Planning Commission

>>> So before I go into my recommendation, I wanted to just reemphasize again that the planning commission's task this evening is to consider and make a decision on two things. One is the request for the subdivision and the request for the state dense any bonus waivers. The previous approvals related to the projects and its merits, the 41 units, the design, the site plan, landscape plan, all those things have been technically approved. They're not really within the purview of this. Your focus is on making sure the findings can be made for the two entitlements being requested. And then I just also want to quickly note in the conditions of approval, there is just a minor error that we caught. So this reflects some changes that we wanted to make. So essentially, there was some language about a water loop related to the utility system and we would just like to locate it to the proper place. With that tonight's staff recommendation is to conduct a public hearing and adopt 25-08 approving one major subdivision tract number 9701 and two state density bonus law applications to convert the previously approved 41-unite Wyoming heights project into 41 individually- owned lots with associated easement areas, modify state density bonus law waiver requests located on Wyoming street APN 376-041. And I'm happy to take any questions, but I also have the applicant here as well, who I believe would like to just share a couple of brief words with you. Thank you. Please come up. >> Good evening. My name is Pete. I just briefly wanted to introduce myself, thank very much city staff for the opportunity to work with them. It's been quite a process to get to this point. I also want to thank the community, not just through the community meeting, but we met with several of the neighbors, who was generous with their time to help me understand the community's concerns so we could incorporate some of those changes into our project. Lastly, I want to thank the free will Baptist church, in particular Chris web, who is the son of the pastor who has been very patient with us working through this project. Very brief background, the project the property was shown in the city's housing element as a CSO overlay district site with an opportunity to have this kind of affordable housing in it. When we met with the city, this project as we have it now, is nearly identical to what was in the city's housing element, and the city worked with us very closely to get us to that point, including all the affordable housing subsidies that project houses as community benefit. Of course, because we were working with a religious institution, the church, we were able to do that. So that's sort of the background of how the project came about through that process. Once we reached the stage of project approval, it became apparent from a variety of sources that it was probably better for us to offer the homes for sale as opposed to for rent. We felt like the feedback was that it would give the owners of that community more of a sense of place and to be part of the community. And in the long run, it would be better to have the community managed by a homeowner's association, instead of by an absentee landlord type property owner. So that's the purpose of the meeting of our application before you tonight, is to take the project that was already approved by staff and really get your approval to subdivide the lots and go through that process as we move forward in development. I will step down now and make myself available to you later if you have any additional questions. Thank you very much. >> Thank you for that. And thank you, staff, for your presentation as well. You know, as we move on to the discussion and question part, after that we'll move on to public comment. But, you know, as staff mentioned, the --what we're looking at now, what we're going to be discussing is a very, very segmented, specific part of this entire project that we can discuss. We all know the reason that we have the housing elements from the state is because there is a drive across the state to build more housing. And a lot of that is for sale. It is to build that investment that families bring into communities. So I, for one, definitely understand why there is that change to move for for sale because we're seeing that across the state and within the bay area as well. But we also all need to be sensitive to the change that this is going to bring to that community. This is potentially 41 families that will be moving into this community within the span of two to four years. That's a lot. That's a lot of change in the community. That's a lot more traffic. But those families also will have some investment in that community. They will grow and hopefully be a part of that community. So there is also the benefits that go along with that as well. But for my other members on the commission, does anyone have any questions for staff or the applicant? >> I have some questions. Some of them are probably for the city, and some of them might be for the applicant. The first one is, there is going to be eight total low-income housing units in this development. How is the --how is the original sale and then subsequent sales done to maintain the low-income status? Yeah. So as a part of the conditions of approval, there is a requirement to create an affordable housing plan that will basically establish guidelines of any potential sale and transfer of ownership. But essentially, there will be a 45-year deed restriction locked to these units, which will require them to be sold to eligible peoples that qualify for those income levels. So it will be deed restricted. >> Thank you. And then with these properties, especially since they're in such close proximity to each other, is there going to be an HOA that is part of this development so that the community can --can have guidelines to abide by because they're so close to their neighbors? Yeah. So we do include a condition of approval that covenants, conditions and restrictions, CC and Rs are be required to establish a homeowner's association. That homeowner's association will have guidelines about maintenance and responsibilities. So, yes, they will. >> Thank you. I've got a --I have a general question about the religious organizations. I did do a site visit and walked around various different parts of the property and the adjacent pieces of property. And it looks like even though this site is still, I guess, owned by the religious organization, it has not been in operation for quite some time. Was there any restrictions on the new agreement where religious organizations can build certain things on their property? Does it have to be operating religious organization or just owned by a religious organization? >> So this is a very specific question that we raised with the city attorney's office early on in the process. >> Thank you. Based on consultation with the city attorney, this site does meet the criteria of our CSO overlay district, as well as with the statement requirement that our state bill is based on. Because it is a site that is owned by a religious institution and it has not become a different use, they're eligible. >> Thank you. >> It had become a different use, then we would be having a different circumstance. Okay, thank you. >> That's all the questions I have. But I do have a comment for the applicant. And I don't know whether I comment now or I comment later. We would recommend that comments come after public comments. >> Thank you. I have a question for city staff. So pertaining to the HOA, is there HOA owned property in this development, or does the subdividing of lots make all the property owned by the residents that will be living there, including the streets, will the streets be owned by the city or will that be the HOA. >> The streets are intended to be private, as well as some of the other common areas as sewer drainage, easement type areas. But each of the individual lots will be owned by individual owners. So I believe in discussing with the applicant, the intention is not to do like a condominium style. Each individual owner will own the lot their land is on. >> Living in a condo, I found that to be an interesting question to ask. So thank you. >> And I would like to clarify. If you look at sheet CO, which is the vesting tentative map, the sites that are called out as parcels A, B and C would be the ones that would be owned by the homeowner's association. Whereas, the individual lots would be owned by the individual owners. >> That brings up another question for me. There is, I will call it a drainage ditch or gully or something that is very highly --there is a lot of education in there. So as part of this --the homeowner's association. Is there some requirement by the city that this area is maintained? And the reason that I'm asking is because there is one ingress and EGRESS to this entire piece of property. So, obviously, minimizing fire hazards is a big very -- very important. >> Yeah, that's a great question. I believe the intention is that HOA will be responsible for maintenance in that area. It was also specifically avoided because there is an oil pipeline easement that runs through that area, as well as it's -- it's a drainage area, so I think the applicant intentionally avoided that area as well. But, yes, the HOA will be responsible for maintenance and upkeep of that area. >> So are there going to be specific requirements as to what that is? I'm not sure we necessarily have a condition of approval related to maintenance of the landscaping. But the conditions -- or the CC and Rs and HOA ultimately will be at least reviewed by the city and the city attorney. So at that time, there is the potential for that to be reviewed. >> I would encourage that we include that on the review sheet. I think it's important. Thank you. >> What I'd like to add to that, just to put it on the record is landscape and property maintenance issues are something that's required of every property, whether it goes through this process or not. And as a separate related because of the comments that were made effort, the city is actually working to strengthen those requirements and had a meeting last night to discuss that. >> Thank you, Michael. >> I saw that that meeting had occurred last night. I'm like, darn it. I missed it. >> Anyone else have anymore questions? No? Okay. Well then, we will move on to public comment. I believe we have one member from the public that we are fortunate enough to speak to tonight. Michelle, please approach. You will have three minutes. Thank you. >> Thank you. I will try to be fast. Of the mountainview improvement association. I'd like to propose that these be occupied by owner to keep alignment with the state's contention for the homeowner ship element and also what the city is proposing and that it have a sunset of at least 15 years for the homeowner ship, unless you already have that built in as a permanency. Otherwise, we have people who will purchase the properties and then rent them out, and then we end up being the opposite of what the project intends. Secondly, now that there will be -- never be a connection of the street of Wyoming from our side -- I live at 725 Wyoming street. And the other side, which the intention was to connect all the way through. And now it's been dead- ended, and it won't ever be connected. So what we have is people who come into the neighborhood trying to get to the other side of Wyoming, not --GPS, for some reason, has not caught up with what's really taking place. And when this road, the main road that you saw on the diagram goes in, it's called Wyoming street. And I think it would differentiate better if it had its own name, instead of being a continuation of this Wyoming to that Wyoming and then the other Wyoming, and there is a creek that runs through it. So I would suggest that it be renamed so that it's absolutely separate from Wyoming identity itself. So it would help to prevent confusion. Something like mountainview heights, I thought would be good. Okay. We have not had issues of safety addressed as to the ingress and EGRESS issues that I have brought up before. But they now have vacated the driveway that went out the back. So that there is no other proposal before you. And that brings all the traffic down on to the very short end of Wyoming street for all of that traffic in and out of the private development. And I would like to suggest a stop sign be put up at the exit area of the project area so that people coming down those streets, which does --it will be a grade. So they will be coming downhill. So they don't pick up speed and end up going faster as they go passed our homes. There is only four or five homes right in the immediate area. And two of the homes have driveways that are immediately next to that ingress/EGRESS area. So we could be backing out of our driveways and might end up in a collision if cars are not seeing somebody come out of the driveways. Plus, we have a large number of small children that play on our street, and there is -- coming down PINION, they do play a lot of basketball, and the ball comes rolling down the hill from PINION and right on to Wyoming where Wyoming is off of Monterrey. So cars coming on to Wyoming do have to be careful. So it would be great if we could slow down that a little bit and make it safer for the kids. Okay. And lastly I'd like to ask that if --presuming that this all can't go in all at once, I'd like to ask for the higher portion of the property to be developed first and work its way down the hillside towards our -- our neighborhood because our area is the area that is giving up all of the trees, all the wildlife and all the setbacks are coming right up against us. >> Sheryl, we are passed our three minutes. >> Okay. I'm the only one here, so if I could get 30 more seconds, I'll be done. Okay. And as an aside, I am presently working with the city of Martinez to transfer the park at mountainview into the city hands 100%. So as a further donation to the community of Martinez at no additional cost to the city. Thank you. >> Thank you, Sheryl. >> Thank you. >> I don't believe we have anyone else from the public present. Do we have anyone online? >> There are no hands raised online. >> Okay. Then we will close public comment. We will move on to any comments related to what we just heard. There is definitely some important items that were mentioned. Again, we can't change the current construction drawings or the plot plan that we have. But there are some questions that were brought up regarding safety mitigation measures that could possibly be inflated after the community is built. Regarding the scheme of how things are built is generally driven by safety. And the last thing that you want to do is build a front where you have homeowners that are there and all the construction vehicles coming through and whatnot. So staff would recommend, prior to commenting on that, that the commission give the applicant an opportunity to rebut the public comment and then close the public comment before the council deliberates. >> Do I need to open up public comment again? We do need to allow the applicant to respond to the comments that were made. >> Okay. >> You can re -- sorry. Yes, you can reopen it. >> We should reopen public comment. >> Thank you. I think in the interest of generally answering some of these questions, I'll tell you that we worked very closely with city staff, including mostly a lot of our process was with the city engineering department. And some of these issues Sheryl and I have been talking about quite a bit in terms of how the access in and out is going to work. And the city engineer in some of these discussions determined that it was not appropriate to have a stop sign at that point where the project comes from the new street on to Wyoming street because of the geometry and some of the other things that are happening there. What will happen, because it goes from being a regular public with street to being a narrower private street, is the geometry is such that cars will almost have to slow down as they come and go. It is called traffic calming in some cases. And then when you come out of that, we had talked about putting a stop sign at PINION where the turn is to PINION. And the city engineer determined that there wasn't sufficient what they called warrant to do that. And so in some other discussions, we talked about possibly doing a speed bump in the city street to kind of slow down traffic. The city engineer was concerned about that given that times those speed bumps, which feel like they're doing a good service for the homeowners who actually live there actually cause a lot of noise for that homeowner. So the city engineer had concerned about all of those things. We kind of walked through them. And as a result, we did not end up with any of those things as part of our plan or the conditions of approval. But I wanted you to understand that we walked through all of those things. With respect to the private parcels that will be owned via homeowner's association, we felt like this process would make it more likely that they would have good maintenance through homeowner association activity, that homeowner associations are highly regulated by the California department of real estate. So when you create a homeowner's association, you have to create a set of CC and Rs and they get reviewed by that department. We agreed to a condition that would then send a copy of those conditions to the city. And with respect to kind of that open space area with the vegetation, a lot of that was left in part because of the, excuse me, because of the pipeline that's there, but also because of kind of the natural buffer between our property and the existing homeowners on the other side. I would tell you that the conditions of approval already require all the appropriate fire department permits. And the fire department is going to require appropriate, you know, grass, mitigation of all the grass that's in there, trimming of the trees. So I feel like that's already covered through the homeowner's association and through the conditions relative to the fire department. And this process makes that much more formal than it would have been if we had just taken the condition of the already approved project. With respect to changing the name of the street as it comes in, I think we could certainly be open to that. It is not uncommon for these little private streets to have a different name. Street naming typically happens on the final map. So this process creates the tentative map. And then that parcel could have a separate street name. Not necessarily in a position to commit to a name at this moment, but I want to tell you we're open to that. Lastly, regarding the phasing, I do think phasing probably will be the opposite of what Sheryl asked for. I think you understand what's going to happen is we TEND to want to have construction traffic can drive passed homeowners. But we don't want homeowners to have to drive through construction traffic. So what typically happens is you start at the entrance of the project and you kind of work your way backwards. I believe I've addressed most of the things that I heard. While I'm here, I'm available for any other questions you might have. >> Staff would like to just add a couple of comments to what the applicant indicated. So planning staff was involved in those conversations with the engineering department, the engineering division in regards to the traffic calming and traffic safety related issues and can confirm that that was the position of the city engineer. And I want to make sure it's clear that those were discussions that happened both when the original project was going through the review process as well as reassessed with the current subdivision that's before the commission this evening. I also -- the one kind of comment that was, I believe, not responded to was a member of the public's request for restricting the ownership model to at least 15 years. We don't have the ability to restrict who resides in the units other than the requirement for the eight units that there are income verification requirement. So we don't have the ability to say they have to be owner occupied. An owner could purchase the unit and rent it out if they choose. They just couldn't do short-term rentals because of the city. If you have no other questions of the applicant, you can re-close the public comment. >> I just have one question. And it actually tees off of what staff just mentioned. Is there a designated minimum number of allowable rental units? Generally the CC and R s will designate you can only have 20% of the homes rented for. >> You know, California state law through the department of real estate no longer allows that. So those kinds of restrictions are not something that I would propose. And I would tell you that we believe, at least in this particular case, that most of these are going to be owner occupied. That's the reason we've shifted from the rental model to the ownership model. We just think that this is a kind of a missing middle starter home. To me, these homes are affordable almost by design. These are 1,450, 1,500 square foot units that are going to sell in the seven to eight hundred thousand dollar range. This is not millions of dollars. And the affordable homes are not going to sell in the three to $350,000 range. That's just my guess looking at the initial numbers. The project is a $3. 2 to $4 million subsidy to affordable housing. It is a place where you are going to have, you know, starter homes for people, I think , and they're going to get new for that price. That's reason why we don't think those are required and we also have quite a bit of experience with some of these various state laws and we try to avoid that whenever possible. >> And when you get to the point of actual ly selling some of these units, speaking of the market rates specifically, will there be any restriction to make sure they're not being sold to investors? >> No. >> No. So an investor could potentially -- Yes. The department of real estate does have a requirement that no single investor can own more than 10% of a property. And, so, the reason that that's done is that when you sell into a project like that, it becomes an ownership project. It is not --no longer a kind of for rent thing. So as we sell into this, depending on how this goes, we're not going to retain these units for rentals. It won't be that way. Okay, thank you. >> I have another question that I appreciate these conversations because it spurs ideas. And thank you for sharing, you know, kind of the range of what the housing prices might be in this area. I like that there is a certain percentage of them that are affordable in this development. And I think that it's important that you maintain something like that. So here's the question. Can we require owner occupied for the affordable units? And the reason I'm asking that is because the prices are so much significantly lower than the others that it seems that it would be kind of relatively easy for the owner of the affordable housing unit to turn it into a rental at some point in time. And that's not the purpose of having affordable units. I believe the answer would be yes. And I'm going to turn this one right back to Michael CASS. And I'm going to tell you why. What's going to happen with these eight units is we will come into an affordable housing agreement with the city and we will be subject to the city's affordable policy which is a burgeoning thing. You don't have a requirement in new projects. If we came in with a regular subdivision, we wouldn't be required to have a particular number. But there is going to be a standard set of conditions in the agreement that these homes are sold in, the deed restriction document and other things. And so I believe Michael has already been working on these things and already has other projects that he's doing that have this, so I think he's the better person to answer this. >> And maybe that's something that can be determined, not here tonight, but in the future. I think that that's something that's important for us to maintain a certain number of affordable units in the city. And with their deed restriction and with the documentation that is going to be part of the city's program, the city will set that up and we'll agree to whatever that is when we do our affordable housing meeting. >> I have --thank you, Sheryl, for your comments. I do have one comment about stop signs because I think that as driving through the area, I think it's on Monterrey. There is a kind of a blind hill that you come over and then you come down and then you turn into the Wyoming street area. And Monterrey is a pretty highly used street. And I just saw that with a lot more traffic in that area that there was --there would be a higher probably of an accident happening on the corner of Monterrey and Wyoming, specifically on one side where it is a lined hill that comes down. >> Sheryl brought this to me. We went and brought it to the city engineer. And the response we got was Monterrey was in the county. So the city wasn't have the ability to require or, even if they wanted to, to install a stop sign there. Though, probably if we did one in the middle of the night, no one would notice. But anyway, so that was the answer we got. >> Okay, thank you. So if the stop sign was wanted, then somebody would need to go to the county and request that. Thank you. I just want to avoid accidents. That's all. >> So being a member of the commission here that lives in multi-family housing complex over on Maine, we have 109 condos on our side of the street. And that's usually accompanies two cars. So that's about 210 cars, people driving cars. On the other side there is an apartment complex on our cul-de-sac that's equally as large as our HOA. And, so, with all that traffic, we do not have any stop signs at our driveways that lead out of our property, and we have three --we have three exits out of our property. The apartments have two exits out of the property out of this cul-de-sac. There is no stop signs. You are talking about hundreds of cars and there is no backups. I think it is an important question to have about 41 units and how many cars that takes into account. But I don't think it will be a problem at all given an HOA that has 109 units and there is obviously way more cars than there are units that are on our property. Also, I think we also have to take into mind wild fire risk. If you put a stop sign leaving a property of 41 units, boy, there is no other EGRESS. I'm surprised there isn't two EGRESSES required in this property because of wild fire risk. If the one main road gets cutoff by fire, there is no other way to escape. But that's beyond this conversation because it's not in part of the plans. But it seems like having a stop sign there could cause fire EGRESS issues if that ever became an issue in this area. Thank you. >> Nobody else has any questions, we will close public comment. Does anyone have any comments for staff, any questions? >> The vice chair has a comment he wants to make to put on the record. Yeah. Just regarding the fire concern, the site does only have one point of ingress and EGRESS. But I did want to add that these projects are routed to the fire district for review and approval before we approve them. And it was reviewed, and it has been insured that it has adequate fire turn-around, emergency vehicle access. So it has been reviewed and insured by the fire commission. Furthermore, that the project will go again to the fire district before they receive their building permit to get their fire permits and whatnot. >> And there is a firefire at the end as well. A fire final at the end. Where they go in and make sure the entire project as whole, you know, the city sort of -- well, I think we're at the point where if I can get a motion from anyone. >> I would be happy to make the motion, but do we need to make two motions here? Is that what we were saying earlier? >> No, there is only one motion with the two sub items in the one motion. >> I see. So we would be motioning to approval number 25-8. 25-08, yeah. >> Okay. I'll make a motion to approve resolution number 25-08 with the clarification that it includes that minor amendment to the conditions of approval presented by staff during the presentation. And you can just say so be it. And so be it. >> I'll second. >> Great. Then can we please record the vote? >> Susan Gustavsson, AYE. >> Row sell Johnson. >> AYE. >> Rob. >> AYE. >> Joseph Evans. >> AYE. >> Motion passes. >> Thank you. And Sheryl and applicant, thank you both for coming. We really appreciate it. >> Can I make my comment to the applicant now? >> It has nothing to do with the vote. >> Yes. And staff has a comment after you do as well. >> Okay, thank you. I appreciate that the applicant has looked at this property and tried to do something good in this neighborhood that is underutilized. I was and still am concerned about the density of it and the salability of it. And this is just some guidelines and some observations that I've had in being in the community for a long period of time. The project which is behind knob hill foods was a project that had a lot of changes in it, but it's pretty high density considering the hillside. And streets are narrow, and a lot of the properties have no driveway at all, and they're end-to-end parking so they potentially have two cars to park in the garages. Even in this housing shortage that has gone on for the last few years, it is in a great location, but in this housing shortage that's gone on for the last few years, the owner of the property is still having trouble selling those units. And, so, I just want to bring that up because there is an actual living example of a high density homes for sale that are hard to move and to consider, if it comes to that, the salability and the resalability of these units. You know what --you know what buyers want and what attracts buyers. Thank you. >> If I may, I think one of the things I would tag on to that, Suzanne, is when I heard the price point, I know of a single family three-bedroom house that's going for $700,000. And, so, that would be probably my one concern, is if -- if a buyer has a choice between this style of living and more private space, more personal outdoor space, then that can be a draw. So that was probably the one thing. But I do like the idea of options for people entering into the buyers' market, which is why I voted the way that I did. But that was probably my one concern, that $300,000 price point seems attainable. But that $700,000 when there is so many options for competition and other choices, that was like, I don't know. >> Staff just wants to put on the record that the decision and action that the planning commission took tonight is subject to a ten-day appeal period in which anyone can appeal the decision to the city council. >> Thank you. Thank you both for coming. >> All right. We will now move on to our next item on the regular agenda. That is to conduct a public hearing and adapt resolution number 25-09, recommending the city council to approve amendments to the land use element of the general plan 2035 to amend the land use designation for the following units 0 Arnold industrial way 13000201 from business park and office professional to mixed- use housing. 0 HOWE road and 0 HOWE road, a different parcel, 377020057, which would be moved from commercial light industrial to mixed-use housing. 0 Arnold road, parcel number 377120 -- sorry. >> Keep going. All right. >> Parcel number 377120030, 1027 Arnold drive parcel 377120035 and another parcel number on 0 Arnold drive 377120039 from regional commercial to mixed-use housing. And in finding the impacts of this action were previously analyzed in a programmatic environmental impact report pursuant to the California environmental quality Act. And staff has a report. >> Good evening, vice chair Evans and members of the planning commission. Before you this evening is yet another housing element implementation item. These are our general amendments. To give a little bit of background, state housing element law requires local jurisdictions including cities and counties to adopt a housing unit for the eight-year planning period of 2023 to 2031 to accommodate the city's regional housing needs allocation and the city of Martinez was assigned 1,345 units during this eight-year cycle. On December 20th, 2023, the city adopted the 2023-2013 housing element and directed staff to submit it to the California department of housing and community development for certification. On April 3rd, 2024, the city council adopted number 145-23 to clarify the city's previous action taken on December 20th, 2023 and make specific findings that address nonvacant sites zoned to allow nonresidential uses. The city subsequently submitted the revised adopted 2023-2031 housing element to HCD for certification. Subsequent to that, there has been multiple rounds we submitted, minor revisions of the housing element to HCD. On June 3rd, 2025, HCD indicated that the adopted housing element, including modifications, meets the statutory requirements of state housing element law. However, the housing element cannot be found in substantial compliance until the city has completed rezones that comply with all the requirements specified in government code section 65583. 2, subdivisions H and I, including those identified in programs 11, which is our zoning ordinance amendments and program 13, which is adequate sites for lower-income households, which includes all of our rezonings. >> A little bit of background as a refresher of many things we've done to get us into compliance. We have adopted accessory dwelling unit regulations. We have prepared pre-approved plans. We adopted affordable by design regulations also known as micro unit regulations. We have adopted density bonus regulations that go above and beyond state law. We have developed our own development incentives and community benefit program. We have established exception regulations to streamline the process for minor deviations to projects. We established a fee deferral program allowing certain fees to be paid prior to final inspection rather than issue answer of a building permit. We shifted those requirements from the general plan to the zoning ordinance and increasing what those standards were. We conducted a code enforcement program where we inventoried properties throughout the city and proactively provided research for identified property owners to fix up their properties. We have adopted lot consolidation incentive regulations. We have adopted project phasing facilitation regulations. We adopted multifamily and mixed-use design standards. We have done overlay districts of general plan amendments on the screen. We adopted our small lot subdivision regulations and universal design and accessibility regulations. All of that has happened since December 2023. We've been busy. I do want to give a little bit of progress. Our housing element perhaps for 1,345 dwelling units that we need to plan for and the current year, we do report our numbers each year as part of our annual progress report that we submit to HCD. As of December 31st of last year, we had permitted 135 dwelling units, including a number of which qualify as affordable housing. The units that count towards affordable housing mainly have been our ADUs, but we have some other projects such as the one this evening that will have traditional units that count as well. It is also important to call out, as indicated, we have also entitled earlier this year the 41 units associated with the Wyoming heights project you just spoke to. And this is a little bit dated. I haven't checked it in the last couple years, but we issued building permits for seven accessory dwelling units. So we are on track. We're doing welcome paired to how we have done in the past. We still have a ways to go. So that brings to you the current proposal this evening. That includes six sites that are proposed to be amended to be within our mixed use overlay district. I would like to clarify for these six sites they would maintain their land use designation, but also could have housing on top of what was otherwise allowed. So the People that's included on the screen does include that clarification in the follow- up to the right. I want to point out that one of the parcels mistakenly added a tenth digit which has been removed for clarification purpose, and that has also been done on the resolution for you. So we do have six sites that are shown. And I'm actually going to walk over to the screen for the benefit of the commission, so you can see where I'm speaking to. For those who are watching virtually, you do have the ability to zoom in and see things a little bit easier. Making sure this works, yes. Okay. So the sites that we really are talking about are a couple of sites on HOWE road, which are outlined in red on the top left- hand corner of the screen. We're talking about a couple of sites on Arnold drive that are included in --close to where Walmart is located. And then also we're talking about Arnold Industrial Drive, the site right here in the lower left-hand corner of the screen. So the recommendation for the council --excuse me, for the planning commission this evening is to conduct a public hearing and adapt resolution number 25- 09 recommending, excuse me, it should -- recommending the city council to approve amendments to the land use element of the general 2035 to amend the land use designation for 0 Arnold industrial way. I can't read it. Assessor's parcel number 161-130-020-1 to add mixed-use housing. 0 HOWE road APN 377-020-051 and 0 HOWE road, APN 377-020- 057 from commercial light to MUO. And 377-120- 030, 377-120-035 and 377-120-09 from regional commercial to add MUO and other minor amendments to the general as well as ing the impacts pursuant to the California environmental Act and hopefully through this action, we will finally get our housing element certified. I am available for any questions that you may have. >> Thank you, Michael. And we all feel that the work that staff has done is admirable and commendable. It's been a heavy lift to get us to this point. We're right at the finish line now. And the community appreciates the work that you guys have done particularly in getting this housing element pushed across the finish line. So with that, does anyone have any questions? >> I just --I just wanted to make a comment. That was exhaustive, the amount of work that this city has done to get our housing element across the finish line. And so thanks to you and all the staff and all the additional support personnel for getting us to this point. >> And, you know, looking at the parcels that we're adding that additional level to make it housing, we have to take measures such as that. The number of units that the state wants us to be able to build for housing is quite a bit. It's a lot. And it's tough to do that without making every possible parcel usable through mixed housing of some sort. So I completely understand that. So thank you. Okay. Well, if we don't have any -- do you have any? >> I'll just add that I find some of this disingenuous on behalf of the city. I don't think the Walmart parking lot or the Home Depot parking lot is going to be turned into any housing. I also don't think this parking lot that's down here along the interstate is --I mean, that's a parking lot for low-income housing, so I don't think there is going to be any housing built there either. >> Why? >> The lot right here? Have you ever seen it? Have you ever walked by it? >> That's what I'm saying, is if you construct it -- >> It's up against the freeway. It's the lowest quality parcel in the city. >> So are you against approval? >> I have. But I wouldn't want to put anybody on that tiny lot that's there. And it's being used by the low-income housing across the street. It is a parking lot for their cars. >> I was just curious about your conditioning. That's all. >> Because I live over there, and I walk by this lot. >> I hear you. >> All the time. I hear you. >> I will say that it is actually --I wouldn't say quite common, but it does happen that businesses like target, sears back in the day, when migration changes, they're not getting as many sales, we have seen where they will take a commercial property, tear it down and build multifamily housing. >> But it shouldn't be saying all the property around our Walmart, which is our last large retailer in our city that probably gives us a huge amount of retail sales tax and also Home Depot, if either one of those close, we could be facing a financial crisis. So I want to clarify that the intention of this land use designation change would still allow all the uses. >> Correct. That are there now. >> I'm just saying -- >> So this would be in addition to that. We don't ultimately --I hear your --I hear your point. We --some of the sites are more challenging to develop and have other issues. I think with the range of issues that the city has brought forward, we're looking at a variety of solutions. Not every site that's been identified in the housing element will for sure get developed. >> Yeah. >> It's -- we're tasked with finding sites that could be developed, and we don't see any foreseeable obstacle that would prevent it from happening in the eight-year period. >> I'm just saying this is all in my city council district, which makes it very targeted towards us. So why were none of these sites chosen in other city council districts? You know? That's a fair question, I think. >> There has been a whole series of other changes that were in other districts. So there is many other items brought forward previously. A good example of that is the overlay district, which is in a different portion of the city as well. And I'd be happy to share our map of our housing element opportunity sites that really are spread throughout the city in an attempt to not cluster development in one particular area. But I hear the concern that with this change, this is predominantly focused in one area. >> Right. And being a new urbanist and being a smart growth person and the brother of the person who invented the missing middle, you know, housing in America, I think we could do a much better job in this town, especially when so much of this town is suburban. That's all I have to say. >> Thank you. Listen, we've been fixing what's broke. I'm okay. >> Okay. Then I think we will move on to public comment. Is there anyone online? >> No, there are no attendees. >> Okay. Then we will close public comment. >> Are you looking for a motion? I'll make a motion. I'll make a motion. Do I have to read all that? >> You can indicate as moved by staff. >> I make a motion -- let's see. To adopt resolution --oh, the whole thing. >> I would just recommend you move to adopt the resolution outlined by staff. >> I make a motion to to resolution 25-09 as outlined by staff. >> I second the motion. >> Please record the vote. >> Susan. >> AYE. >> Row shell Johnson. >> AYE. >> Rob PAROLEK? AYE. >> Evan? >> AYE. >> Fantastic. If there is nothing more for those regular items, then we will conclude that and move on to any commission items. >> This is where commissioners make questions or comments or is this where -- >> Yes. >> Okay. >> Anything related to this body? Some of the projects that have come through and, of course, things that are happening in -- around the United States right now have been happening for a while with an increase in fires and destructive fires and floods and things like that. Basically emergencies where people need EGRESS as well as fire departments need ingress. I think it's important that we codify for new developments that there are a minimum number of ingress/EGRESS routes per certain number of units so that we don't put the new residents in danger of not being able to get out. There are plenty of places in the city right now where the existing residents are concerned about emergency vehicles coming in, while at the same time residents being able to get out. And a precedent was set in the paradise fire. There was a grand jury report that recommended that additional EGRESS routes were made for paradise and made specific recommendations to various public bodies in the area, and all of them declined to do anything about it, and that was the result. And I read a copy of that, and we have some places like that around here. I don't want that to happen in Martinez. So I think we need to raise the level of awareness, and we need to codify that to make sure that the new areas that we develop that there is safety ingress and EGRESS, both, it is not just a fire truck getting in but residents able to get out. However that is, whether it's by foot or by car, whatever is appropriate. And I don't know how we do that, but I just wanted to put it in the record, yes. >> That's a very good point. You know, we know that the fire department takes a look at all the building department -- all the building plans before they get approved. But, yeah. You know, the limited ingress and EGRESS that we saw earlier today, we thought the same way. I live in a community that only has two ingress and EGRESS. Even that for the number of people, that's not enough. I don't know what ability we have to influence that. But I know that, you know, we're speaking all for our neighbors and our constituents which we have all heard it. It is a concern. And Martinez being an older city, it was built when homes were smaller, families were smaller, vehicles were smaller. And it's --there is a lot. >> So it's not on the agenda, so we can't go into a deep conversation. But what I can share because it has been brought forward previously is we will be making minor adjustments to our safety elements later this year and the beginning of next year. And this is a bigger policy issue, which could be identified as something to look at, and we could identify it potentially as part of that discussion. What I'll say is it's not a straightforward item, though, because it could be considered a taking in some circumstances where that's not feasible. So there is a balance. >> Taking? >> Yes. >> Can you say what it is? >> If you create a standard that the property has to have multiple ingress and EGRESS points. But if it is not feasible for them to do so based upon surrounding properties, access points they already have, topographic or other restraints that would make it feasible, then we would be depriving the ability of them to develop the property. >> I see, thank you. >> So it is a bigger discussion than what we could have. >> Is this in response to the Cal fire maps that came out last fall, I believe it was? >> My comments are not directly related to that, no. >> No? >> Is that anywhere on the city's purview as to what zones we're in now? >> It is the engineering divisions. >> Is what? >> The engineering division is responsible for that. >> There is nothing in there for us to take up as a cause? No, no. I think it is just great that we're opening the door to the conversation, you know, that --that --that it's known that it's important to this commission. >> It is good that it's on the record. And we thank you for heeding that and hearing us out, Michael. >> We'll move on. >> I do have a few updates for your attention. As you know, we have two vacancies on the planning commission. The application window closed on the 30th of last month. And the mayor and our chair and another member of the council will be interviewing candidates and hopefully bringing toward new appointments at the beginning of September. So hopefully by the time we meet next, you'll have two new commissioners. Additionally, I want to bring to your attention that the city has six city-owned housing element sites that we have put out for a potential long-term lease or for sale. The deadline for interested parties to express interest is the 21st of this month. I can't share details, but we have gotten some interest already. I'll be able to share more after that period closes. We have gotten formal proposals. >> That's good news. >> I also want to let you know that our budget was approved and now that the budget has been approved, we have been able to go back out to recruit for the vacant associate planner position, which is much needed. That person, the application window closes on the 15th, and we already have the two rounds of interviews scheduled with our panelists. And so hopefully, we'll have somebody to introduce you to in the not too distant future. >> And these are individuals with five years experience? >> At least three years. >> At least three years. >> Yeah. >> Or two years with a master's degree. We also have our --I mentioned it during the presentation. The multi- family design objective standards were approved by the council at a recent meeting. They also introduced the regulations were commercial. Excuse me. For residential development and commercial zones, which the city --which the planning commission recommended. And then I think the last thing that I just kind of want to bring to your attention is we will not have a second meeting in July. And we will not have meetings in August per the city's break. So you have a nice break until September when we do envision there will be items. And finally, just want to share that Brandon is expecting his first child. >> Congratulations. >> Which his daughter is due in August, so hopefully we'll have some good news to share with you soon. >> That is fantastic. >> And those are the items I have this evening. Do you have any communications for us? Not that'ven is evening. Okay. Well on Tuesday, July 8th at