City Council Study Session

>>> RORG IN PROGRESS. GOOD EVENING. AND COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL PROGRESS. PLEASE CALL THE ROLL. >> COUNCILMEMBER JAY HOWARD. >> PRESENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER MARK ROSS. >> ALL RIGHT. WE ONLY HAVE ONE ITEM ON OUR CITY SESSION THIS EVENING. AND AS USUAL, WE'LL RESERVE PUBLIC COMMENT UNTIL AFTER PRESENTATION BY STAFF. WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO WELCOME TO THE MICROPHONE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR. GOOD EVENING, COUNCILMEMBERS. I'M ASSOCIATE PLANNER DAN GORDON. THANK YOU, CAT. AND I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION ON MEASURES. THE FIRST THING WE SHOULD COVER. JUST WAIT FOR THAT TO POPULATE REALLY QUICK. IS WHAT DO I MEAN WHEN I SAY LOT CONSOLIDATION AND PROJECT PHASING. >> THIS IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT IS MORE IMPORTANT. AND ADDITIONALLY, LARGER LOTS ARE JUST GENERALLY MORE SUITABLE FOR HIGHER QUALITY, DENSER RESIDENTIAL QUALITY, AS WELL AS HIGHER QUALITY, COMMERCIAL CREATIVE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT. CURRENTLY, THE AVERAGE SIZE OF VACANT OR UNDEVELOPED PARCELS IN MARTINEZ IS .49 ACRES. WHY THAT'S IMPORTANT IS IT IS JUST BELOW THE MINIMUM SIZE OF 5 ACRES, WHICH IS WHAT HCD BELIEVES TO BE THE SIZE WHICH THEY ARE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE LOW-INCOME HOUSING UNITS. RIGHT NOW, 22%. ACTUALLY MEASURE THE .5 OR GREATER. THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE LOT CONSOLIDATION. TO REACH THAT SIZE THRESHOLD. >> THIS ALL RELATES TO COMMITTING TO INCENTIVIZE LOT CONSOLIDATION BY THE END OF THE YEAR. PROJECT PHASING REFERS TO THE ABILITY TO BREAK UP A DEVELOPMENT INTO DISTINCT PIECES OR PHASES, ALLOWING FOR THE GRADUAL COMPLETION OF THAT OVER TIME. THIS REDUCES THE STRAIN ON THE DEVELOPER, AS THEY CAN FINAL A FIRST PHASE OF PROJECT AND START RENTING OR SELLING THOSE UNITS TO PAY FOR SUBSEQUENT PHASES OF THE PROJECT. IN EACH PHASE, IN THESE SCENARIOS, TYPICALLY UNDERGOES ITS BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL PROCESS. AND PROJECT PHASING IS ALSO PART OF HOUSING ELEMENT 13. SO LET'S MOVE INTO WHAT AS MUCH THESE SPECIFIC LOT ELEVATIONS CAN BE. AND I'LL BE PRESENTING THESE AS LIKE A MENU OF OPTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. AND THE FIRST HERE IS A FEE WAIVER. THERE ARE SEVERAL THE CITY COULD CONSIDER, TO REDUCE THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT USES LOT CONSOLIDATION. SO NAMELY, THERE IS THE LOT MERGER FEE OF $675. THE ENGINEERING LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AND DEPOSIT OF $2,000, AND HOURLY STAFF REVIEW TIME. SO THE PROS OF THIS OPTION ARE THAT IT WOULD SAVE THE DEVELOP MONEY. THE CONSEQUENCES IS THEY COULD PRICE LOT REVENUE SHORTFALLS. NEXT OPTION IS FOR PRIORITY OR EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF DEVELOPING APPLICATIONS ON LOT CONSOLIDATION. THIS COULD MEAN PUTTING IT TO THE FRONT OF THE REVIEW LINE. AND POTENTIALLY IMPOSING A DEADLINE ON THE FRONT OF REVIEW TIME. FOR INSTANCE, REQUIRING THE CITY TO REVIEW A PROJECT THAT HAS FEWER THAN 150 UNITS IN 90 DAYS OR LESS. AND THEN THE REVIEW TIME FOR GREATER THAN 150 UNITS TO HAVE 180 DAYS. THIS IS SIMILAR TO SB35, WHERE THE CITY IS SUBJECT TO A STRICT DEADLINE FOR REVIEW. >> THE PROS OF THIS OPTION ARE THAT IT CAN SAVE DEVELOP TIME. THE CONS ARE LOT NOT ASSOCIATED WITH LOT CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE BUMPED DOWN THE LIST. AND THERE COULD BE A PERCEPTION, A PUBLIC PERCEPTION OF NOT PROCESSING DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS IN THE ORDER IN WHICH THEY'RE RECEIVED, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE USED TO. >> OPTION 3 IS TO PRIORITIZE, LOT CONSOLIDATION PROJECTS ON PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDAS. SO FOR INSTANCE, A PROJECT THAT UTILIZED LOT CONSOLIDATION REQUIRED DESIGN REVIEW BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THE DESIGN REVIEW WOULD BE THE FIRST ITEM AT THE APPROPRIATE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. THE PROS OF THIS OPTION ARE THAT IT COULD SAVE THE DEVELOPER, TIME AND MONEY, BY REDUCING THE TIME THEIR CONSULTANTS OR CITY STAFF SPEND AT MEETINGS. THE CONS ARE THAT PROJECTS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH LOT CONSOLIDATION COULD EXPERIENCE MINOR DELAYS. OPTION 4 IS A REDUCTION OF REQUIRED PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE. UP TO A MAXIMUM OF BELOW 25%, BELOW WHAT IS REQUIRED. AND CURRENTLY, IN THE MULTIHOUSING FAMILY DISTRICT BETWEEN THE OUTDOOR SPACES REQUIRED FOR EACH UNIT. THE PROS OF THIS OPTION ARE THAT IT WOULD ALLOW FOR DENSER DEVELOPMENT, POTENTIALLY ALLOWING THE DEVELOPER, TO DELIVER MORE UNITS OR AMENITIES. IT CAN ALSO REDUCE COSTS BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF MATERIALS NEEDED TO ESTABLISH OPEN SPACE. THE CONS, THOUGH, ARE THAT THE REDUCED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT COULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT THE LIVEABILITY OF THOSE UNITS. NEXT UP, OPTION 5 IS REDUCTION IN REQUIRED PARKING SO UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 25% BELOW WHAT IS REQUIRED. THIS WOULD ONLY BE FOR THOSE THAT DID PLOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CITY'S DENSE DEVELOPMENT LAW. AND WE WOULD NOT WANT TO REDUCE IT TO A CERTAIN LEVEL. THE PROS ARE THAT IT COULD FREE UP SPACE FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS AND/OR SAVE MONEY BY NOT HAVING TO CONSTRUCT PARKING SPACES. HOWEVER, THE CONS ARE THAT REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS COULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT TENANTS. OR IF NEARBY NEIGHBORHOOD THR-FT OVERFLOW PARKING THAT AFFECTED NEARBY RESIDENTS. OPTION 6, ALONG THE SAME LINE. INSTEAD, IN WOULD ALLOW ALL REQUIRED VEHICLE PARKING TO BE SUBSTITUTED MOTORCYCLE AND BICYCLE PARKING. AND IT COULD SAVE MONEY FOR THE DEVELOPER, BY NOT HAVING TO CONSTRUCT THOSE LARGER STANDARD SPACES. AND COULD RESULT IN LOWER GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. BY INSEND VISING MOTORCYCLE AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION. BUT AGAIN, THE CONS ARE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ONES. COULD NEGATIVELY. LAST OPTION ON OUR MENU HERE. ANOTHER PARKING ONE. THE LAST ONE IS 50% OF ALL PARKING SPACES. RIGHT NOW, IT'S 30% OF SPACES ALLOWED TO BE COMPACT, SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THAT TO BE 50. AND AGAIN, THE PROS OF THIS OPTION ARE IT COULD INCENTIVIZE RESIDENTS FOR SMALLER, MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT VEHICLES. PROJECTS COULD BE USED TO DESIGN MORE SPACE AND MATERIALS. WOULD ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO FIT MORE PARKING SPACES. OTHER THINGS LIKE UNITS AND ADDITIONAL AMENITIES AND WOULD ALLOW GREATER DESIGN FLEXIBILITY FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE CONS ARE THAT COMPACT PARKING SPACES MAY NOT ACCOMMODATE LARGER VEHICLES. SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT TENANTS WITH LARGE TRUCKS OR SUVs, THAT IT MIGHT POSE AN INCONVENIENCE TO THEM. >> SO THE OTHER BIG QUESTION WE HAVE FOR LOT CONSOLTKAEULGZ PROGRAM -- >> CAN I INTERRUPT REALLY FAST BEFORE YOU MOVE ON? JUST TO GO BACK. TO MAKE SURE I'M ON THE SAME PAGE. SO WE'VE TALKED ABOUT INCENTIVES. WE TALKED ABOUT A VARIETY OF THINGS AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS. WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT LOT CONSOLIDATION BEFORE. SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, LOT CONSOLIDATION IS LIKE, THAT FIRST STEP. WOULD ALL OF THESE INCENTIVES BE IN ADDITION TO ANYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, THAT THEY WOULD DO AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT? OR KIND OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE? YOU COULD EITHER CHOOSE THE CITY RULE OR CHOOSE THE STATE DENSITY RULE. OR BOTH? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT ADDITIVE BENEFITS? >> SOME OF THEM, THEY WOULD BE ADDITIVES. BUT FOR ONES THAT WERE DUPLICATIVE OF THE INCENTIVE COMMUNITY BONUS PROGRAM. OR STAY DENSITY. BONUS LAW PROGRAM. FOR INSTANCE, PARKING. WE WOULD ONLY ALLOW THEM TO USE ONE OR THE OTHER. IT WOULD NOT BE BOTH. FOR SOME OF THEM, WHERE THE INCENTIVES AREN'T DEW POINTIVE, FOR INSTANCE, WAIVING OUR FEES. THOSE WOULD BE ADDITIVE. >> OKAY. I'LL ASK MORE QUESTIONS AFTER. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. DID YOU WANT ME TO ASK YOUR QUESTION, TOO? >> NO. >> OKAY. SO THE OTHER BIG QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE CONSOLIDATION. AND THERE'S A WIDE RANGE OF OPTIONS HERE. AND WHILE THIS PROGRAM IS BORN OUT OF THE HOUSING ELEMENT. CONSOLIDATING LOTS DOES HAVE BENEFITS FOR COMMERCIAL PROJECTS AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS, TOO, AS YOU GET MORE CREATIVE, HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS WHEN YOU HAVE LARGER LOTS. SO SOME OPTIONS FOR ELIGIBILITY. WE CAN HAVE AN AFFORDABILITY THRESHOLD. FOR INSTANCE, PROJECTS WITH AT LEAST 20% AFFORDABLE UNITS. THEY ARE LOCATE THE ON A LOT THAT HAS BEEN MERGED, WOULD BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE INCENTIVES. OR WE COULD SAY THAT ONLY PROJECTS THAT QUALIFY FOR THE STATE BONUS LAW OR THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THESE INCENTIVES. OR WE COULD APPLY IT TO ALL RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OR WE COULD SIMPLY APPLY TO ALL COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN THE CITY. AND THESE AREN'T SET. SO THEY COULD BE A VARIATION OR COMBINATION OF SOME OF THESE SETS OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA. >>> AND NEXT UP IS PROJECT PHASING FACILITATION MEASURES. SO PROJECT PHASING IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T REALLY FEED TO BE INCENTIVIZED. IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE FACILITATED BY THE CITY MORE. AND THERE ARE TWO MAIN APPROACHES THAT THE CITY COULD TAKE TO DO THIS. THE FIRST ONE IS TO ALLOW FOR EXTENDED PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS. SO CURRENTLY, PLANNING ENTITLEMENTS GENERALLY LAST FOR ONE YEAR AND THEN CAN BE EXTENDED, USUALLY ONCE UPON APPLICATION, BASED ON THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OR ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. SO ALLOWING EXTENDED ENTITLEMENTS, LASTING FOR TWO, THREE OR MORE YEARS, WOULD HELP BUILD UNCERTAINTY IF THEY WERE PURSUING THIS PHASED APPROACH. AND THE OTHER OPTION FOR THE CITY IS TO ALLOW FOR IMPACT FEES TO BE PROPORTIONAL TO EACH PHASE OF THE PROJECT. VERSUS PAID, UP FRONT ON A FULL PROJECT SCALE, WHICH IS WHAT WE WOULD CURRENTLY REQUIRE. THIS WOULD, OF COURSE, SAVE THE DEVELOPER MONEY. AND LOWER THE BARRIERS TO ENTRY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. AND THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES WE WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER, IN ALLOWING PHASING CONTENT IN MARTINEZ. SO SPECIFICALLY, TWO QUESTIONS. SHOULD THERE BE A TIME LINE OR DEADLINE IN WHICH ALL PHASES OF A DEVELOPMENT MUST BE COMPLETED? SO FOR INSTANCE, TIME FOR FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS OR LONGER MAKE SENSE? AND SECOND, SHOULD ON-SITE, AND/OR OFF SITE BE COMPLETED WITHIN THE FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT. OR PROPORTIONED OUT BETWEEN THE PHASES. >>> AND FINALLY, JUST LIKE LOT CONSOLIDATION, WHAT TYPES SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. SHOULD THERE BE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT? JUST FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT? OR ALLOW PHASING FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. >> STAFF DOES HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATION S FOR PROJECT PHASING. STAFF RECOMMENDS ESTABLISHING MUNICIPAL CODE FOR LOT. REQUIRED REDUCTION OF OPEN SPACE UP TO MAXIMUM OF 25%. REDUCTION IN MIXED USE PROJECTS. UP TO MAXIMUM 25%. ALLOWING 50% OF ALL VEHICLE PARKING SPACES TO BE COMPACT SPACES. AND FINALLY, ALLOWING 10% OF REQUIRED VEHICLE SPACES TO BE MOTORCYCLE OR PARKING SPACES. AND IN TERMS OF ELIGIBILITY, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY BE ELIGIBLE FOR LOT CONSOLIDATIONS. AND THEN FOR PROJECT PHASING, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE CAPTOR ON PROJECT PHASING. THREE-YEAR ENTITLEMENT DURATION. PROPORTIONAL IMPACT FEES BY PROJECT PHASE REQUIREMENT TO COMPLETE ALL ON-SITE AND OFF SITE IMPROVEMENT WITH THE FIRST PHASE. AND A MAXIMUM PHASING TIME LINE OF 10 YEARS TO ACHIEVE FULL PROJECT COMPLETION. AND LIKE LOT CONSOLIDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT ALL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, WHETHER IN RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OR INDUSTRIAL ZONES BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROJECT PHASING. IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, WE'LL WORK ON CRAFTING AN ORDINANCE AND BRINGING IT BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A FULL FIRST READING SOMETIME IN THE FALL AND WITH THAT, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> I ALREADY ASKED ONE QUESTION SO I'M GOING TO LET MY COLLEAGUES ASK QUESTIONS, IF THEY HAVE ANY? OTHERWISE, I'LL JUST --WANT TO ASK A QUESTION? >> SO WE'RE -- ON THE FIRST SET OF OPTIONS I'M SORRY. I CAME IN ON THE SECOND SLIDE. THE QUESTION OF THE COUNCIL IS DO WE SUGGEST TO STAFF THAT YOU OFFER ALL OF THESE SOME OF THESE, ONE OF THESE? >> IT'S UP TO COUNCIL. IT WAS ESSENTIALLY A MENU OF OPTIONS TO CONSIDER FOR THESE LOT CONSOLIDATIONS. WHETHER YOU WANT TO DO ONE OF THEM OR ALL OF THEM OR SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN IS UP TO YOU. >> IS THERE A MINIMUM SIZE IN LOT CONSOLIDATION? >> NO MINIMUM. IF PEOPLE WANT TO MERGE SMALLER LOTS, THAT'S EVEN BETTER. WE HAVE REALLY SMALL LOTS HERE IN MARTINEZ. AND IT'S HARD TO DEVELOP THEM A LOT OF THE TIME. ESPECIALLY AT THE DENSITY TO GET US THOSE --THE NUMBER OF UNITS WE NEED FOR OUR ARENA. AND ALSO, WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGER DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE MORE LIKELY TO GET LOWER-INCOME HOUSING UNITS. BECAUSE IT ESSENTIALLY PENCILS OUT. >> WHAT IF SOMEBODY WERE TO TRY TO CONSOLIDATE MORE THAN TWO LOTS? AND DID MULTIPLES OF TWO. LIKE THREE, FOUR, FIVE? COULD THEY GET -- >> YEAH. INCENTIVES WOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THAT. I MEAN, WE WOULD LOOK AT IT ON A FULL PROJECT BASIS. SO WE WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO COME AND SAY, WE'RE SCOM BINING THESE TWO LOTS. AND COME BACK AND SAY, NOW WE'RE COMBINING THESE TWO LOTS AND SOMEHOW TRY TO GAIN THE SYSTEM THAT WAY. WE WOULD WANT TO SEE IT ON A FULL PROJECT SCALE. BUT WE WOULD WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO COMBINE AS MANY LOTS AS WAS FEASIBLE. >> I WOULD IMAGINE SOMEBODY, WHETHER A DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BUILD OUT HIMSELF, OR SOMEBODY IS PUTTING --JUST GETTING THE ENTITLEMENT. I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD ASSEMBLE IN ADVANCE. MAYBE IF SOMEBODY WERE TO GET ADDED ON LATER. BUT WHAT IF --BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE AND I CAN'T REMEMBER WHERE. BUT SOMEBODY WANTS TO MERGE TWO LOTS BUT THERE'S A THIRD LOT. OR MAYBE JUST ANOTHER LOT NEXT DOOR PROJECT LOT. AND THERE'S NOT A SEPARATE LOT TO MERGE TO BUT THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER WOULD AGREE TO LOT SKWRAPLTD ADJUSTMENT. >> SO WE WOULD DOCTOR THAT A LOT ADJUSTMENT. THAT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, WOULD PRODUCE THAT DENSER. >> I COULD HAVE SIMPLIFIED THAT MORE. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT. WE WOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE LOT ADJUSTMENT. AGAIN, PART OF THE INTENT OF THIS IS TO HAVE LOTS BE MORE VIABLE. AND THERE WOULD BE THE REMNANT PORTION OF THE PARCEL, THAT THEORETICALLY COULD BE MADE MORE CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP SO IT'S MORE COMMON THAT IT WOULD BE TRUE, FULL-LOT CONSOLIDATION, RATHER THAN A PORTION OF ONE LOT AND THE ENTIRETY OF ANOTHER. >> I'M THINKING ABOUT INGRESS OR EGRESS. JUST, YOU KNOW, 10,000 MORE SQUARE FEET OF LAND. AND THEY WERE TAKING IT FROM ANOTHER LARGE PARCEL NEXT DOOR. >> YEAH. OR ESPECIALLY IF THERE WERE AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND THEY WANTED TO CHUNK OFF A PIECE. YEAH, SOMETHING LIKE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. >> AND I'D BE ALL FOR EXPEDITING TWO YEARS, GIVE A TWO-YEAR TIME IF IT'S EXPEDITED. >> YOU MEAN A TWO-YEAR ENTITLEMENT DURATION? >> OKAY. >> YES. OTHERWISE YOU GET THE THREE YEARS. BECAUSE THEY BECOME COUNCIL. I GET THE IDEA ON THIS IS TO FAST-TRACK DEVELOPMENT NOT CREATE INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT SOMEBODY GOES OUT AND GETS ENTITLEMENT AND SHOPS IT AROUND. THEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY, OH, WE NEED MORE TIME. OKAY. AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR NOW. I THINK SHOULD BE FOR ALL. ALL PROPERTIES. THANK YOU. >> CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? AND I'M TOTALLY UNFAMILIAR WITH HOW LOT CONSOLIDATION WORKS. SO BEAR WITH ME NOW. I'M SEEING THIS AS WE'RE TRYING TO INCENTIVIZE LOT CONSOLIDATION. BUT THESE ARE AT THE TIME THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP IT, AT THE TIME THEY'RE CONSOLIDATING, DO PEOPLE NORMALLY COME TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WITH BOTH A PLAN AND LOT CONSOLIDATION REQUEST AT THE SAME TIME? WHY WOULD WE INCENTIVIZE THESE AT THE TIME? >> USUALLY, IT'S FOR THE LARGER DEVELOPMENT WE'RE HOPING FOR A DEVELOPER WILL USUALLY HAVE SCOPED OUT THE PARCELS AND HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THEY'LL WANT TO BUILD. SO THEY WOULD COME TO US WITH A LOT MERGER AND A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION FOR THE FULL PROJECT AT THE SAME TIME. >> AT THE SAME TIME. OKAY. >> I THINK BY ADDING THESE INCENTIVES OVER TIME, THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY WILL BECOME MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE BENEFITS OF BRINGING PROJECTS TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ. AND SO IN TURN, IT WILL INCENT SKRAOEUZ INDIVIDUALS FOR WHERE THEY WANT TO COMPARE TO OTHER COMMUNITIES. THEY'LL HAVE A GREATER INTEREST. AND THEN FOLLOW-UP. YOU CAN'T CONSOLIDATE LOT FIST YOU DON'T OWN BOTH OF THEM. IF I OWN TWO NOW, WHAT IS EACH, .49. THEY'RE NOT MEETING THE RENAL CRITERIA, WHATEVER. WHAT IS PREVENTING ME FROM BUILDING SOMETHING ON BOTH? LIKE WHAT WOULD I BE LIMITED TO IF I DIDN'T CONSOLIDATE? >> SO RIGHT NOW, YOU WOULD BE LIMITED BY THINGS LIKE SETBACKS AND LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU'RE BUILDING IN THIS ONE OF OUR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, MOST OF THE SIDE SETBACKS ARE GOING TO BE 5 TO 10 FEET. INSTEAD OF HAVING A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK ON EACH SIDE, YOU COULD ELIMINATE THOSE CENTRAL SIDE SETBACKS AND ONLY HAVE 10 FEET OF DEAD SPACE. RATHER THAN 20 FEET OF DEAD SPACE. >> ON THE OUTSIDE. >> SO IT JUST ALLOWS FOR THAT A MUCH DENSER LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. >> I THINK TO ADD TO THAT. EACH LOT WOULD BE DEVELOPED ON ITS OWN MERIT, RATHER THAN LOOKING AT A PROJECT CUMULATIVE. >> THAT'S ANOTHER INCENTIVE TO CONSOLIDATE. I SEE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. SOZ ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD. IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU REFERENCED THAT WITHIN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CONCORD IS THE ONLY CITY THAT SO FAR HAS UNDERTAKEN, PUTTING FORWARD THESE TYPES OF INCENTIVES AND WHAT HAVE YOU. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. HOW LONG HAS THEIR PROGRAM BEEN IN EFFECT? AND ARE THERE ANY MEASURABLE OUTCOMES IN TERMS OF IMPACT THAT IT'S HAD? >> SO THE PROGRAM HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A LITTLE OVER A YEAR. IT'S RELATIVELY NEW. I AM NOT AWARE THAT ANYONE HAS ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS AND TAKEN THEM UP ON THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES YET. BUT LIKE MICHAEL MENTIONED, IT'S A LOT ABOUT ESTABLISHING REPUTATION. AND WORD CAN BE SLOW TO GET OUT BECAUSE THESE THINGS ARE KIND OF TUCKED AWAY IN THESE ORDINANCES AND STUFF. SO AT THE CITY, WE JUST NEED TO DO A GOOD JOB IN ADVERTISING IT AND MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> SO DO WE HAVE A SENSE, LIKE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ABLE TO HYPOTHESIZE. BUT JUST TO HELP ME VISUALIZE, CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEPLACE HERE IN THE CITY THAT YOU FEEL WOULD BE KIND OF MAYBE A NO-BRAINER OR KIND OF LIKE ONE THAT YOU FEEL, LIKE, OH, YEAH. LIKE THIS WOULD TOTALLY QUALIFY? TO HELP ME BETTER CONTEXTUALIZE THIS, IF THAT HELPS. >> I'M GOING TO TOSS THAT ONE TO MICHAEL, BECAUSE HE'S REALLY FAMILIAR WITH OUR INVENTORY. >> I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. LET'S START WITH A PROJECT THAT ACTUALLY DID HAPPEN. I THINK THAT'S REALLY BENEFICIAL. THE AMARI APARTMENTS PROJECT. MULTIPLE PARCELS. THEY ARE LARGER PARCELS, TO BE FAIR. BUT IN TURN, YOU WOULD HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT, ABILITY, WITH THOSE TWO LOTS BY MERGING THOSE TWO PARCELS, THAN IF WE WERE INDEPENDENT OF ONE ANOTHER. SO THAT WILL BE A GREAT PROJECT, ONCE IT COMES TO FRUITION WITH POLLING THESE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. ANOTHER EXAMPLE IS THERE ARE A HANDFUL OF LOCATIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN, WHERE LOTS OF SMALLER. WHERE THERE POTENTIALLY WOULD BE GOOD OPPORTUNITIES, WHERE PARCELS COULD BE COMBINED TO CREATE A SLIGHTLY MORE INTENSIVE DEVELOPMENT. AND WOULD GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, WITH STILL MAINTAINING THAT PEDESTRIAN SCALE ON THE GROUND FLOOR, VERSUS A SMALLER LOT, IF THEY WERE TRYING TO ADD AN ADDITIONAL STORY OR TWO WOULD BE MUCH MORE CHALLENGING FROM THAT STANDPOINT. >> AND I HAVE THOUGHT OF ONE SPECIFIC ONE FOR YOU. WHEN YOU'RE COMING IN TO TOWN, FROM THE NORTH ON MARINA VISTA AND ON THE LEFT, IS THAT CHINESE RESTAURANT WHERE THE BRICK USED TO BE. MARK KNOWS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THE EMPTY PARKING LOT IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY BUILDING THERE, NOT THE NEW COUNTY BUILDING, BUT ONE OF THE OLDER COUNTY BUILDINGS. LET'S SEE. I'M EXPLAINING THIS POORLY. >> IT'S ESSENTIALLY AN ENTIRE CITY BLOCK THAT IS IN THE DOWNTOWN. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT LOOKS LIKE ONE PARCEL. IT'S ONE WHERE IT WOULD ABSOLUTELY MAKE SENSE TO COMBINE THAT INTO ONE PARCEL. GETTING THE DEVELOPMENT THERE. >> YOU TALKING ABOUT LOT 4? >> YEAH. >> MAKES SENSE. >> IT'S IN FRONT OF NOT THE COUNTY BUILDING BUT THE COMMUNITY COLLEGE BUILDING. >> THAT PART. >> THEY'RE ALL COUNTY TO ME. YEAH. >> I MIGHT KNOW WHERE THAT IS. [ LAUGHTER ] >> OKAY. I WAS LIKE, THIS IS VERY FAMILIAR. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT, I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. >> BY THE WAY, THE CITY OWNS BOTH OF THOSE LOTS. >> RIGHT. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT REMINDER, COUNCILMEMBER ROSS. >> ALL RIGHT. SO ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS PAGE 2 OF THE STAFF REPORT. YOU TALKED ABOUT PHASING. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. SO IT SAYS, THIS APPROACH ALLOWS FOR THE GRADUAL COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, REDUCING FINANCIAL RISK AND ALLOWING FOR ADJUSTMENTS BASED ON MARKET CONDITIONS AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK. THE QUESTION THAT CAME TO MIND AS I INITIALLY READ THAT IS WOULDN'T THIS ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO MAKE TO BACK OUT? WHAT RECOURSE DO WE HAVE AS A CITY TO PREVENT THE PROJECT FROM JUST SITTING THERE? I THINK THERE'S A VERY PROMINENT EXAMPLE, I THINK, THAT OCCURRED IN THE DOWNTOWN YOU KNOW, DURING COVID. I UNDERSTAND MARKET CONDITIONS WHAT THEY WERE. BUT I UNDERSTAND TALKING TO CITIZENS I TALKED TO WHO WERE JUST LIKE, WHETHER IS THIS GOING TO BE COMPLETED? SO I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, IS IT OPEN TIME LINE INDEFINITELY? OR CAN WE PUT A TIME LINE ON THAT? LIKE HOW DO WE PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING? >> YEAH. SO PROJECT PHASING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING WE BUILD IN A TIME LINE FOR THAT, 10 YEARS IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE FULL PROJECT COMPLETION. AND BY ENTERING INTO THE PROGRAM, THE DEVELOPER WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY. AND WILLING TO ABIDE BY THE CONDITIONS THAT WE'VE IMPOSED ON THE DEVELOPMENT. AND IN TERMS OF ENFORCING THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF MICHAEL HAS ANY --GO FOR IT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION, TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THINGS. SO AS DAN INDICATED IN HIS PRESENTATION THE PRIMARY PORTION OF THE TIME ISN'T ASSOCIATED WITH TIMING DEVELOPMENTS. WITH GIVING A LITTLE MORE TIME FOR PERMITS TO BE PULLED, WHICH SOMETIMES CAN BE CHALLENGING, PARTICULARLY FOR A LARGER PROJECT TO IDENTIFY FINANCING IN TERM OF MOVING FORWARD. IN TERMS OF THE CONCERN THAT YOU SPOKE TO COUNCILMEMBER MALHI. IT WAS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, OUR NORMAL CURRENT PROCESS IS FOR A PERMIT TO STAY VALID, YOU JUST HAVE TO HAVE AN INSPECTION WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME PERIOD. USUALLY, IT'S ONE EVERY SIX MONTHS TO MAKE SURE A PROJECT MOVES FORWARD. BY ITS NATURE, DEPENDING ON THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, IT GOING TO HAVE A CERTAIN MAXIMUM SHELF LIFE THAT IT COULD HAVE. AND WE KNOW IN ORDER TO KEEP PERMITS ALIVE AND VALID. OF COURSE, A MORE COMPLEX PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE MORE INSPECTIONS SO THEORETICALLY, THE INSPECTION COULD TAKE LONGER. BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE TWO TIME FRAMES. SO WHAT DAN WAS INDICATING IN HIS PRESENTATION IS PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNING ENTITLEMENT TIME FRAME. AND IT WOULD BE IN ORDER TO PULL PHASE FOR THE FREQUENT. BUT AS INDICATED, WE COULD HAVE A MAXIMUM TIME FOR CONSTRUCTION AS WELL. >> I APPRECIATE THAT IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION AND DISTINCTION. I HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL QUESTION, BUT I WANT TO YIELD FOR A MOMENT TO THE VICE MAYOR. BECAUSE I THINK SHE WOULD LIKE TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF SOMETHING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. >> YES. SO IN PAGE 6 OF THE REPORT WE TALKED ABOUT 10-YEAR PHASING. 10 YEARS SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF TIME. I THOUGHT THAT SEEMED EXCESSIVE. I WANTED TO KNOW, IS THAT ROUTINE? IS THAT SOMETHING WE JUST DECIDED, THAT'S THE PARAMETERS WE WANT TO PUT ON IT? BECAUSE 10 YEARS DOES SEEM EXCESSIVE TO ME. >> SO IT WAS A MIX OF FACTORS. I CAN'T SAY IT'S ROUTINE. SINCE AS FAR AS OUR RESEARCH SHOWS, THIS WOULD BE THE SECOND LOT CONSOLIDATION PROGRAM MAYBE IN CALIFORNIA. SO WE'RE SORT OF PIONEERS HERE. IN TERMS OF JUST LOOKING AT PREVIOUS PROJECTS, ESPECIALLY THE LARGER ONES, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO BUILD IN THE FLEXIBILITY IN CASE A FINANCIAL DOWNTURN HAPPENED. IN CASE THERE WAS INSTABILITY. OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD JUST THROW PEOPLE FOR A LOOP. WE CAN, OF COURSE, REDUCE THE 10 YEARS. WE WANTED TO CHOOSE A NUMBER THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A LOT OF POSSIBILITIES. >> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. SEEMS LIKE THIS ISIND COO OF BREAKING NEW GROUND, SO TO SPEAK. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE 10 YEARS TO ME, SEEMS AN EXCESSIVE PERIOD OF TIME. SO I WOULD CONSIDER SOMETHING MAYBE SLIGHTLY LESS. WHO WOULDN'T WANT A PROJECT TO GO ON FOR 10 YEARS. I WOULD WANT THEM TO BE COMPLETED IN, I THINK, A MORE TIMELY MANNER. BUT THANK YOU. >> CAN I INTERRUPT REALLY QUICKLY? HAVE WE CONSIDERED, INSTEAD OF HAVING TOTAL DURATION FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT BUT INSTEAD HAVE TIME BETWEEN PHASES? SO LIKE WHETHER PHASE 1 FINISHES, YOU NEED TO START WITHIN ONE YEAR AT PHASE 2? THAT DOES NOT CAP IT AT 10 IS THAT A BETTER OR WORSE DECISION? OR SOME REASON WHY NAWOULDN'T BE AS GOOD AS A 10-YEAR CAP? >> SOUNDS LIKE A REASONABLE SUGGESTION TO ME. THAT JUST WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ENVISAGED. BUT -- >> SEEMS LIKE WHAT WE WOULD WANT TO DISALLOW, ONGOING CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NEVER COMPLETED. I CAN SEE THAT BEING A CHALLENGE. BUT IF WE HAD A PROJECT THAT WAS COMPLETED WITHIN A TIME FRAME. AND THEN THERE WAS A LITTLE GAP AND YOU CONTINUED ON TO THE SECOND PHASE OF THE PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE MORE PALATABLE. BUT ONGOING CONSTRUCTION, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULDN'T WANT TO EMBRACE. >> SO HEARING THE CONCERN. RATHER THAN THE TIME FRAME BETWEEN PHASES. SINCE THEY ARE LARGELY BASED ON INSPECTIONS AND INDIVIDUAL PHASE COULD BE A NUMBER OF YEARS. I DO THINK THERE IS A BENEFIT OF TYING THE TIME, MAXIMUM TIME TO WHEN THE ENTITLEMENT IS ACTUALLY GRANTED. MY RECOMMENDATION, HEARING THE CONCERN WITH 10 YEARS BEING TOO LONG. WE COULD SHORTEN THAT TIME FRAME OR TIE THE MAXIMUM TIME FRAME ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. SO FOR INSTANCE, WE COULD SAY, IF IT'S A TWO-PHASED PROJECT, YOU HAVE THREE YEARS TO PULL PERMITS. IF IT IS A THREE-PHASE PROJECT. YOU HAVE FIVE YEARS. IF IT'S A FIVE OR MORE PHASE, YOU HAVE 10 YEARS. AND MAYBE MAKE IT KPH-RBATE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE OF THE PROJECT IS ALL? >> AND THAT WOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT. OR PERHAPS THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT AS WELL, AS PART OF THAT EVALUATION. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR US, HOW MUCH TIME WE CURRENTLY HAVE NOW, FOR THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS? >> LIKE MICHAEL MENTIONED, WHEN A PROJECT PULLS A BUILDING PERMIT, AS LONG AS THEY'RE GETTING REGULAR INSPECTIONS, IT IS SORT OF AN INDEFINITE SITUATION WHERE WE DON'T HAVE A CUTOFF PERIOD FOR THEM, WHERE THAT BUILDING PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE. >> BUT YOUR ANSWER IS DIFFERENT FROM WHAT HE SAID. HE SAID IT'S THE 10 YEARS FROM THE ENTITLEMENT THEY HAVE UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO PULL PERMITS. >> RIGHT. SO RIGHT NOW, HOW LONG DO THEY HAVE TO PULL PERMITS? >> RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A STANDARD ONE YEAR TO PULL PERMITS. AND WE USUALLY HAVE A ONE-YEAR, SECRETARY TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING ADMINISTRATOR. >> AND I WILL ADD TO THAT, THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE THE HEARING BODY INITIALLY PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT. A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS THE RIVERHOUSE HOTEL PROJECT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE CONVERTING THEIR GROUND FLOOR TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS BY THEIR NATURE, ARE HARDER TO SECURE FUNDING AND GET OFF THE GROUND. AND KNOWING THAT, WE GAVE AN INITIAL TWO-YEAR PERIOD BECAUSE THERE WAS FAIR CERTAINTY THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PULL A PERMIT WITHIN ONE YEAR. ADDING MY TWO CENTS TO THIS. MOST --MOST OF THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU HAVE WITH PROJECTS THAT EXTEND FIVE TO 10 YEARS SEA, ON COURT STREET OR DOWNTOWN. USUALLY, THOSE ARE PROPERTIES WHERE IT WAS BOUGHT WITH CASH. THERE IS NO FINANCING. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE AN INCENTIVE TO MOVE OR GET OFF THE POT BECAUSE THE COST OF MONEY -- THEY'RE NOT IN THE LAND BANKING BUSINESS. AND THE COST OF ANGSITION. UNLESS THEY PAID FOR CASH AND HAD NOWHERE ELSE TO GO WITH THAT CASH, IT'S COSTING THEM MONEY. EVERY YEAR OF INACTION, COSTS THEM A LOT OF MONEY. SO THEY HAVE THEIR OWN INCENTIVES TO GET IT DONE. PHASING MIGHT BE BECAUSE THEY'RE WAITING FOR MORE FINANCING. BUT IF THEY HAVE ANY KIND OF FINANCING, ESPECIALLY NOW AND IN THE FORESEEABLE FEW YEARS. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO MOVE FAST. AND IF I COULD BACK UP JUST A LITTLE BIT. THEY PROBABLY ARE GOING TO COME TO THE COUNCIL BEFORE THEY GET FINANCING. THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THAT NEIGHBORING LOT AND TRY TO GET AN OPTION TO BUY THE PROPERTY. HEY. BECAUSE THEY LINE UP THESE THINGS. AND THEY ALL HAVE TO FALL IN PLACE. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO BUY THE LOT. YOU KNOW, PAY THE ADDITIONAL -- THE OTHER LOT. THE MONEY NOW. AND THEN GO TO SEE WHAT THEY GET. IT'S KIND KIND OF A DANCE. BUT ONCE THEY GET THAT AND GET THE FINANCING FOR DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS THEY CAN. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WE PROBABLY FACE IN THESE TIME LINE SCENARIOS IS PG&E. SO WE COULD SIT HERE. DEVELOPER OR NOT, COULD SAY, THIS IS GREAT. THIS IS THE TIME LINE, THAT'S GREAT. LET'S GO. AND PGB SAYS, OKAY, THAT WILL BE A YEAR AND A HALF, BEFORE WE EVEN GET TO LOOKING AT THAT PROJECT. IS THAT --I MEAN MAYBE A YEAR AND A HALF ISN'T THAT LONG BUT -- >> A YEAR ISN'T UNHEARD OF WITH PG&E. >> YOU DON'T GET TO THAT POINT UNTIL YOU'RE PRETTY WELL DOWN THE LINE. SO THAT'S THE ONE FLY IN THE OINTMENT THAT COULD MESS UP PERFECTLY CRAFTED TIME LINES. SO THAT'S MY TWO SEPBTSDS. >> THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL GREAT QUESTIONS. I THINK TO BRING A FACE TO WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT. IT'S NO SECRET THAT WE HAVE RETICENT PROPERTY OWNERS DOWNTOWN, RIGHT? AND I'M JUST WONDERING, HAVE WE SOLICITED SOME STAKEHOLDER INPUT. I KNOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU HOPE THAT IT WILL KIND OF SPUR SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE ALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE, BUT I KNOW WE HAVE ECONOMIC DEVELOPING CONSULTANTS WE HAVE BROUGHT ON BOARD TO KIND OF HELP US, WITHIN THE PAST YEAR. AND I'M JUST -- CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT BRIEFLY? I'M JUST BETTER TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR THEM TO KIND OF COME TO THE TABLE? I MEAN, IS THIS SORT OF THING? I MEAN, HOW PALATABLE IS THIS TO THEM? >> WE DIDN'T REACH OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS. BUT WE DID REACH OUT TO DEVELOPERS. >> OKAY. >> AND TALKED THEM THROUGH THE MENU OF OPTIONS WE WERE PROVIDING, AS WELL AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEY DID INDICATE ON ALL OF THESE THINGS WOULD BE ENTICING FOR THEM, WHEN LOOKING AROUND CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, FOR OTHER COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES. ESPECIALLY, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDED QUITE A FEW OF THE PARKING REDUCTIONS IN OUR LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS. WHERE THOSE PROVED TO BE SOME OF THE MORE ENTICING INCENTIVES. WE ALSO, AS USUAL, REACHED OUT TO OUR DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES. AND AS OF TODAY'S PUBLIC HEARING, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FROM THEM. >> APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK JUST IN CLOSING, THE BALANCE I'M TRYING TO STRIKE IS HOW DO WE MAKE OURSELVES MORE COMPETITIVE? RIGHT? AND A DESIRABLE PLACE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, BALANCING THE VERY LEGITIMATE ENTRANCE OF OUR RESIDENTS. WHO HAVE COME TO EXPECT A CERTAIN QUALITY OF LIFE. AND THAT INCLUDES BOTH OUR CURRENT RESIDENTS. BUT ALSO OUR FUTURE RESIDENTS AS WELL. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF --I'M TRYING TO FIND THAT SORT OF MEDIUM, IF YOU WILL, IN BETWEEN. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY INITIAL THOUGHTS AND QUESTIONS. SO THANK YOU. >> SO THIS IS A GREAT REPORT. I LEARNED A LOT. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THE FEE WAIVER. RIGHT? BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING DEVELOPERS GOING TO LOOK AT. AS LONG AS IT'S NOT TOO MUCH. IT RADIO? I DON'T WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE FORM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. AND OF COURSE, EXPEDITING THE PROCESS, I THINK, IS IMPORTANT. I KNOW THEY HAD TO PUT A LOT MORE BURDEN ON YOUR STAFF TO TRY TO CRANK THINGS OUT. BUT I KNOW THAT CONTRACTORS, DEVELOPERS, YOU KNOW, WE EACH DREAD THAT, BECAUSE OF THE TIME, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO I THINK ANY TYPE OF EXPEDITING WE CAN DO. THE ONE THING I AM WORRIED ABOUT IS REDUCTION IN PARKING. WE KNOW, RIGHT, FROM ALL THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH LATELY, THAT IN THE END, THAT CAN COME BACK TO BITE US. RIGHT? SO I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE PARKING. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF THROWING IN SOME MOTORCYCLE AND BIKE PARKING. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT. BUT YOU KNOW, THE -- WE HAVE A SMALL, COMPACT CITY FOR THE MOST PART. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DO STICK TO OUR PARKING GUIDELINES. IS THERE INCENTIVES FOR CAR CHARGERS? AND THE LIKE? OR SETTING THAT UP IN -- >> DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, EV CHARGING STATIONS ARE REQUIRED, AND THERE IS SORT OF A FORMULA IN THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE THAT SAYS HOW MANY. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAD ENVISAGED, INCLUDING IN THIS INCENTIVE PROGRAM. SINCE THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE COULD WAIVE THROUGH THIS. >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. >> I'M ALSO IN FAVOR OF ALL TYPES OF PROPERTY SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR PHASING, RIGHT? I LIKE THAT IDEA. I THINK THAT'S ABOUT IT. GO AHEAD. >> I'D LIKE TO ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION, WITH YOUR COMMENT ABOUT PARKING, COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD. >> YEAH. >> THERE WAS ALSO THE PROVISION. I --ABOUT COMPACT SPACES. CAN YOU CLARIFY YOUR OPINION ON THAT? >> I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK COMPACTS. ALTHOUGH I DO DRIVE A TRUCK. AND IT IS FRUSTRATING SOMETIMES, A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T FOLLOW THOSE COMPACT RULES ANYWAY, RIGHT? THEY'LL SHOVE A TRUCK IN THERE ANYWAY. RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. 50%. BUT AGAIN, IT'S BACK TO THE MAIN PARKING. I THINK PARKING IS IMPORTANT. AND WE FIND THAT EVERY DAY. YOU KNOW? FROM ALL THE FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS. >> I ACTUALLY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE BIT, IF THAT'S OKAY, FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE, WHEN IT COMES TO LOT CONSOLIDATION. THIS IS A TOOL THAT IS WIDELY USED IN EVERYONE'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLBOX, FOR THE REASONS OF WHEN YOU'RE ABLE TO CONSOLIDATE TO HAVE LARGER LOTS, YOU GET A BETTER PROJECT. AND RIGHT NOW, WITH THE PRICES THAT WE HAVE IN CALIFORNIA AND THE BAY AREA. IT'S VERY DIFFICULT, ON SMALL LOTS TO MAKE THE NUMBERS PENCIL OUT. SO CONSOLIDATION IS A GREAT TOOL. AND THAT'S ALSO ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE WANTED TO EXPAND IT, CITY WIDE. BECAUSE IT ALLOWS FOR THAT STREAMLINING TO HAPPEN. IN A NUMBER OF WAYS, NOT ONLY THROUGH COMMERCIAL. BUT ALSO RESIDENTIAL. AND IT ALLOWS FOR A LOT OF LONG STANDING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO MIGHT HAVE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES MAYBE TO HAVE A BETTER INCENTIVE BETTER BE ABLE TO, WHETHER THEY SELL IT OR CHOOSE TO REDEVELOP IT THEMSELVES. WE'RE TRYING TO ENCOURAGE THAT AND SET THAT STAGE EARLY. SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK IN LATER AND TRY TO MAKE THOSE REQUESTS AND PAY A LOT MORE MONEY TO DO IT. WE'RE KIND OF HELPING MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER AND STREAMLINE. IT IS DEFINITELY AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL. AND THAT'S WHY WE KIND OF HAD THAT WHOLE CONVERSATION ABOUT LIKE HOW DO WE EXPAND IT JUST BEYOND RESIDENTIAL? >> I'M JUST GOING TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD SAID, SPECIFICALLY ON THE PARKING ISSUE. I THINK, LIKE, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT, LET'S SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, AROUND THE TRAIN STATION. RIGHT? IT'S TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT HOUSING. THERE, I COULD SEE, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE BENEFICIAL. BECAUSE YOU'RE WITHIN CLOSE PROXIMITY OF THE TRAIN STATION, WHICH ALSO HAS AMPLE BUS SERVICE TO PARTS OF THE COUNTY, RIGHT? BUT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT IS FURTHER SOUTH OF THE CITY. LET'S SAY DOWN IN VIRGINIA HILLS, WHERE THOSE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS ARE FAR MORE LIMITED. THEN I THINK THAT THAT BECOMES PROBLEMATIC. SO I THINK IT'S KIND OF LIKE, YOU HAVE TO PLACE IT IN THE CONTEXT, I GUESS, IS YOU KNOW, WHAT I'M --IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE CHALLENGING. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CARVE OUT --ACCOUNT FOR THAT NUANCE. IN THIS POLICY, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM AN EVERYDAY SORT OF PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, WHEN I THINK OF, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS WE HAVE IN THE CITY. I THINK THAT'S AN IMPORTANT PERSPECTIVE THAT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL OF, AS WE'RE KIND OF CONTEMPLATING THIS. >> YEAH. I BELIEVE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU DID MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT IMPACTS TO NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU HAD LIKE THE PROS AND THE CONS. AND SOME OF THE CONS WERE LIKE, EXEND TENDING INTO THE SIDEWALKS AND INTO THE NEIGHBORHOODS. AND YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ARE ADVERSE TO THAT, THEY DON'T REALLY ENJOY, LIKE, HAVING CARS PARKED ALL OVER. AND I KNOW ALSO, THAT WE'VE ALSO INCENTIVIZED HAVING LESS PARKING SPACES AND CERTAIN PROJECTS AS AN INCENTIVE. SO I, TOO, AM SORT OF STRUGGLING, AS MY COUNCILMEMBERS, ABOUT, KIND OF A CART BLANCHE, LIKE IT'S ALWAYS THIS AMOUNT. IT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN A WAY THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE PROJECT OR LOCATION. AND SO CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THAT? I THINK THAT MAKES US NERVOUS. >> DEFINITELY. ONE OPTION NAWE COULD LOOK AT IS, USING OUR --YOU KNOW, THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN AS SORT OF THE BOUNDARIES FOR IF YOU'RE WITHIN THAT, YOU'RE CLOSE TO THE AMTRAK STATION, YOU'RE CLOSE TO HIGH-VOLUME BUS LINES THAT MAYBE IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THERE TO CONSIDER A 10%, 20% REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED STANDARD PARKING SPACES. OUTSIDE OF THAT, WE WOULD JUST LOOK AT THE CONVERSION TO COMPACT SPACES. >> LET ME ADD TO THAT. AND MAKE CLARIFICATION AND POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS AS WELL. FIRST, STATE LAW, WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. FOR PROJECTS WITHIN A HALF MILE OF TRANSIT. ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE ANY PARKING. SO THERE WOULDN'T BE A REDUCTION, WHEN NO PARKING IS ALREADY REQUIRED. SECONDARILY, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A PARKING DISTRICT THAT IS CLOSE TO THE BOUNDARIES OF OUR DOWNTOWN, WHERE WE DON'T REQUIRE PARKING FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO IN THE AREA, THAT CLOSE TO OUR AMTRAK STATION, KIND OF OUR GREATEST LOCATION IN THE CITY, IN TERMS OF PUBLIC TRANSIT ACCESS. WE ALREADY HAVE ADDRESSED PARKING ISSUES TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT. SO IF THE CONCERN IS FROM THE COUNCIL THAT WE'VE ALREADY INCENTIVIZED AND REDUCED OTHER TYPES OF PROJECTS, SUCH AS A.D.U.s FOR EXAMPLE. IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO FOCUS ON A COUPLE OF THE OTHER PARKING-RELATED MATTERS, SUCH AS COMPACT SPACES, BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE PARKING BUT NOT DO THE CARTE BLANCHE REDUCTION, BUT WE ARE STILL DOING SOME PARKING INCENTIVES, ASSOCIATED WITH LOT CONSOLIDATION. >> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP, BECAUSE THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. BECAUSE I KNEW THE ONE THING THAT HAD BEEN DRIVING US CRAZY FOR A LONG TIME, WAS THE IDEA THAT WITHIN ONE-HALF MILE OF HIGH-QUALITY TRANSPORTATION. AND WE WERE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THERE WASN'T HIGH-QUALITY TRANSPORTATION. BUT THESE PROPERTIES WERE BEING ABLE TO COUNT THAT AS HIGH-QUALITY TRANSPORTATION. MY QUESTION IS, IF WE WERE TO DO CITY WIDE PARKING REDUCTION OPTIONS, COULD WE MAKE IT CLOSER THAN HALF A MILE? COULD WE SAY, ONLY IF IT'S A QUARTER MILE OF YOUR PROPERTY? I THINK THERE ARE BUS STOPS IN VIRGINIA HILLS, FOR EXAMPLE. AND IF YOU LIVE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO IT. THAT SEEMS LIKE A FINE REASON TO NOT HAVE AS MUCH PARKING. >> SO WE DO HAVE SOME PLANNED MODIFICATIONS TO OUR PARKING REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE SCHEDULED PER OUR HOUSING ELEMENT, TO BE CONSIDERED NEXT YEAR. AGAIN, THAT'S PRIMARILY ASSOCIATED WITH OUR RESIDENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE CITY WIDE. HOWEVER, I WILL SAY, WITH COMMERCIAL PROJECTS, WE'VE HAD A HANDFUL OF RECENT INQUIRIES WITH INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING PROJECTS. AND I WILL SAY, OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER VAN ARE THE JURISDICTIONS. SO A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THAT IS WE REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 100 SQUARE FEET PLUS ONE FOR EVERY THREE EMPLOYEES AT RESTAURANT. SO WOULD BE PROVIDING UPWARDS OF CLOSE TO 40 PARKING SPACES. WHEREAS MANY OTHER JURISDICTIONS DO 1 TO 250 IS A MORE COMMON RATIO THAT WE'VE SEEN. SO 4 PER THOUSAND. SO 40% OF WHAT OUR REQUIREMENT IS. SO WHAT WE COULD DO IS, AS WHEN PARKING REGULATIONS ARE BROUGHT BACK FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION NEXT YEAR, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A COMPREHENSIVE CHANGE, ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING. BASED ON BEST PRACTICES AT THAT TIME. >> THANK YOU. THERE WAS A LOT OF MURMURING WHEN YOU SAID THAT. I APPRECIATE YOU CALLING THAT OUT. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOU BRINGING THAT TO US NEXT YEAR. SO I --I WANTED TO JUST ADD A FEW ITEMS. SO THE COMPACT PARKING SPOTS. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT I HATE GOING TO PLACES WHERE THERE'S COMPACT PARKING. AND WE HAVE A COUPLE OF, LIKE STRIP-MALL LIKE PLACES IN OUR TOWN. AND EVERY SINGLE SPOT IS COMPACT. AND I'M MAD EVERY TIME I PARK THERE. SO I AM HESITANT TO SAY, YOU CAN HAVE MORE COMPACT CARS, BECAUSE THAT MEANS -- OR MORE COMPACT SPACES, BECAUSE THAT MEANS YOU HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BAD PARKING EXPERIENCES. AND I WOULD RATHER THERE JUST BE REGULAR. BUT THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION. I SOMETIMES FEEL LIKE IT REDUCES THE QUALITY OF IT, AND I'D RATHER JUST HAVE FEWER SPACES AND ALL OF THE SPACES ARE NICE, RATHER THAN HAVING MORE MORE-QUALITY SPACES. I AM VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE IDEA FOR THE BIKE AND MOTORCYCLE INCENTIVES. AND THAT IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE HEARD THAT. AND I WOULD BE AMENABLE FOR OUR OPTIONS FOR OUR OTHER BONUS LIST. BECAUSE THIS IS NEW FOR THIS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> YEAH. I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY KIND OF GREAT. AND IF IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE, YOU HAVEN'T COME BACK TO US WITH THE FINAL VERBIAGE OF THE SPECIFIC DENSITY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE COOL. MICHAEL IS THINKING. DO YOU HAVE A THOUGHT? OR DUPLICATE TO WRITE IT DOWN? >> I WANT TO THINK ON THAT. >> OKAY. THAT'S FINE I GOT THAT ANSWERED. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS. WHEN THE 10 YEARS EXPEERS, WHAT HAPPENS? WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO FINISH IN 10 YEARS? LIKE THE ENTITLE ENTITLEMENTS GO AWAY? >> ESSENTIALLY, YES. WHATEVER ENTITLEMENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPLY AND GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS FOR THEM TO BE RENEWED. AND IT WOULDN'T BE GUARANTEED. IN WHICH CASE, THEY WOULD ALSO BE LEFT WITH ESSENTIALLY A LARGE CODE ENFORCEMENT. THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE RECOURSE TO COME AFTER THEM FOR US. >> WHICH WE HAVE NOW FOR THE SHORTER TIME FRAME. BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT'S PARTIALLY WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REQUIRE THE OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS. SO WE HAVE ASSURANCE THAT THOSE ARE COMPLETED. >> I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, RIGHT? THAT WE COULD PROVIDE INPUT ON? BUT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD SUGGESTION, GOOD RECOMMENDATION. I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. THAT DOES MEAN, THOUGH, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR THE DEVELOPER OR WHATEVER WILL HAVE TO BE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY FOR SOMETHING THAT HAS NO RETURN ON THE INVESTMENT. YOU DON'T MAKE ANY MONEY ON IMPROVING A PARK THAT IS ADJACENT TO YOU. BUT THAT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS, SO. >> IT'S WHAT THEY'RE USED TO. IT'S WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO RIGHT NOW. BUT THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO THEN, YOU KNOW, BUILD THEIR FIRST BUILDING. LIKE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT, THINKING OF LAUREL KNOLL, NEAR HEIGHTS. THEY HAD SIX OR SEVEN BUILDINGS. THEY HAD TO BASICALLY FINISH THEM ALL. BEFORE THEY STARTED SELLING THEM. THEY WOULD HAVE TO FINISH AND GET A REVENUE STREAM TO THEN COMPLETE THE OTHER BUILDINGS. >> DO YOU THINK THERE'S OTHER -- HAVE WE RECEIVED OTHER INPUT THAT IT'S TOO BAD WE DON'T HAVE A PHASED APPROACH OPTION? >> THEY ALL REALLY LIKED, THAT WE WERE CONSIDERING IT. IT WAS ABSOLUTELY A HUGE DEAL FOR THEM. >> OKAY. MY LAST QUESTION IS WE ALL ARE COMING AT THIS, AS IF ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT WE WANT. IF SOMEBODY DOES NOT WANT US TO DO THIS. AS FAR AS LOT CONSOLIDATION GOES, WHAT WOULD BE THEIR CRITIQUES? WOULD A LOT CONSOLIDATION ENABLE SOMEONE TO INCREASE THE INTENSITY OF A LOT WITHOUT HAVING CHANGED THE ZONING? IS THERE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT BY DOING LOT CONSOLIDATION? II HEARD YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT THE OFFSETS AND ALL OF THAT. BUT THAT --THAT DOES NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE DENSER HOMES ON THIS LOT. SO WHAT KIND OF THINGS MIGHT PEOPLE BE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT INCREASE INTENSITY, THAT WE SHOULD TELL THEM THAT THEY SHOULDN'T BE WORRIED ABOUT? OR THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT IMPROVING? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A LOT GREATER THAN THE PLAN CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO. THAT IS SET IN STONE. WHAT THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO IS BUILD PROJECTS THAT MIGHT SEEM LARGER THAN, PERHAPS, HISTORICALLY, WHAT WE'RE USED TO IN MARTINEZ, SINCE WE DO HAVE THESE SMALL LOTS, AND WE HAVE LARGE SETBACKS. THAT RESULTED IN A SMALL, DEVELOPABLE FOOTPRINT, WHICH THEN DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO BUILD TALL, WHEN YOU HAVE SUCH A SMALL FOOTPRINT. SO THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ESSENTIALLY, BUILD TO THAT FULL DENSITY. IN A WAY THAT MAYBE WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN MARTINEZ BEFORE. SO IT'S NOT GIVING THEM ANY SPECIAL PERMISSIONS OR PRIVILEGES. BUT IT WOULD BE ALLOWING PEOPLE TO GET TO THAT FULLER CAPACITY. THAT IS HISTORICALLY NOT, PERHAPS, THE NORM. >> I WOULD ALSO ADD, THERE ARE OTHER WAYS THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE ALREADY ABLE TO DO THAT NOW. AND DENSITY BONUS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THAT. AND I THINK THE BENEFIT OF US ENCOURAGING LOT CONSOLIDATION IS --I THINK THE GREAT EXAMPLE IS ONE THAT DAN SPOKE TO EARLIER THIS EVENING IS THE ABILITY FOR NOT HAVING SETBACKS OR SEPARATION, ALONG WHAT WOULD BE A COMMON PROPERTY LINE, IF THAT PROPERTY LINE WERE ELIMINATED. AND IN TURN, THEN, WE WOULD HAVE POTENTIALLY FEWER CURB CUTS. WHICH, IN TURN, IS GOING TO HAVE FEWER CUTS WITH INDIVIDUALS AND THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. WHICH, IN TURN, OPENS UP INCREASED OPPORTUNITY FOR STREET PARKING, BECAUSE OF HAVING FEWER CURB CUTS. WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE. SO THERE ARE OTHER SMALLER, TANGIBLE BENEFITS THAT COME OUT OF PROGRAMS LIKE THIS. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT RESPONSE. THESE ARE THE KINDS OF CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY HAD BEFORE. AND WHEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN EXPOSED TO THE POTENTIAL PROS AND CONS WITH REAL-LIFE EXAMPLES, SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO PROJECT OUT. SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANYMORE? >> I JUST WANT TO THANK --SAY THAT I WANT TO THANK THE COUNCIL FOR THE QUESTIONS AND STAFF FOR COMING UP WITH THIS, MIKE. IT'S INNOVATIVE, AND IT'S OUT-OF-THE BOX THINKING. IT'S KIND OF WHAT WE NEED HERE. I SEE IT AS KIND OF A PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE. BECAUSE SOMEBODY COULD COMING IN TURNED THE EXISTING RULES. BUILD A MASSIVE --WHAT SOME PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER A MASSIVE STRUCTURE. A STRUCTURE THAT IS NOT IN KEEPING WITH THE TRADITIONAL MARTINEZ STYLE. OR HISTORY OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS. AND THIS WOULD ALLOW, YOU KNOW, SOME EXPANSION OF THAT LOT THAT YOU HAVE THE FOOTPRINT AS A WRITEUP TO THE VERY EDGE OF LEGALITY. I THINK THAT'S WHERE PEOPLE GET UPSET. SOMEBODY IS JUST BUILDING A STRUCTURE THAT IS TOO MASSIVE. AND THIS WILL GIVE THEM --IT'S A RELIEF NOW. SO I THINK IT'S VERY INNOVATIVE THINKING. AND IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE SCALE. BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW. PRICES ARE VERY EXPENSIVE FOR BUILDING. AND THIS GIVES THEM A CHANCE AT HAVING A PROFITABLE -- WHICH IS THE INCENTIVE IN ITSELF, PROJECT. THANK YOU. >> SOZ I THINK WE'VE ANSWERED ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. BUT YOU HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS FOR US. AND I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ADDRESSED ALL OF THEM. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU FEEL WE DIDN'T GIVE YOU ENOUGH GUIDANCE ON THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY? >> YEAH. JUST A COUPLE OF ITEMS. THE FIRST ONE, I DON'T THINK WE TALKED ABOUT REDUCTION IN REQUIRED OPEN SPACE PER UNIT. SO RIGHT NOW, REQUIRING BETWEEN 400 AND 500 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT. POTENTIALLY, REDUCING THAT. BY A PERCENTAGE OR BY 100 SQUARE FEET OR SOMETHING. IT IS AN OPTION. I DON'T KNOW HOW COUNCIL FEELS ABOUT THAT. >> THIS WAS THE PHRASING THAT CONFUSED ME LAST TIME. SO OPEN SPACE, MEANING PRIVATE, OUTDOOR SPACE FOR EACH ONE OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS. >> CORRECT. >> SORRY. WHICH PAGE IS THAT ON AGAIN? IT'S QUESTION NUMBER -- I'VE LOST IT. I'M SORRY. >> THE ASSISTANT CITY CLERK IS REBRINGING IT UP. I APOLOGIZE. >> I CAN'T FIND -- >> FAIRLY EARLY ON IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> THERE IT IS. BOTTOM OF PAGE 5. >> SO YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS A REDUCTION OF REQUIRED OPEN SPACE OR OUTDOOR SPACE UP TO A MAXIMUM OF 25%? >> CORRECT. >> AND WHAT WOULD --WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? AND I'D LIKE TO USE THE -- SURE. THE DEVELOPMENT BY MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK, WHERE WE ALWAYS, YOU KNOW, USE PHOTOS OF THOSE HOMES, BECAUSE THEY LOOK PRETTY AS A WHOLE ON THE COVER OF ALL OF OUR HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND EACH ONE OF THOSE THREE-STORY TOWNHOUSES HAS A VERY TINY LITTLE OUTDOOR SPACE WITH A FENCE AROUND IT. SO THERE'S NOT REALLY GRASS. IT'S A PATIO. SO 25% REDUCTION MEANS THOSE WOULD BE TINIER? >> SO I CAN CONCEPTUALIZE IT. IN THE DOWNTOWN, MOST LOTS HAVE A WIDth OF ABOUT 40 TO 50 FEET. AND THEIR FRONT YARDS HAVE A DEPTH OF ABOUT 15 TO 20 FEET. SO THAT MEANS THAT KIND OF ON THE MID, LARGER END OF THAT, YOU'VE GOT A 750 OR 800-SQUARE-FOOT YARD. BUT THAT'S FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. SO HALF OF THAT SIZE IS WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY REQUIRING. 400 SQUARE FEET OF SORT OF A STANDARD YOU KNOW, WHITE-PICKET FENCE FRONT YARD. AND THIS WOULD BE REDUCTION TO 300 SQUARE FEET FROM 400 SQUARE FEET. SO JUST SHAVING OFF A LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF THAT. >> SO I'M --IF I MAY, I'D JUST BE CURIOUS, SINCE, MARK, IF I CAN CAN TAP INTO YOUR REALTOR -- IF I CAN TAP INTO YOUR REALTOR HAT. MILLENNIALS, GEN Z'ERS. THESE TYPES OF BUYERS. DO THEY VALUE HAVING KIND OF A NICE, OPEN SPACE? OR IS THAT NOT A --OR IS THAT NOT A PRIORITY FOR THEM? WHAT'S BEEN YOUR EXPERIENCE? >> THERE'S A TUG-OF-WAR BETWEEN WHETHER --IT JUST DEPENDS WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. AND WHERE YOU -- IF YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU HAVE BEEN. AND WHAT STEP YOU'RE IN. YOU'RE COMING FROM BEING A RENTER. THEN HAVING A TINY FOOTPRINT, FRONT YARD, BEING HONORED. YOU'RE IN HEAVEN. YOU GOT THREE KIDS. YOU HAVE A TINY FOOTPRINT PATIO IN YOUR YARD. YOU'RE KIND OF TIRED OF HAVING TO GO TO THE PARK THREE BLOCKS AWAY. WHAT I'M GETTING AT, IS, PRICES GOING UP. IT'S KIND OF A MIX. THERE'S A TUG-OF-WAR. SO THERE'S ALSO THE POINT OF VIEW THAT AS YOU GET OLDER, MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO DO AS MUCH LONG CARE. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY. >> THANK YOU. IT'S KIND OF THE YIN AND THE YANG. LOOKING AT IT FROM BOTH ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM HERE. >> AND WITH THE REDUCTION OF 25%, THAT MEANS YOU'VE NOW GOT THAT ACREAGE OR FOOTAGE, TO DEVOTE TO THE SIZE OF THE LIVING SPACE. SO NOW YOU HAVE A BIGGER LIVING ROOM OR KITCHEN OR WHATEVER. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'RE MAKING THE WHOLE PROPERTY SMALLER. YOU'RE JUST REALLOCATING. >> THERE IS A TRADEOFF BY DOING THAT. >> OKAY. >> IS THERE ANOTHER TERM, BESIDES OPEN SPACE? BECAUSE THAT HAS A DIFFERENT KIND OF CONNOTATION. BETWEEN THE LIVABLE SPACE. OUTSIDE SPACE. OPEN SPACE HAS A HISTORY HERE. IT'S SORT OF LIKE A WORD THAT PEOPLE FEEL -- >> AS WAS INDICATED. THIS CAME UP AT OUR LAST STAD SESSION THAT CAME UP THREE WEEKS AGO. SO OUR INTENTION WAS, WHEN WE COME FORWARD, WE WILL USE A MORE CLEAR TERM. THEN GOING FORWARD, WE WILL DO SO. BUT AT THIS POINT, THIS IS A TERM THAT IS IN OUR ORDINANCE, SINCE WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT. >> BUT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC WHO MAY BE LISTENING AND WATCHING. WE WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR, THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS NOT OPEN SPACE IN THE TRADITIONAL SENSE THAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD HAVE HISTORICALLY UNDERSTOOD THAT TERM TO MEAN. IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I JUST WANT TO BE ABSOLUTELY CLEAR TO ALL OF THOSE THAT MAY -- ARE WATCHING NOW. MAY WATCH IN THE FUTURE. THAT WE ARE NOT -- NOT MAKING -- >> HOPEFULLY SMALLER -- >> YEAH. HOPEFULLY, TAKING AWAY OPEN SPACE, OPEN LAND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE FOOTPRINT OF -- >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIVATE, OUTDOOR SPACE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. >> THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE BALCONIES. >> YES, EXACTLY. >> THANK YOU, BAL 81IES, YES. >> PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE IS A GREAT TERM, IF YOU WANT TO WRITE THAT DOWN FOR NEXT TIME. >> WILL DO. >> THANK YOU FOR MENTIONING THE PUBLIC. I JUST REALIZED WHAT TIME IT IS. AND I SHOULD PROBABLY OPEN THIS TO PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE IS NO ONE IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS THAT I KNOW OF. BUT THERE ARE A FEW ONLINE. >> IF THE ONE PERSON IN ATTENDANCE VIRTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, PLEASE USE THE RAISE-HAND FEATURE. >> I HAVE NO HANDS. >> OKAY. GREAT. I DIDN'T WANT TO FORGET ABOUT THEM. OKAY, IN THAT CASE, I'LL HAND IT BACK TO YOU. WE WERE CLARIFYING ONE ITEM. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO CLARIFY WITH US THIS EVENING? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT I GOT HERE REFLECTS WHAT YOU WERE SAYING. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WAS GENERAL CONSENSUS. NOW, FOR REDUCING THE PRIVATE OUTDOOR SPACE. FOR ALLOWING COMPACT SPACES INCREASING THE AMOUNT THAT CAN BE COMPACT SPACES, WITH -- ALLOWING THE BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLE SPACES. COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD BROUGHT UP THE FEE WAIVER AND THE EXPEDITED PROCESS. ARE THOSE ALL SUPPORTED AS WELL? >> I HEARD COUNCILMEMBER HOWARD SAY HE WAS ACTUALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FEE WAIVER. CAN YOU REITERATE WHAT YOUR CONCERN -- >> I LIKE TODAY THE INITIAL PART OF IT, WITH THE 675, I THINK, WAS THE NUMBER THAT YOU GUYS PUT UP THERE. BUT I DON'T --I WANT TO HAVE IT OUT THERE, SO IT'S ENTICING TO THE CONTRACTORS AND DEVELOPERS. YES, WE ARE. WE DO HAVE A FEE WAIVER. BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO BREAK YOUR BANK. RIGHT? BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE A BUDGET YOU WANT TO STICK TO. IF WE COULD MITIGATE THAT BUT NOT GIVE TOO MUCH. >> WE COULD WAIVE THE LOT MERGER FEE. IN TERMS OF PROCESSING THE ACTUAL APPLICATION. WE CAN STILL CHARGE STAFF TIME FOR HOWEVER LONG WE SPEND REVIEWING IT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT AS MUCH OF A REVENUE LOSER, IF YOU WILL. >> YEAH. RIGHT. PERFECT. THANK YOU. >> THAT'S GENERALLY SUPPORTED. OKAY. AND I THINK -- SO IN TERMS OF PHASING, REDUCING THE FULL IMPLEMENTATION TIME LINE FROM 10 YEARS TO SOMETHING THAT ALIGNS WITH PHASES. THAT GOOD? >> AND FINALLY, THE ENTITLEMENT DURATION. THE INITIAL ENTITLEMENT DURATION. WE HAD PROPOSED THREE YEARS. COUNCILMEMBER ROSS SAID TWO YEARS. IS THAT GENERALLY SUPPORTED? >> YES. >> SAY, AGAIN, AFTER ENTITLEMENT, YOU HAVE THREE YEARS TO PULL THE FIRST PERMANENT PHASE? >> CORRECT. TO BUILD YOUR BUILDING PERMIT. >> RIGHT NOW, IT'S ONE YEAR. SO YOU'RE PROPOSING UP TO THREE YEARS. >> YES. >> BUT COUNCILMEMBER ROSS WANTED TO REDUCE THAT TO TWO YEARS. >> OH. OTHER WAY AROUND. >> AND TWO COULD TURN INTO THREE. >> IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH TWO YEARS. TWO YEARS SOUNDS GOOD. >> THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR YOU THEN. >> GREAT. ANYONE ELSE FROM STAFF WANT TO MAKE ANY CLOSING COMMENTS BEFORE WE ADJOURN THE MEETING THIS EVENING? GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO ECHO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER ROSS SAID, WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT TO US. BUT I WANT TO SAY, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE BEEN BRINGING TO US. BECAUSE EACH MEETING, WE'VE HAD SOMETHING NEW AND UNIQUE, WHICH HAS REALLY BEEN MEETING OUR GOALS OF ATTRACTING GOOD DEVELOPMENT INTO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ. AND I THINK YOU GUYS WERE DOING A REALLY GOOD JOB. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> ALL RIGHT. THIS MEETING IS OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED. AND WE WILL PICK UP HOPEFULLY ON TIME, RIGHT AT 7:00 P.M.