DENSITY. WITH MORE DENSITY, NOT ONLY IS THE HOUSE --IT'S JUST THAT MANY MORE UNITS THAT HELP OFFSET THE COST OF THE PROJECT. IT HELPS ENHANCE FINANCE --FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY. OKAY. ESTABLISHING DENSITIES FOR THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. WE USED TO BE DENSITIES THAT WERE HIGHER. WHAT IS IN THE CENTRAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS THE SAME AS THE R-1.5, WHICH IS YOUR DENSER STANDARD IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. WE THINK THESE ARE FAIR STANDARDS, AND THEY WILL RESULT IN BUILDINGS THAT CAN STILL BE PARKED WITH SURFACE PARKING. THEY ARE MORE FEASIBLE. FEASIBILITY. IT'S THE HIGHEST YOU CAN GET WITHOUT RELYING ON STRUCTURE PARKING , CONCRETE PARKING GARAGES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE TRANSIT-ORIENT COMMUNITIES FEATURES. FENCES. ALREADY A PROHIBITION ON BARBED WIRE, UNLESS IT IS IN YOUR MORE OUTLYING DISTRICTS, BUT WE ADDED SOME OTHER PROHIBITED FENCE TYPES. THE YARD EXCEPTIONS, I TALKED ABOUT THAT EARLIER. INTRODUCING A FEW MORE EXCEPTIONS, AND THEN USING DIMENSIONS THAT , I THINK, MAKE MORE SENSE. ARE EASIER TO OBTAIN AND MAKE MORE SENSE IN TERMS OF HOW THOSE FEATURES ARE USED. THERE WAS PARKING UNLOADING. ESTABLISHING BICYCLE PARKING STANDARDS. MENTIONING THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED COMMUNITY STANDARDS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING. ALLOWING PARKING LIFTS. THAT ACTUALLY IS UNIMPORTANT THING TO BE CLEAR ABOUT BECAUSE THAT CAN BE AN IMPORTANT WAY TO INCREASE THE DENSITY OF MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS. IT REDUCES --ALLOWS THE BUILDING TO BE LESS --YOU CAN GET THE SAME AMOUNT OF PARKING WITH LESS BUILDING MASS IF YOU ALLOW THE MECHANICAL LIFTS. IT IS JUST LESS FLOOR AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE DEDICATED TO THE PARKING PART OF THE PROGRAM. >> I WILL POINT OUT, AFTER THE STAFF REPORT WAS PUBLISHED, ACTUALLY THIS AFTERNOON, WE RECEIVED TWO PUBLIC COMMENTS , AFTER THE DEADLINE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING, BUT WE STILL PROVIDED THEM ANYWAYS. THE FIRST WAS FROM --WHO HAS COMMENTED ON A HANDFUL OF OTHER ITEMS. THEY WERE EXPRESSING --THEY WERE GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE DIRECTION WE WERE GOING BUT DID EXPRESS SOME CONCERNS IN REGARDS TO THE LOT SIZE PER DWELLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, SHE INDICATES THEY ARE INCORRECT IN THEIR ARGUMENT WITH WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. SHE WILL DO FURTHER RESEARCH BEFORE IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, BUT WE DID --I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HER EARLIER THIS EVENING. THE SECOND WE RECEIVED A COMMENT FROM TIM PLATT. ASKING THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CERTIFY THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ALLOW FOR HIGHER --GREATER DENSITY , WITH FEWER AMENITIES ARE THOSE REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. AGAIN, TO REITERATE PART OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THIS PROCESS IS , ONE, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE DISCRETION ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS GOING FORWARD, AND IT IS TO CREATE QUANTIFIABLE OBJECTIVE STANDARDS, SO WE HAVE CERTAINTY --MORE CERTAINTY OF WHAT IS PROVIDED AS PART OF A PROJECT. AND SECONDARILY, THERE IS ALSO A PROGRAM IN OUR HOUSING ELEMENT THAT SPEAKS TO ENSURING THE DENSITIES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN OUR ZONING DISTRICT CAN ACTUALLY BE ACHIEVED WHEN YOU EVALUATE ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS FOR OUR PROJECT. THAT WAS, LARGELY, PART OF THE REASON WHY THE FIT TEST WAS DONE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, AND THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE PROPOSED TO BE CHANGED BECAUSE WE COULDN'T REACH THE DENSITY AND PSALMS ARE FROM STANCES -- IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES. CORRECT. >> YEAH. ALTHOUGH, IT IS ALSO -- IT MAY BE INFERRED HERE THAT SOMEHOW WE ARE INCREASING THE MINIMUM DENSITY STANDARD. NO MINIMUM DENSITY STANDARDS HAVE BEEN INCREASED. MINIMUM DENSITY STANDARDS STILL APPLY. IT IS JUST WE HAVE DONE THE WORK SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THEM FEASIBLE. YEAH. >> FINALLY, I AM NOT GOING TO READ THIS WHOLE ITEM, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR YOU TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 25-06 , RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE APPROVING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS TO AMEND THE NOTICEABLE CODE BY AMENDING THE VARIETY CHAPTERS ON THE SCREEN, BUT MOST NOTABLY CREATING NEW OBJECTIVE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE PROJECTS. WE ARE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. >> WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSION. YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE COMMENT AND ONE QUESTION. FIRST, I APPRECIATE THE SPLITTING OF THE DIFFERENCE WITH THE MASSING. THANK YOU FOR THAT ONE. I DON'T REMEMBER THIS BEING MENTIONED BEFORE IN THE LAST MEETING, BUT THE EXAMPLE GIVEN TONIGHT, DID I HEAR THAT RIGHT? WAS THE EXAMPLE DOWNTOWN PROPERTY ? NOT A SPECIFIC PROPERTY, BUT RATHER TYPICAL DIMENSION OF A BLOCK. >> IT WASN'T SPECIFIC, OKAY. >> YEAH, JUST SEEING IF IT FIT IN ONE OF YOUR TIGHTER --A PROJECT THAT IS BIG ENOUGH TO SHOW SOME --TO JUSTIFY A PARKING GARAGE, YOU KNOW, BUT SMALL ENOUGH TO MAKE IT HARD TO FIT . >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT --THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE PRESENTATION THAT YOU GAVE TONIGHT THAT WAS TALKING ABOUT FENCES. WAS THAT FENCES FOR DOWNTOWN? >> THAT IS CITYWIDE. >> CITYWIDE? WE CURRENTLY REGULATE CHAIN-LINK FENCES CITYWIDE? MY HOA IS SURROUNDED BY CHAIN-LINK THANKS --FENCE. MICHAEL, YOU MAY KNOW. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS LAST YEAR , THE CITY WENT FORWARD WITH A WHOLE SERIES OF CHANGES WITH OTHER CODE CLEANUP ITEMS. WE ESTABLISHED A STANDARD FOR NEW FENCING . CHAIN-LINK FENCING IS PROHIBITED EXCEPT IN THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICT . PREVIOUSLY, THAT STELLA FENCING WAS UNREGULATED. SO IF THERE IS EXISTING FENCING, IT CAN REMAIN, ONLY IF THERE IS NEW FENCING THAT WOULD NO LONGER BE A PERMITTED FENCE TYPE. I TAKE ISSUE TO THAT BECAUSE ONE OF THE --WITH FIRE, SAFETY, FIRE SUPPRESSION VIDEOS I HAVE WATCHED , THE NUMBER ONE THING THEY WANT YOU TO DO IS A PUT A CHAIN-LINK FENCE SIX FEET FROM YOUR HOUSE TO YOUR WOOD FENCE BECAUSE IT CANNOT CATCH FIRE AND IT CANNOT CATCH YOUR HOUSE ON FIRE. I AM WONDERING WHY WE WOULD PUT THAT IN OUR CODE WHEN THAT IS ONE OF THE CHIEF WAYS PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO HARDEN THEIR HOMES AGAINST WILDFIRE DANGERS? IN PART AN AESTHETIC ISSUE. HAVING A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AS THE SOLE FUNDS THAT ARE SURROUNDING A PROPERTY, VERSUS ONE THAT HAS A MORE TRADITIONAL STYLE FENCE TYPE , THERE IS DEFINITE ISSUES SURROUNDING THAT. SAYING THAT, THERE ARE OTHER FENCE TYPES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED . THERE ARE OTHER TYPES OF METAL FENCING YOU COULD DO THAT COULD STILL ADDRESS THE FIRE SAFETY RELATED ISSUE . >> I TAKE ISSUE TO YOUR CALLING CHAIN-LINK FENCES NOT COMMON PRACTICE BECAUSE I COME FROM THE MIDWEST, AND EVERYBODY HAS A CHAIN-LINK FENCE. JUST BECAUSE WE ARE IN A VERY HIGH FIRE RISK AREA, I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE OBJECTION TO A CHAIN-LINK FENCE WAS. OUR HOA IS 108 UNITS, AND IT'S A FAIRLY LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY CHAIN-LINK FENCES. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE OBJECTIVE WOULD BE TO BAN CHAIN-LINK FENCES GOING FORWARD IN THE CITY. >> THAT IS NOT NEW. THE FIRE PROTECTION ASPECT, I WOULD SAY THAT , IN THE MOST RECENT FIRE CODE, WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING REQUIRING CHAIN-LINK FENCE. WHICH DOES --I HAVEN'T SEEN INFORMATION YOU ARE REFERRING TO, BUT I WOULD THINK THAT IF THERE WAS A PROVEN HISTORY OF THAT BEING A MITIGATING FACTOR FOR FIRE PREVENTION , THAT IT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOST RECENT FIRE CODE. THERE IS MULTITUDE OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE REQUIRED IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. I WILL ALSO SAY THAT , AS SOMEONE WHO HAS BUILT IN BOTH NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, I'VE NEVER BEEN TO COMMIT --BUILT A COMMUNITY WITH A CHAIN-LINK FENCE. IT COULD BE AN AESTHETIC ASPECT TO IT. IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST 15 YEARS. IF THERE WAS TO BE AN ISSUE WITH A CHAIN-LINK FENCE AND THEY HAD TO REPLACE IT, WOULD IT BE REPLACEABLE, OR THEY HAVE TO PUT SOMETHING DIFFERENT? >> REPAIR WOULD BE FINE, BUT IF IT IS FULL REMOVAL AND FULL REPLACEMENT, THEY WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE CORRECT STANDARDS. >> WE HAVE ONE THAT IS CAL FENCING. CHAIN-LINK FOR COWS. THE WINERIES BEHIND US. THEY KEEP THE COWS OUT. OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? RACHELLE -- ROCHELLE ? I APPRECIATE THE WORK GOING INTO CREATING SPACE FOR PEOPLE, BUT I WANT US TO BE MINDFUL OF LARGE SPACES WITH SMALL UNITS WHERE WE ARE PACKING LOTS OF PEOPLE IN. GOING FROM 16 TO 24, THAT SEEMS , LIKE, A HUGE INCREASE. I APPRECIATE THE STANDARDS. I LIKE THE AESTHETIC LOOK OF IT, BUT THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE SOMETHING I WOULD WANT US TO KEY INTO AND BE PREPARED TO PIVOT, IF NECESSARY. >> I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE ACTUAL ZONING HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. THIS COULD JUST BE SOMETHING I DON'T RECALL. DOES THE STATE HAVE A MANDATE FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMIT, BASED UPON THE ZONING TYPE THAT WE HAVE? WE HAVE 2 1/2 STORIES FOR R-1.5. I JUST WONDER WILL DEVELOPERS TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE FACT AND GO ABOVE 30 FEET? >> THERE IS NO STATE STANDARD. IT DOES FALL INTO THE CATEGORY OF MORE FLEXIBILITY THAT WILL ALLOW SOME DEVELOPERS TO GET CLOSER TO THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED DENSITY. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> YEAH, AGAIN, THE AMARE PROJECT SHOWED THAT IF YOU USE A DOUBLE LOAD RECORDER, A BUILDING ROUGHLY THE SAME WIDTH WE ILLUSTRATED. A DOWNTOWN BLOCK LONG . I THINK THAT IS 200 FEET. MINUS THE SIDE SET BACKS. IT GETS UP TO THE GREATER NUMBER OF UNITS BECAUSE IT ALSO HAS UNIT IN THE REAR , WHEREAS THE TEST FIT WE DID WAS JUST THE ONE. IN OTHER WORDS, IN TERMS OF THE APPARENT SCALE, THE AMARE PROJECT WOULD LOOK TO BE ABOUT AS BIG A BUILDING AS THE ONES --THE ONE I ILLUSTRATED. >> SORRY, I WANT TO CIRCLE BACK TO ONE OTHER COMMENTS. HESITANT TO REOPEN THIS UP AGAIN. I DID PULL THE SECTION ON FENCING, AND WE DO INCLUDE LANGUAGE, AS WELL, WHERE YOU CAN REQUEST AN EXCEPTION TO THAT. THERE IS AN ABILITY WHERE YOU COULD GET IT APPROVED ON THE PROJECT. >> YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, I WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND THE WORKSHOP A FEW WEEKS AGO, BUT I DID REVIEW THE ENTIRE VIDEO OF THE WORKSHOP. I AM VERY IMPRESSED AT THE COMPREHENSIVENESS, AND THE AMOUNT OF WORK , AND THE QUESTIONS THAT CAME OUT OF BOTH CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT NIGHT. THAT WAS VERY HELPFUL GETTING ME ON BOARD WITH ALL OF THE DISCUSSION HAPPENING HERE. A COUPLE ITEMS I LOOKED AT AND MR. --WOULD ROIL AT THIS, BUT I'M BRINGING UP A PARKING SPACE ISSUE. BECAUSE, I THINK, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE -- NOT ONLY JUST THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE , BUT ALSO FOR THE DEVELOPERS. WE WANT TO COME IN --PUT IN PARKING SPACES THAT ARE USABLE. I WENT OUT. I HAVE AN SUV, MEDIUM-SIZE SUV, AND I MEASURED THE WIDTH OF MY SUV. I MEASURED THE WIDTH OF MY NEIGHBORS TRUCK. PEOPLE USED TRUCKS FOR WORK . IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT , I KNOW AS A SOCIETY, WE ARE TRYING TO GET PEOPLE INTO SMALLER VEHICLES. THE REALITY IS, AND PRACTICALITY, A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THEM FOR WORK, SO THEY DO NEED PARKING SPACES. MY MEDIUM-SIZE SUV IS A LITTLE OVER EIGHT FEET -- EXCUSE ME. IT IS A LITTLE OVER 6 1/2 FEET IN WIDTH, NOT INCLUDING THE REVIEW MAYOR SPEAK YOU HAD THAT, AND IT'S A LITTLE WIDER. MAYBE A FOOT. MY NEIGHBORS TRUCK THAT IS A FULL-SIZE TRUCK IS ALMOST NINE FEET IN WIDTH, WITH THE REARVIEW MAYORS. RECOGNIZING THAT , WITHOUT THE REARVIEW MAYORS, YOU PUT IT IN A LITTLE BIT. IT IS A LITTLE BIT LESS. NEVERTHELESS, IT'S A PRETTY LARGE VEHICLE. I STARTED THINKING ABOUT IF WE ARE GOING TO SHRINK THE SIZE OF MINIMUM PARKING SPACE, WHERE MIGHT THIS BE A PROBLEM? RECOGNIZING THAT WE WANT A PARKING SPACE TO BE USABLE. THE AREAS --SO I LOOKED AT WHEN YOU GET OUT OF THE VEHICLE, IT IS NOT JUST GETTING THE VEHICLE INTO THE PARKING SPACE, BUT PERSONALLY EGRESS THING AND ENGROSSING -- WHATEVER MATERIALS YOU BRING OUT OF THE VEHICLE WITH YOU, INCLUDING CHILDREN, CHILD SEATS, THINGS LIKE THAT. IF THERE ARE TWO PARKING SPACES RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT ANY IMPEDIMENT BETWEEN THEM YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESSIBILITY ON BOTH PARKING SPACES TO MANEUVER. OKAY? IF A PARKING SPACE IS NEXT TO A WALL , OR A BIG POST, OR BIG UTILITY BOX, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE LEGAL WIDTH, IT MIGHT NOT BE USABLE JUST BECAUSE OF THOSE IMPEDIMENTS THAT ARE AROUND. WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THE CHANGES, IT WENT FROM 10 FEET TO NINE FEET, WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE IS --I AM OKAY WITH THAT. SEEMS LIKE EVERYONE IS OKAY WITH THAT. WITH THE EXCEPTION THAT IF THERE IS A PARKING SPACE NEAR AN END WALL UNDERNEATH THE GROUND , OR THAT HAS LARGE POSTS OR UTILITY BOXES NEXT TO IT, THAT WE RETAIN THE 10 FOOT SPACE IN THOSE AREAS. I DON'T THINK IT IS A MAJOR CHANGE, BUT I THINK IT AN IMPORTANT ONE . WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT SPACE USABLE RATHER THAN NOBODY USING IT. >> YEAH, THANK YOU. >> VERY THOUGHTFUL. I WILL NOTE SPACES LARGER THAN NINE FEET, I DON'T PICK UP AND ACROSS COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE STANDARDS THAT ARE GREATER THAN NINE FEET IN WIDTH. FOR PARKING SPACES. IN MY PROFESSIONAL CAREER , I HAVEN'T RUN INTO THAT. I WAS A LITTLE SURPRISED TO SEE THE GREATER STANDARD IN MARTINEZ. >> ORIGINALLY IT WAS 10 FEET AND THEN WE REDUCED IT TO NINE. >> OKAY. WHAT YOU SUGGESTED IS QUITE THOUGHTFUL AND REASONABLE, I APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU. I ALSO WANTED TO PIGGYBACK ON WHAT ROCHELLE SAID EARLIER ABOUT THE COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE. I AM GOING TO BRING UP AN EXAMPLE THAT IS ALREADY BUILT IN MARTINEZ. THE HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENT. I WAS ON DESIGN REVIEW WHEN NOTHING WAS BEING DEVELOPED. AT THE TIME, THERE WAS COMMON SPACE INTERMIXED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT. PEOPLE IN THE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS COULD GO NEXT TO THEIR BUILDING AND UTILIZE THAT SPACE FOR PLAY AREAS, OR FOR PICNICS, OR FOR WHATEVER. BETWEEN THE TIME DESIGN REVIEW LOOKED AT IT AND THE FINAL PLANS, WHICH INCLUDED THE --OH GOSH, IN WASHINGTON THEY CALL THEM THE -- THE AREA THAT HOLDS ALL THE WATER RATHER THAN RUNNING INTO THE STREETS , A MAJORITY OF THOSE SPACES WERE ELIMINATED BECAUSE THEY TURNED INTO CATCH BASINS, BASICALLY. THE ONLY COMMON AREA AND THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE VERY BACK CORNER OF THE MAIN LEVEL. IT IS SO FAR BACK THERE BUT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE FRONT WOULD ALMOST HAVE TO DRIVE BACK THERE TO GET TO IT. I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMON SPACE, AND I GET IT, IS THAT YOU WANT TO PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER IN SOMEPLACE TO GIVE THE DEVELOPER MORE FLEXIBILITY IN WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THAT PROPERTY. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK IT NEEDS --THERE NEEDS TO BE --I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU MAKE THIS SUBJECTIVE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE NEAR --I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT NEAR THE BUILDING OR THE UNIT THAT IT HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM. FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU REDUCE A BALCONY TO A SMALLER LEVEL , THE AREA IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUILDING SO IT IS USABLE. I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THAT, AND YOU SEE IT IN --I DON'T KNOW, MULTIUNIT DEVELOPMENTS. MORE RURAL AREAS. ESPECIALLY FOR PARENTS. THEY NEED OUTDOOR SPACE FOR THE KIDS TO PLAY. THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO KEEP THEIR EYES ON THE SITE, THEY DON'T WANT TO GO TO ALL THE WAY --GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE BLOCK TO ALLOW THEIR CHILDREN TO PLAY BECAUSE THAT TAKES TIME AWAY FROM THEM, TOO. THEY NEED EYES ON THE SIDES. IT MAKES IT MORE USABLE FOR PEOPLE. IS THERE A WAY WE CAN ADD THAT TO OUR OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS? SO WE MAKE THAT COMMENT SPACE BLOCK NEAR THE UNITS IT WAS TAKEN FROM? >> NO UNIT SHOULD BE MORE THAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET FROM A COMMON --WHEN COMMON SPACES ARE USED. THEY ARE NOT ALWAYS USED. NO UNIT SHOULD BE MORE THAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF FEET FROM A COMMON SPACE OF A CERTAIN MINIMUM SIZE. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT. I THINK SOME DEVELOPMENTS WOULD DO IT, ANYWAY, BUT TO MAKE THAT OBJECTIVE, I THINK , WOULD CREATE A BETTER SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING THERE. THANK YOU. THEN I HAVE ONE LAST COMMENT, AND I AM NOT SURE WE NEED TO PUT IT IN THESE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT SOMETHING FOR US TO THINK ABOUT. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE AMARE PROJECT, WE HAVE SOME STREETS THAT HAVE LOW SPEED LIMITS, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME STREETS THAT HAVE HIGHER SPEED LIMITS AROUND IT. QUITE FRANKLY, A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK THAT IS COMPLETELY ADJACENT TO A 45 MILE-AN-HOUR STREET IS --EVEN IF YOU'RE ON THE SIDEWALK, IS JUST NOT -- I DON'T FEEL REAL SAFE WALKING ALONG THE. DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT DIFFERENT DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SIDEWALK WITH --WIDTH WERE THE SPEED LIMIT IS HIGHER? YOU CAN . I SEE SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT, BECAUSE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BE COMMISERATE TO WHAT THE SPEED LIMIT IS. I THINK THERE IS GOING TO BE POTENTIAL ISSUES IF THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE, OR NOT. WHAT I THINK WOULD BE A BETTER APPROACH FOR THAT WOULD BE, IDEALLY, IN THE FUTURE, THE ENGINEERING DIVISION WOULD ESTABLISH STREET SPECIFIC DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS. THE WAY THE OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS ARE WRITTEN IS IF THERE ARE THOSE SITE-SPECIFIC DESIGNS SPECIFICATIONS THAT THAT COULD OVERRIDE WHAT THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS ARE. CAN WE PUT THAT AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM ? WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THIS TIME, BUT YES. >> I ALSO WANT TO NOTE, EXCEPT IN -- I FORGOT WHICH DISTRICT WHERE IT MIGHT BE. WHERE IT IS LESS FEASIBLE. OUR STANDARDS ARE TO PLANT STREET TREES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE CURB, WHICH GIVES THAT SENSE OF PROTECTION. AND WE HAD TO BE SOMEWHAT INVENTIVE TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT SOMETIMES THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MIGHT NOT BE SUFFICIENT , OR THE CURB MIGHT NOT BE MOVING. I'M SORRY, MISS CHAIRPERSON, DO YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO THAT? >> IS THEREBY CLINGS --BIKE LANES NEAR AMARE [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> THANK YOU. STREET TREES ARE VERY IMPORTANT . THEY REALLY ARE PHYSICAL BARRIER , RIGHT? ALSO GIVE THE PEDESTRIAN ESSENCE OF PRODUCTION, AND OF COURSE, SHADE, WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE CLAIMANT IS GOING TO GET HOTTER AND HOTTER, I THINK. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. WE HAVE TRIED TO MAKE THAT --WE HAVE TRIED TO REQUIRE THAT WHEREVER IT IS FEASIBLE. IN THAT LOCATION, BETWEEN THE CURB AND THE SIDEWALK. >> OKAY. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT LANDS . I THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE DEFINITELY NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT. I WILL BRING UP THIS EXAMPLE. THE AMARE PROJECT. PEOPLE DRIVE FAIRLY FAST DOWN THAT STREET, AND THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE STREET HAS REALLY NICE WHITE SIDEWALK WITH A PARKING STRIP ALONGSIDE IT, AS WELL. I FEEL A LOT SAFER WALKING ON THAT SIDE THEN I WOULD WALKING ON THE FIVE FOOT SIDEWALK RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING. >> WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENTS. I HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD HEAR FROM PATRICK, DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK? GO AHEAD, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO START OFF BY APOLOGIZING I CAME IN WAY UNDER PREPARED FOR WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. MY HEAD IS JUST SPINNING. I WANT TO THANK ROCHELLE FOR LAST WEEK FOR BEING THE ONE VOICE WHO WAS WORRIED ABOUT DENSITY AND REALLY SPOKE UP ABOUT THAT. WHEN I WENT BACK TO MY COMMUNITY AND TOLD EVERYONE ABOUT THAT, THEY ALL WERE AMAZED AND WORRIED ABOUT OUR ISSUE. WE HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DENSITY OF THE PROPERTIES BEING BUILT IN MARTINEZ. WE FEEL WE LOVE OUR SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS. WE LOVE OUR HOUSES WITH CENTURY-OLD TREES, --THANK YOU, SUSAN, FOR BRINGING UP SPACE IN THE TREES. WALKING THE SIDEWALKS. WE LIVE ON A BUSY STREET WHERE WE DON'T FEEL SAFE WALKING AROUND ONE OF THE CORNERS BECAUSE IT IS A BLIND CORNER. CARS GO SUPER FAST DOWN OUR ROAD. THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO. THEY DO ANYWAYS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T REALLY STOP THEM. THAT'S AN ISSUE WE HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT. BUT WE FEEL THE CITY IS FOCUSED ON CRAMMING AND HOUSING. WE GET THERE IS A HOUSING SHORTAGE IN CALIFORNIA, BUT WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT THE POOR NEIGHBORHOODS BEING CRAMMED IN, LIKE , SARDINES. WE HEAR ABOUT MORE ADUS BEING APPROVED. WE ARE LOOKING AT --YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT APARTMENT UNITS AND MULTIFAMILY UNITS BEING BUILT IN. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT MARTINEZ CHANGING IN WAYS WE DON'T RECOGNIZE, IF PEOPLE PAID --ESPECIALLY PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED HERE THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT PARKING SPACES. NINE FOOT FACES, THEN PUT THE 10 FOOT SPACES. WE LIVED NEAR A PARKING UNIT WHO OVERFLOWS INTO THE STREET BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACES FOR THE RESIDENCE THERE. PEOPLE WANT TO BUILD MORE UNITS IN THAT STREET WHERE THERE IS ALREADY NOT ENOUGH SPACE AND PARKING, AS IS. AS THESE UNITS GO THROUGH, --MAKE THINGS EASIER TO BUILD, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITH NO PUSHBACK FROM THE PLANNING COMMITTEE. WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT BEING PUT --PUSHED OUT OF OUR AREA. OUR ENTIRE URBAN AREA FEEL LIKE IT'S BECOMING CITY AREA. WE DON'T WANT TO BECOME SAN FRANCISCO, OAKLAND. WE LIKE BEING MARTINEZ. WE LIKE OUR CENTURY-OLD TREES. THE NATURE, THE SMALL TOWN FEEL THAT IS HERE. WE SEE IT BEING CHIPPED AWAY AT BIT BY BIT. THANK YOU, ROB AND ROCHELLE, AND SUSAN FOR VOICING CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THESE ISSUES. ABOUT SPACE, DENSITY , FENCING. WE SEE A LOT OF CHAIN-LINK FENCES IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE HAVE KIDS WHO PLAY ON THE STREET IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE ARE WORRIED ABOUT MORE HOUSING, MORE CARS IN PARKING SPOTS ON THE STREET. THEY ARE GOING TO BE ON THE STREET BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SPACE. IF YOU CRAM IN A LOT OF PLACES AND DO MORE SUBURBAN AREAS, TRASH. WE LIVE NEXT TO A PLACE WHERE THEY ARE ABOUT TO PUT IN ANOTHER SEVEN HOUSES WERE ONE HOUSE IS WITH SIX ADUS ATTACHED TO IT. THAT IS 13 -- EVERY MONDAY ALONG A COMPACTED AREA PARKING WHERE THERE'S NO SPACE ALREADY. WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO PUT 26 TRASH CANS? THOSE CARS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE PUSHED FARTHER AND FARTHER DOWN TO GET MORE STREET PARKING ALONG THE WAY, EDGING OUT OTHER PEOPLE. PARKING SPACE SIZE IS AN ISSUE. PARKING SPACES PER UNIT IS AN ISSUE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU BROUGHT FIRE AND SAFETY. CHAIN-LINK FENCING. GRAHAM ENOUGH HOUSES IN CLOSE ENOUGH. ONE HOUSE CATCHES FIRE. ONE UNITS WITH THESE BIG APARTMENT UNITS CATCHES FIRE. IT SPREADS EVERYWHERE. I KNOW THERE ARE MEASURES PUT IN PLACE TO TRY TO STOP THAT, BUT CHAIN-LINK FENCES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THE EQUATION, KIND OF SCARY. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN AFFORD ROD IRON FENCES EVERYWHERE. THAT'S EXPENSIVE. CHAIN-LINK FENCING IS CHEAP AND FUNCTIONAL AND EASY TO INSTALL. WOULD FENCES ARE A LOT MORE AESTHETIC, BUT THEY CATCH FIRE. WE ALSO HAVE TO REALIZE WE LIVE IN CALIFORNIA WHERE EARTHQUAKES ARE. WHAT HAPPENS -- >> THANK YOU, PATRICK ERIC APPRECIATE IT. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE PUBLIC COMMENTS? ONLINE? ANY HANDS? >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON ZOOM, PLEASE USE THE RAISED HAND FUTURE. THERE ARE NO HANDS RAISED. >> HEARING NONE, WE WILL COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION ONE LAST TIME. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? BEFORE DOING SO, IF YOU COULD PLEASE FORMALLY CLOSE THE PUBLIC PORTION. >> PUBLIC PORTION IS CLOSED, THANK YOU. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT COMES TO MIND IS THE VERY AESTHETIC THROUGHOUT MARTINEZ, RIGHT? FROM COMMUNITY TO COMMUNITY , THE BLOCKS LOOK DIFFERENT, RIGHT? I WAS WONDERING, WHEN YOU PREPARED YOUR FIT TEST, WHAT CONSIDERATION DID YOU GIVE FOR THE DIFFERENT AESTHETIC OF MARTINEZ OUTSIDE OF DOWNTOWN IN DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE CITY? THE FIFTH TEST WAS FOR A SITE THAT WAS SMALLER , WHICH MAKES IT MORE CHALLENGING TO REACH THE DENSITY. SITES THAT WOULD BE FARTHER OUT WOULD BE LARGER SITES AND EASIER . WE ARE TRYING TO TEST THE LIMITS OF THE STANDARDS TO SEE IF THEY COULD ACTUALLY WORK ON ONE OF THE MORE CHALLENGING SITES. WE DID THAT FIT TEST . TO COMPLEMENT THE WORK THAT WE WERE DOING, YEAH. >> I JUST HAVE ONE THING. I WAS JUST IN GREENVILLE, SOUTH CAROLINA, AND IT'S A REALLY COOL CITY. I FIND THEY HAVE A LOT OF DENSITY, THAT IS WHAT THEY HAVE WORK TOWARDS BUILDING WITH DOWNTOWN AREA ESPECIALLY. THERE ALSO --THERE'S IS ALSO SO GREEN. I FEEL, LIKE -- I HOPE --I THINK THAT MIGHT MITIGATE SOME OF THE FACT WE ARE GROWING AND WE KEEP A LOT OF GREEN AREAS AROUND THE CITY, AS WELL. THEY JUST DID A NICE JOB, REALLY NICE JOB OF BRINGING ALL THE THINGS TOGETHER . I FELT, LIKE, IT WAS BEAUTIFUL. ANYWAY, THAT'S ONE THING MIGHT MITIGATE THE FACT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MORE DENSE HOUSING . WE KEEP AREAS OF PARK -LIKE STRUCTURES. >> YES, IAN, I LOVE SOUTH CAROLINA. I THINK ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF IT IS THE RAIN. THERE IS A NATURAL AESTHETIC THAT GOES WITH IT. WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT DROUGHT TOLERANT, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE STRUGGLE. IF WE COULD HAVE THAT LUSHNESS, I WOULD BE ALL FOR IT. IT'S GORGEOUS. I THINK I KEEP --THE PLEASE PLACE THIS IS PLACE WHERE I KEEP GETTING STUCK, WHERE WE ARE PACKING PEOPLE IN AND WE ARE NOT LOOKING AT THE HISTORY WE'VE HAD IN THIS COUNTRY, WITH EXAMPLES CLOSE TO HOME IN THE BAY AREA, THAT ARE, YOU KNOW, IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY . WE HAVE CHICAGO, NEW YORK. WE HAVE SAN FRANCISCO. AS EXAMPLES OF LARGE BUILDINGS WITH SMALL UNITS , WITH COMPROMISED SHARED OUTER SPACE. THAT'S THE PART THAT IS MAKING ME STRUGGLE AND NOT MOVE PAST THAT. I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE LIVING IN THE SPACES , PARTICULARLY I AM THINKING ABOUT CHILDREN AND HOW THEY GROW UP WITH SO MANY PEOPLE AROUND IN SUCH TIGHT SPACES AND SHARED RESOURCES. WHEN YOU TALK TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE GROWN UP IN THOSE KINDS OF SETTINGS , AND WHAT THOSE JOURNEYS HAVE BEEN LIKE, IT'S INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL. >> SOME WILL BE SENIORS, TOO. I SEE A LOT OF SENIORS GOING IN THE MONTHS THAT, AS WELL. >> I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. >> THEY WILL PROBABLY APPRECIATE A. THAT RAISES A WHOLE OTHER SET OF CONCERNS, ESPECIALLY AS YOU START TO THINK ABOUT ELDERS WITH DIMINISHING CAPACITY AND ADDITIONAL NEEDS. I COSIGN THAT. >> QUESTIONS, CONCERNS? >> I JUST HAVE ONE CONCERN. YOU DID GO A LONG WAY WITH TRYING TO FIND A MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN OUR CONCERNS WITH TOO MANY RESTRICTIONS, BUT ALSO GIVING THEM SOME OPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO MASSING. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BE ON BOARD WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WILL HAMSTRING OR, POSSIBLY, REDUCE DEVELOPMENT INTEREST --DEVELOPER INTEREST. I, FOR ONE, DEEPLY AND PASSIONATELY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR INCREASED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF MARTINEZ FOR ECONOMICAL AND TAXATION REASONS. I AM VERY SENSITIVE TO ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS COMING FROM A DEVELOPER PERSPECTIVE BUT I KNOW MIGHT DETER INTEREST, BUT ALSO PUT IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY TAKE THE STEPS TO ESSENTIALLY BYPASS ANY STANDARDS WE HAVE , BECAUSE THEY FIND IT IS NOT NECESSARILY BENEFICIAL FOR THE BOTTOM LINE. I BRING THAT UP BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS WE HAVE MENTIONED . IF THEY ARE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WE ARE GOING TO BE PUTTING FORWARD, FOR ME, THEY MAY BE. I DON'T WANT TO ISOLATE ANY PARTICULAR FELLOW COMMISSIONER THAT MAY HAVE BROUGHT THEM UP, BUT I WANT US ALL TO BE VERY SENSITIVE AND THINK ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO BALANCE, WE NEED TO BRING PEOPLE INTO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ. WE DEFINITELY WANT THEM TO FEEL AS THOUGH IT IS A GOOD PLACE TO RAISE THEIR CHILDREN, AND WHATNOT. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU LOOK AT THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN GENERAL, THE NUMBER OF CHILDREN ATTENDING PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS PLUMMETING . IF WE DON'T BRING IN FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOLS DON'T GET THE FUNDING THEY NEED, AS WELL. WHILE WE ARE TRYING TO BUILD A PLACE FOR FAMILIES, WE ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND IF DEVELOPERS DON'T COME IN AND BUILD THEM, IT'S GOING TO BE ALL FOR NOT. ANYTHING WE BRING UP THAT IS GOING TO , SORT OF, BE A DETERRENT FOR DEVELOPERS THAT ARE, LIKE, HEY, I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GO INTO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ. WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THAT LINE. IT'S DIFFICULT RIGHT NOW TO GET DEVELOPER INTEREST. THAT'S IT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CONCERNS? GO AHEAD. YOU BRING UP SOME VALID POINTS , AND MY GUESS IS, PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE I BROUGHT UP IS PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE ITEMS, THAT AS A DEVELOPER, YOU ARE PROBABLY THINKING IT IS, MAYBE, NOT --MIGHT DETER INTEREST. IF WE ARE GOING TO MOVE SOMETHING FORWARD TONIGHT, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHICH ONES --WHICH ONE OR ONES ARE SOMETHING THAT MIGHT DETER A DEVELOPER, YES. >> THE VOTE WE ARE GOING TO TAKE TONIGHT, WILL IT INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED HERE. I THINK WHAT WE MENTIONED WERE THINGS WE WOULD LIKE TO POSSIBLY BE EXPLORED. DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THOSE WERE ITEMS THAT WERE GOING TO BE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FORMALLY. >> IT IS UP TO THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE THE DRAFT VERSION THAT IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. THERE'S A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. ONE OR NONE OR MANY OF THOSE COMMENTS CAN BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE MOTION . >> I THINK THIS BODY SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IT. JUST MY ONE VOTE IS NOT GOING TO STOP ANYTHING FROM MOVING FORWARD. >> I THINK WHAT SUSAN SAID THOUGH, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WHAT YOU THINK MIGHT DETER . IS THERE ONE IN --I KNOW YOU DON'T WANT TO SAY, BUT IT WOULD HELP US WHETHER TO PASS IT OR NOT. >> [ INAUDIBLE -OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] WHAT I AM THINKING IS WE WOULD PASS THIS WITH THE ADDITIONAL CHANGES BEING PROPOSED. >> THE ONLY TWO I SEE , COMMENTS ON THE PARKING SPACES. AND BY A WALL. THOSE TWO? >> THOSE TWO. THE COMMON SPACES, FOR ONE, ARE SPECIFICALLY DRIVEN BY WHAT DEVELOPERS THINK IS GOING TO BRING IN INTEREST, AND THEY TAKE A LOT OF STEPS --WHEN THEY ARE COMING UP FOR A DESIGN FOR DEVELOPMENT, ARE WE FOCUSING TOWARDS FOLKS AT THE LATER END OF THEIR LIFE, ARE WE FOCUSING ON UP AND COMERS THAT DON'T HAVE CHILDREN. WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE COMMON AREAS AND SPACES, THEY ARE LOOKING HOW MUCH AREA, DOWN TO THE SQUARE FOOT PER NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS THEY ARE GOING TO NEED TO BUILD IN THERE. I PREFER TO GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE, AGAIN, THEY ARE LOOKING AT WHAT IS GOING TO DRIVE INTEREST AND REVENUE. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THAT. THAT LEEWAY . THE SAME FOR PARKING, AS WELL. IT MAKES IT VERY DIFFICULT TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ACREAGE IF WE ARE GOING TO LIMIT THE PARKING SPACES. I HAVE A TRUCK, AND IT IS A FRUSTRATION OF MINE, IN PARTICULAR , TO GO INTO DIFFERENT AREAS WHERE MY TRUCK DOESN'T FIT. PERSONALLY I FEEL THE SAME WAY YOU DO, BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE BEEN IN THE SAME SITUATION AS YOU, HAVING THESE ARGUMENTS WITH DEVELOPERS WHERE I AM, LIKE, HEY, WE REALLY SHOULD GIVE THEM MORE PARKING SPACES, MORE AREA PER -- THEN WE GIVE PER UNITS. WE WANT TO MAKE THEM LARGER. I'VE BEEN VOTED DOWN EVERY TIME FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS. I JUST KNOW THAT WHEN IT COMES TO DEVELOPERS, THEY ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU STRAIGHT PUSHBACK ON THAT AND THEY ARE JUST NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY HOUSING HERE IN MARTINEZ, BUT I LIVE IN A CONDO. WE HAVE 108 UNITS. OF ALL THE CARS --VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED, EVERYBODY HAS ONE GARAGE AND EVERYONE HAS A RESERVED PARKING SPACE FOR THEIR UNITS. AND WE HAVE 12 GUEST SPOTS. 12 FOR 108 UNITS. WE ARE VERY RESTRICTED ON ON STREET PARKING BECAUSE MOST OF IT HAS A CURVE THAT IS PAINTED RED. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHY, BUT IT IS PAINTED RED. NOBODY HAS BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO US WHY THE CURBS ARE PAINTED RED. AND WE LIVE ON A CUL-DE-SAC. I THINK THE NUMBER OF TRUCKS -- OF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN OUR COMPLEX, I THINK THERE ARE MAYBE THREE LARGE TRUCKS, THAT'S IT. I DON'T THINK IT IS A HUGE PROBLEM , YEAH, YOU MIGHT SQUEEZE YOUR NEIGHBORS SPACE, BUT I AM ON THE BOARD. I DON'T REALLY HEAR ANYBODY COMPLAINING ABOUT THAT. I THINK THE NINE FEET WOULD BE PERFECTLY OKAY. OUT OF 108 PARKING SPACES OUTSIDE, WE HAVE THREE TRUCKS, THREE LARGE TRUCKS. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY SPACES, THOUGH, WHERE ONE OF THE SPACES IS NEXT TO A WALL THAT JUST DOESN'T GET USED BECAUSE IT'S TOO HARD TO GET IN AND OUT OF? >> ALL OF OUR OUTDOOR PARKING SPACES ARE OUTDOOR UNLESS YOU PARK INSIDE YOUR GARAGE. >> MY PROPOSAL WOULD NOT AFFECT ANY OF YOUR PARKING SPACES. THEY WOULD ALL BE NINE FOOT SPACES. THIS PROPOSAL THAT I SUGGESTED WOULD AFFECT A SMALL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN AN ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. >> TRUE, BUT THEY ALSO HAVE ON STREET PARKING IN THE EXAMPLE WE WERE LOOKING AT. THE PERSON COULD PARK ON THE STREET, ALSO. >> A LOT OF PLACES DON'T HAVE ON STREET PARKING. IN PARTICULAR , THE AMARE, THERE IS NO ON STREET PARKING THERE. >> THERE SHOULD BE. THAT'S ANOTHER STORY. BUSY STREET. THERE IS NO PARKING ON ARNOLD. >> FOR THE PARKING SPACES NEAR THE WALL, WAS THE CONCERN FOR INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE LARGER VEHICLES, OR JUST ANYONE? ANY VEHICLE, IN GENERAL, YES. IT'S ACCESSIBILITY, INGRESS, EGRESS, GETTING INTO THE PARKING SPACE, GETTING OUT OF THE VEHICLE. IT HAS TO DO WITH USABILITY. IT IS REALLY NOT MEANT TO BE PUNITIVE, IT'S MEANT THAT SO SOMEONE CAN USE THE SPACE. I ONLY BROUGHT UP THE PICKUP TRUCK BECAUSE PICKUP TRUCKS TEND TO BE WIDE. I THINK A PICKUP TRUCK CAN GET INTO A NINE FOOT SPACE, PROVIDING THERE IS ROOM TO MANEUVER. I DEFINITELY SEE A SITUATION WHERE FOLKS WITH MUCH SMALLER VEHICLES WILL TAKE IT UPON THEMSELVES TO TAKE THAT SPOT THAT IS BY THE WALL BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT LARGER AND FOLKS WITH MINIVANS AND SUVS ARE STUCK TRYING TO FIT INTO THE SMALLER ONES. IT COULD COME BACK WHERE IT DOESN'T EVEN WORK FOR THE LARGER VEHICLES BECAUSE IT IS OPEN PARKING. >> I'M NOT SAYING IT NEEDS TO BE A LARGE VEHICLE TO GET IN THERE, JUST A REGULAR SIZE VEHICLE IF YOUR PARKING NEXT TO A WALL. OR A BIG GIANT POST, NOT A 4 X 4 OR SIX BY SIX, BUT A BIG GIANT POST MIGHT BE DIFFICULT TO GET IN AND OUT OF. >> I SAY PUT IT TO A VOTE. MICHAEL, SHOULD WE JUST MAKE A MOTION AND GO FROM THERE? OKAY. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] LET ME SUGGEST THIS, BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE A BIT OF DISAGREEMENT. RATHER THAN MAKING A PROPOSAL WITH ONE OR TWO ADDITIONS TO THE PROPOSAL, CAN WE JUST VOTE ON THE TWO ADDITIONS, AT FIRST, TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE THINK OF THOSE, AND THEN FROM THERE DECIDE WHETHER --AFTER THAT THOUGH, DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT TO PUT THEM INTO THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT? I THINK THAT WOULD BE EASIER. >> MAYBE MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT? GOOD LUCK. >> WE SHOULD MAKE IT SEPARATELY. >> THAT IS WHAT SHE IS SAYING. >> I GUESS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO VOTE SEPARATELY ON EACH PROPOSAL . ONE OF THEM IS TO PROVIDE LARGER PARKING SPACES NEAR WALLS OR LARGE POSTS. RETAIN THE 10 FOOT WIDTH RATHER THAN THE NINE FOOT WIDTH. THE SECOND ONE IS TO PROVIDE FOR THE COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE TO MAKE IT NEAR THE UNITS THAT THE SPACE IS BEEN TAKING FRONT. SO THAT SPACES USABLE BY THOSE UNITS. AND WE WOULD VOTE FOR EACH OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> I THINK THE SECOND ONE IS A BIT AMBIGUOUS. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT CLOSER MEANS. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> WITHIN 50 FEET. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ]. >> CAN WE DO SOMETHING IF IT'S A MULTIUNIT BUILDING, SAY IT HAS TO BE WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE BUILDING? WOULD THAT BE EASIER? >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> OF THE BUILDING THAT -- OH. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] YEAH. >> I AM, KIND OF, STRUGGLING. YEAH. >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ]. >> I GUESS MY STRUGGLE IS, WE'VE GOT BRAND-NEW MULTIFAMILY UNITS, MOSTLY SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES STRAIGHT ACROSS FROM THE CITY PARK. IF WE REQUIRED SOME KIND OF OPEN SPACE OR PICNIC AREA OR PLAYGROUND AREA, IS NOT COMPLEX, WHEN YOU HAD A CITY PARK ACROSS THE STREET, DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? TO ME IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. PLUS I DON'T --I HAVE NEVER BEEN OVER TO THE NEW PLACE WHERE THOSE APARTMENTS HAVE BEEN BUILT ABOVE THE GROCERY STORE, SHOPPING MALL. I'VE NEVER BEEN OVER THERE. I HAVE NO CONTEXT OF HOW THEY HAVE IT DESIGNED, OR THE OPEN SPACES ARE. I FEEL, LIKE, WE ARE FISHING FOR SOMETHING, UNLESS WE HAVE SOMETHING REALLY SPECIFIC AND KNOWN. I GUESS THAT IS WHERE I AM GETTING HUNG UP. >> MAYBE THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT OF OPPORTUNITY , IN MARTINEZ, TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THERE'S ONLY SO MANY SPACES AVAILABLE. MAYBE WE ARE SPENDING TOO MUCH TIME ON -- >> IF I MAY, REALLY QUICK, WHEN IT COMES TO SPACE THAT IS IN A COMPLEX, VERSUS SPACE OUT OF A COMPLEX, WHAT SOMETIMES HAPPENS, AND THIS IS BECAUSE I WORK WITH PARKS , IS IF THERE IS SPACE WITHIN A COMPLEX , PEOPLE OUTSIDE OF THE COMPLEX DON'T THINK THEY CAN GO IN THERE. SOMETIMES PEOPLE IN THE COMPLEX TAKE OWNERSHIP OF IT AND SAY YOU DON'T LIVE HERE, WHERE ARE YOU HERE? THERE IS A CATALYST FOR BOTH, EVEN IF THERE ARE CLOSE IN PROXIMITY. THAT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE. >> SHOULD WE TAKE -- >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ]. >> I SAY WE VOTE, LET'S BOAT AND SEE IF WE ARE GOING FORWARD WITH THESE. WE CAN HONE IT DOWN, MAYBE . WHAT WERE YOU GOING TO SAY, JASON? GO AHEAD. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ON BOTH OF THESE. I THINK THEY ARE ABSOLUTELY WARRANTED, I AM NOT DISAGREEING WITH THAT. WHAT I AM STRUGGLING WITH MYSELF AS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A THEORETICAL PROJECT WHERE WE HAVE NOT SEEN PLANS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY --WE COULD USE THE EXAMPLE WE USED FOR THE THEORETICAL DOWNTOWN PROJECT, BUT THAT IS NOT EVEN GOING TO DESCRIBE REALLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT HERE. CONCEPTUALLY, I THINK WE ARE MISSING THE BIGGER PICTURE OF THE CHANGES WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE WITHIN THE RESOLUTION HERE. >> WE ARE LOSING , WE ARE GETTING IN THE WEEDS. TOO NITTY-GRITTY I NEED TO KEEP A BIGGER PICTURE. >> RIGHT. SHOULD WE FIRST DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO TAKE THE BOAT ON THESE TWO ITEMS? AND THEN IF WE SAY NO TO THAT, THEN WE WANT GO FURTHER. OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT. SHE JUST MADE IT, I BELIEVE, EARLIER, CAN WE GO WITH THAT? CAN WE TAKE A ROLL CALL ON THAT MOTION? WE NEED A SECOND. >> OH, WE NEED A SECOND. >> WILL YOU REPEAT THE MOTION, PLEASE? >> DO YOU WANT ME TO ATTEMPT TO SUMMARIZE IT, WOULD YOU PREFER THAT? >> I WOULD LIKE TO DO ONE MOTION AT A TIME. FIRST MOTION WOULD BE THAT -- >> TO EVEN VOTE ON THOSE. >> GO AHEAD. >> A MOTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE REQUIREMENT FOR PARKING TO SPECIFY THAT THE WITH THE PARKING STALL SHALL BE NINE FEET, EXCEPT IT SHALL INCREASE TO A 10 FOOT MINIMUM WITH REQUIREMENT WHEN ADJACENT TO A WALL OR COLUMN . >> [ INAUDIBLE -LOW VOLUME ] >> NOT COLUMN, EXCUSE ME. >> AGAIN, THE SISSONS COLUMNS HAVE BEEN -- HAVE IN EVERY DOES HAPPEN EVERY THREE SPACES, YOU CAN SWING A DOOR WHERE THE COLUMN IS AND, YEAH. >> AMENDMENT TO THE EMOTION APPROVED. WE NEED SOMEONE TO FORMALLY MAKE THAT. YOU CAN SAY AS INDICATED BASED OFF -- >> AS INDICATED BY STAFF. DO WE NEED A SECOND ON THAT? NO SECOND. HERE --MOTION FAILS. THE SECOND NEW MOTION WOULD BE FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO INCORPORATE, AS PART OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT, WHERE --FOR UNIT TO BE FROM COMMON OUTDOOR SPACE. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> AS STATED BY STAFF, FIRST. >> AS STATED BY STAFF. >> SECOND? NOT HEARING ONE. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CLEAR. I ALSO HEARD CONCERNS ABOUT FENCING AND POTENTIALLY CHANGES TO FENCING. I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THAT IS SOMETHING ALSO SOMEONE WANTS TO REQUEST A CHANGE. >> YEAH, I WAS --PROBABLY IN REFERENCE TO WHAT I SAID. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT . THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT, LIKE JASON WAS SAYING, IS IMPORTANT. I THINK IT SHOULD BE TAKEN AT A HIGHER LEVEL . I THINK YOU SAID THERE WERE THERE EXCEPTIONS. THAT MAKES PERFECT SENSE TO MOVE FORWARD. >> I THINK WE NEED TO REMEMBER, AS PROJECTS COME FORWARD AND ISSUES COME UP WE CAN ALWAYS REVISIT SOME OF THIS. IT IS BEST TO GET SOMETHING IN PLACE, IN MY OPINION. >> OKAY, NOW WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE TAKE THE MOTION AS STATED , CAN WE SAY IN THE STAFF REPORT, AS STATED? >> MAKE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE ADOPTION OF THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED AT TONIGHT'S MEETING. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 25-06, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STAFF PRESENTATION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US THIS EVENING. >> I WILL SECOND. >> CAN WE HAVE A ROLLCALL? >> ? SUSAN MURANISHI? NIKKI FORUNATO BAS? NATE MILEY? ? ? MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SO MUCH, GREAT JOB, GUYS. THANK YOU, A LOT. >> SEE YOU ALL. >> WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT. ANY COMMISSION ITEMS? NO? HEARING NONE, HOW ABOUT PLANNING MANAGER UPDATES? >> I HAVE A FEW OF DATES FOR YOU, THIS EVENING. FIRST, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE AN UPDATE ON TWO BUSINESSES. FIRST, THE CITY HAS APPROVED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR ROSS DRESS FOR LESS TO COME TO THE CITY. LOCATED AT THE SHOPPING CENTER AT THE CORNER OF ARNOLD AND MORELLO. WHERE THE McDONALD'S -- >> WE ARE ALL BLOWN AWAY. >> SECOND NEW BUSINESS I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE IS BERGER OPENED ON MAIN STREET IN DOWNTOWN. IT'S LOCATED ON THE FIRST BLOCK ADJACENT TO COURT STREET. I WILL SAY THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR , WHO CANNOT BE HERE TODAY, DID INDICATE HE HAD A GREAT EXPERIENCE