Planning Commission

Action Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Tuesday, July 23, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. Via Video/Teleconference Page 1 of 4 https://martinez.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=7&clip_id=1590&meta_id=124002* Full details are available via audio/video recording on our website. Microsoft Internet Explorer browser is recommended for video-viewing compatibility or enable Adobe Flash on your default browser. Commissioners on Video Conference City Staff on Video Conference Chair Sean Trambley Vice Chair Tracey Casella Commissioner Joseph Evans Commissioner Susan Gustofson Commissioner Rochelle Johnson Commissioner Jason Martin Commissioner John Klopp Present Absent Excused Present Present Present Present Michael P. Cass, Planning Manager Imanol Tovar, Planning Technician Dee Dee Fendley, Administrative Aide III Call to Order Meeting called to order at 7:00 p.m. Public Comment (01:28 in video) None Consent Calendar (01:47 in video) 1. Approval of the June 25, 2024 Planning Commission Action Minutes Speakers: None Public Comment: None Closing Comments: None Motion to: Approve Motion by: Commissioner Martin Seconded By: Commissioner Gustofson Motion passed 5-0 Sean Trambley Aye Rochelle Johnson Aye Tracey Casella Absent John Klopp Aye Joseph Evans Excused Jason Martin Aye Susan Gustofson Aye Regular Items (02:23 in video) 2. Conduct a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 24-06, approving a request for a condominium conversion / minor subdivision of a 5,000 square foot parcel into two parcels (with a common area parcel), located at 1735 Castro Street in the Residential 3.5 (“R-3.5”) zoning district, Assessor’s Parcel Number 372- 276-005-9, subject to conditions of approval.

Planning Commission Action Minutes Tuesday, July 23, 2024 Page 2 of 4 Speakers: • Imanol Tovar, Planning Technician, gave a presentation outlining the project. • Commissioner Martin asked what the sizes of the two lots will be once the subdivision is done. He asked for clarification of whether the parcels or the buildings are for sale separately. • Commissioner Gustofson stated she sent a series of questions to the Planning Division prior to the meeting. She asked staff to review the responses to her questions for the benefit of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gustofson asked the applicant if there will be CC&Rs once the property is split into two condominiums. She asked if this is something considered by the Planning Commission. • Chair Trambley asked which driveway on the displayed map is non-conforming. He asked if the applicant currently lives on the property. • Commissioner Klopp asked why there is a common area, rather than a dividing line between the two properties. • Scott Kim, Applicant, discussed the issues with housing in the Bay Area. Public Comment: • Mark Barnes, resident, asked if the common area between the buildings is owned by both parcel owners, or is a separate easement. He asked if there is a minimum separation required between the buildings. He wanted to know if this would apply to other property owners in the City who wanted to do the same conversion. He asked if some minor improvements were done to the buildings, if the owner would be required to bring the entire building up to conformance with current building codes. • Jeanette Barnes, resident, asked about where the driveway is being removed. She asked if this is the first time this situation has been presented to the City. She stated her family is interested in submitting a similar application, and asked if everyone will need to go through this process. Closing Comments: • Chair Trambley asked if there are any RHNA number implications with this project. • Commissioner Klopp asked how future construction on the lot would be handled. He asked when the applicant is required to submit the CC&Rs to the City. For future projects, he requested a draft of the CC&Rs be provided to the Planning Commission. • Commissioner Martin asked if there is a process within the City’s code to return the property to a single parcel. • Commissioner Gustofson is concerned the common area may cause issues between the two property owners. She would like to see verbiage in the CC&Rs that delineates how the common space should be used. Motion to: Adopt Resolution No. 24-06, approving a request for a condominium conversion / minor subdivision of a 5,000 square

Planning Commission Action Minutes Tuesday, July 23, 2024 Page 3 of 4 foot parcel into two parcels (with a common area parcel), located at 1735 Castro Street in the Residential 3.5 (“R-3.5”) zoning district, Assessor’s Parcel Number 372-276-005-9, subject to conditions of approval. Motion by: Commissioner Gustofson Seconded By: Commissioner Martin Motion passed 5-0 Sean Trambley Aye Rochelle Johnson Aye Tracey Casella Absent John Klopp Aye Joseph Evans Excused Jason Martin Aye Susan Gustofson Aye Commission Items (40:18 in video) Comments/ Updates None Planning Manager Items (40:52 in video) Comments/ Updates Planning Manager Cass provided the following updates: • The City Council and Planning Commission will not be meeting in August. • During the month of August, the Council Chamber will undergo a minor remodel. • The Martinez Marina operator will not be extending their lease agreement with the City. For an interim basis, City staff will be taking over management of the Marina. He encouraged the Planning Commission to listen to the recording of the previous City Council meeting, where a more extensive update was provided. • Two public art applications are being considered at the next City Council meeting. First is a mural on the Sports Complex, which highlights John Muir and Joe DiMaggio. Second is a pilot program for having painted pianos installed in the downtown with a pilot project at the plaza. • At the next City Council meeting, the City Council will consider allocating funding to local community groups and non-profit organizations. Communications (44:35 in video) Comments/ Updates None Adjournment (44:52 in video) Chair Trambley adjourned the meeting at 7:44 p.m.

Planning Commission Action Minutes Tuesday, July 23, 2024 Page 4 of 4 Sean Trambley, Chair Dee Dee Fendley, Administrative Aide III

>> WELCOME EVERYBODY. WE WILL START THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. >> CAN WE PLEASE CALL THE ROLE? >> JOSEPH EVANS? >> COMMISSIONER GUSTOFSON? >> PRESENT. >> COMMISSIONER JOHNSON? >> PRESENT. >> JOHN CLAPP. >> TRACY CASELLA? ABSENT. AND SEAN TREMBLEY. >> PRESENT. >> WE WILL MOVE ON TO OUR CIVILITY STATEMENT. AS YOUR APPOINTED GOVERNING BOARD WE WILL TREAT EACH OTHER AND THE PUBLIC WITH PATIENTS, CIVILITY AND COURTESY AS CONDUCT OF ALL-CITY BUSINESS AND COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION. THIS INCLUDES RESPECT FOR EVERYONE'S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO VOICE YOUR OPINIONS AND SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION EVEN IF THAT OPINION IS DIFFERENT FROM OUR OWN, THE DECISIONS MADE TONIGHT WILL BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMMUNITY AND NOT FOR PERSONAL GAIN. WE WILL NOW OPEN UP TO PUBLIC ITEMS, PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA IF YOU'RE HERE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING THAT IS AGENDA WE WILL HAVE MOMENTS FOR THAT LATER BUT IF YOU ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING OFF-TOPIC YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. NOT SEEING ANYONE, ANYONE ONLINE? WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT, WE WILL MOVE TO THE CONSENT CALENDAR, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ACTION MINUTE DATED JUNE 25 2020 FOR ANY QUESTIONS, CONCERNS OR EDITS ON THOSE? IF NOT MAY HAVE A MOTION? >> MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES FROM 625 24. >> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> LET'S RECORD A VOTE. >> SUSAN GUSTOFSON? >> AYE. >> ROCHELLE JOHNSON? >> AYE. >> JASON MARTIN? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES. >> REGULAR BUSINESS TO CONNECT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-06 APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONVERSION AND MINOR SUBDIVISION OF A 5000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS WITH A COMMON AREA PARCEL LOCATED AT 1735 STREET IN THE RESIDENTIAL 3.5 ZONING DISTRICT 372-276-3005-09 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL I WILL NOW TURN IT OVER FOR A STAFF REPORT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU CHAIR SEAN TRAMBLEY. IS THIS ON, I THINK THE SPEAKERS ARE A LITTLE LOW POTENTIALLY. BUT THANK YOU AGAIN, GOOD EVENING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS MY NAME , I AM TO PRESENT TO YOU THE PROPOSED OF MY SUBDIVISION ALSO REFERRED TO AS A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION ON 1735 CASTRO STREET. AND THEN LET'S SEE IF I CAN SWITCH. SO THE SUBJECT SITE AGAIN IS AT 1735 CASTRO STREET. IT IS A 5000 SQUARE-FOOT LOT IN THE R -3.5 ZONING DISTRICT. THE USES ARE RESIDENTIAL ZONING. THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL LOW WHICH PROVIDES FOR LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE PROJECT SITE HAS AN EXISTING PRIMARY RESIDENT AND AN A TO YOU WHICH ARE ALLOWED INCONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE SUBJECT SITE IS A MINOR SUBDIVISION, CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION AND THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED BESIDE FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND UTILITY ENHANCEMENTS. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO TWO PARCELS WITH A COMMON AREA PARCEL. THERE ARE CURRENTLY TWO DWELLING UNITS ON THIS PROPERTY AND THERE WILL BE NO NEW DEVELOPMENT ON THE SUBJECT SITE. THE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION WOULD SEPARATE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING IN IT FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, THIS PROJECT SHALL ALSO MAINTAIN SEPARATE UTILITIES WHICH WILL BE UNDERGROUND AND MAINTAIN DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO GET FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROJECT SITE SUCH AS CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK REPAIR AS WELL AS ELIMINATION OF ONE OF THE THREE DRIVEWAYS . THE TENTATIVE MAP SHOWN IN THE PLANS ARE HIGHLIGHTED TO SHOW THE PROPOSED BOUNDARY FOR THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND THE ADU, UNIT ONE HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE SHALL HAVE THE DESIGNATED DRIVEWAY ON CASTRO STREET. WHILE UNIT TWO HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE SHALL HAVE THEIR DESIGNATED DRIVEWAY ON ROBINSON STREET. THE COMMON AREA ON THE PARCEL IS THE SHARED SPACE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW THAT IS BETWEEN BOTH UNIT ONE AND UNIT TWO, THE COMMON AREA IS A SEPARATION OF THE SHARED SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO HOLDINGS AND HAS ACCESS TO THE RESPECTIVE BASEMENTS FOR BOTH THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE AND ADU. ASSEMBLY BILL 1033 WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1 OF THIS YEAR. THIS ASSEMBLY BILL ALLOWED CITIES AND COUNTIES THE DISCRETION TO LET PROPERTY OWNERS SELL AND CONVEY THEIR ADU'S SEPARATELY FROM A PRIMARY RESIDENCE. ON MAY 15, 2024, THE CITY ADOPTED REVISED REGULATIONS ALLOWING PROPERTY OWNERS TO SUBDIVIDE PROPERTY TO SELL ADU'S SEPARATELY FROM THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE. THE GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION FOR THIS SITE IS CENTRAL RESIDENTIAL LOW-C WHICH PROVIDES FOR LOWE'S DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GENERAL PLAN GOALS AS IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN ANY CHANGE TO THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 24-06 APPROVING A REQUEST FOR A CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION/MINOR SUBDIVISION OF A 5000 SQUARE FOOT PARCEL INTO TWO PARCELS WITH A COMMON AREA PARCEL, LOCATED AT 1735 CASTRO STREET IN THE RESIDENTIAL 3.5 ZONING DISTRICT. SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. AND WITH THAT I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> TO THE COMMISSION, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? >> GOT A FEW, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PROPOSAL AND I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE PRESENTATION, WHAT WILL THE SIZES OF THE TWO LOTS B WHEN A SEPARATION IS DONE? >> SO THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL WILL STAY THE SAME AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THE COMMON SHARED SPACE. THE SPACES HIGHLIGHTED WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF ONE OWNER AND THE OTHER HIGHLIGHTED SPACE WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT OWNER AND THEN THE MIDDLE IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF BOTH. CORRECT. >> >> I SENT A SERIES OF QUESTIONS INTO THE CITY AHEAD OF THIS MEETING AND I APPRECIATE THAT YOU RESPONDED TO ALL THOSE, I THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE PLANNING COMMISSION IF YOU COULD REVIEW THOSE RESPONSES JUST TO BRING A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION TO OUR DECISION PROCESS. CAN YOU DO THAT FOR US? >> OF COURSE, SO JUST TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT OF SOME OF THE QUESTIONS THAT SUSAN DID HAVE, CLARIFYING THE DEFINITION OF THE CONDOMINIUM, AS IT RELATES TO THE PROPOSED CHANGES ON THIS PROPERTY SO THE DEFINITION OF THE CONDOMINIUM FROM CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE 783 AND 41 205B IS AN UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN COMMON PORTION OF THE PROJECT AND A SEPARATE INTEREST IN SPACE CALLED UNIT. THE CONDOMINIUM PLAN IDENTIFIES THE COMMON AREA AND THE RESPONSIBILITY IN A SEPARATE INTEREST FOR EACH OWNER, SO AS IT RELATES TO THE PROJECT IT IS DECOUPLING THE A TO YOU FROM THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT SO IF THE A/D YOU MAY BE CONVEYED SEPARATELY BY THE PROPERTY OWNER IF THEY CHOOSE SO. ANOTHER QUESTION, THERE WERE OTHER QUESTIONS AS WELL. FURTHER ELABORATING ON FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD INCLUDE SIDEWALK REPAIR, REPLACEMENT OF THE TWO EXISTING DRIVEWAYS AND AS MENTIONED REMOVING THE THIRD EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF ROBINSON STREET. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT SO IN TERMS OF FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS IT ALSO INCLUDES RESPECT TO THE DRIVEWAYS REVIVING THE CURB CUT TO MEET CURRENT STANDARDS. AND THERE ALSO WILL BE SOME UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE DONE INCLUDING UNDERGROUND AND CERTAIN UTILITIES AND SEPARATING THE UTILITIES BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES SINCE THEY CAN BE SOLD SEPARATELY. >> WHEN YOU SAY SOLD SEPARATELY, THE UNITS THEMSELVES OR THE UNITS AND THE PARCEL? I GUESS, WOULD BE A HARD TIME TO UNDERSTAND THE DISTINCTION THERE, IS IT TWO SEPARATE PARCELS THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY? >> TWO SEPARATE PARCELS WITH A COMMON AREA PARCEL SO IN ESSENCE IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES THE TWO PARCELS SO THE PARCEL FOR THE A/D YOU AND THE PRIMARY RESIDENCE CAN BE SOLD SEPARATELY. >> AND THEN USUALLY SOME FORM OF HOMER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE COMMON AREA. >> SO CONTINUING WITH FURTHER DETAILS, FOR INFORMATION ADU IN THE PROPERTY ITSELF, THE PROPERTY DETAILS WE WERE ABLE TO PULL SHOW THAT IT WAS BUILT IN 1904 AND 1922. DUE TO THE AGE OF THE STRUCTURES, IT'S HARD TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT THE STRUCTURES WOULD BE PERMITTED. THIS IS BEFORE OUR REGULATIONS WERE IN EFFECT. AND SO THIS A/D YOU IS CONSIDERED AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING USE. >> THERE WAS ALSO CONCERN ABOUT THE ALLEYWAY THAT IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THE ALLEYWAY ON THE REAR SIDE OF 1735 CASTRO STREET IS WITHIN PROPERTY LINE OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND AN ENTIRE ALLIE IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND IS NOT A DESIGNATED RIGHT OF WAY. AS SHOWN BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE ADU IS 6.4 FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHICH SITS ON THE ALLEYWAY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A LITTLE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SO, IN THAT WAS EXPLICITLY ALLOWED IN THE EARLY 1900S BUT I WILL DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY AT LEAST THE CURRENT ZONING IS 3.5 WHICH IS ONE OF OUR MULTI FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS AND SO AS THERE IS MULTIPLE UNITS IN A SINGLE PARCEL, IT CURRENTLY WOULD BE CONFORMING AT LEAST FROM A USER STANDPOINT, WE DON'T REGULARLY HAVE THE INFORMATION IN TERMS OF WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENTS WERE OVER 100 YEARS AGO. BUT, MOST LIKELY IT'S BEEN FAIRLY CONSISTENT FROM THAT STANDPOINT. >> JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE PROPERTY, THE OWNER INDICATED THAT FOR THE ONE UNIT ON THE LEFT THAT WAS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE, THREE BEDROOMS AND 1.5 BATHROOMS IN THE UNIT ON THE RIGHT, IS TWO BEDROOMS AND ONE BATHROOM. AGAIN THEIR EXISTING SO NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE. >> FORWARD I THINK. THANK YOU. >> SO THE ORANGE HIGHLIGHTED UNIT ONE IS THE ONE WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND 1.5 BATHROOMS. AND THE ONE ON THE RIGHT HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE HAS TWO BEDROOMS AND ONE BATHROOM. >> WHICH IS THE NONCONFORMING DRIVEWAY? >> SO THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED IS ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT CORNER ON THE MAP IT IS CLOSE TO THE ALLEYWAY THAT WILL BE REMOVED AND THERE WILL BE THE REPAIRS ARE REPLACEMENT OF THE TWO EXISTING DRIVEWAYS THAT ARE THERE. >> THE OTHER DRIVEWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY LIGHT ENOUGH TO GET A CAR DOWN BETWEEN THERE, IS IT? AS A COMMON AREA THOUGH? >> IT IS. HOWEVER GOING INTO THE CAR WITH THE CAR, IT WOULD JUST BE DRIVING INTO THE UNIT TWO AREAS PROPERTY. >> I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE COMMON AREA, WHY NOT JUST PUT A DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES? >> I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING. >> IT IS REQUIRED WITH THE ADU SUBDIVISION PURPOSES, THE WAY TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NOT FURTHER SUBDIVISION OF THE PROPERTY. AS OPPOSED TO IF IT WAS SUBDIVIDED IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE, IT WOULD BE CREATING NONCONFORMING SITUATION TO WENDY , WHEN YOU CONDOMINIUM EYES ASIDE, IT'S NOT HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS IN TERMS OF THINGS OF THAT NATURE. >> IN THE STATE LAW THAT WAS PASSED. >> ACROSS THE BOARD WITH KIND OF ALL KINDS OF SITUATIONS. >> ARE THEY ACTUAL NEW PARCELS, WITH A COMMON AREA IN THE MIDDLE? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK . >> MAYBE THAT'S WHAT I DON'T HAVE. THANK YOU. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, YES? >> THERE WAS A COUPLE OTHER THINGS YOU EXPLAINED, COULD YOU GO THROUGH THOSE AS WELL? >> YES, I THINK ONE THING I DIDN'T TOUCH BASE ON WAS IF EITHER DWELLING UNIT HAD A BASEMENT THE PROPERTY OWNER DID CONFIRM THERE IS A BASEMENT FOR BOTH DWELLING UNITS, THERE IS ACCESS FOR BOTH LOCATED IN THE SHARED COMMON SPACE THAT WOULD NOT IMPEDE THE PROPOSED LOT SPLIT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THE APPLICANT HERE TODAY? >> WE WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE, AND IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU WE WILL LAY THEM ON YOU, THANK YOU FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. >> RIGHT, APPRECIATE YOU HAVING ME. I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE MORE TO THAT, THANKS FOR THE GREAT INTRO. I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HOUSING PIECE YOU KNOW, HOUSING IS A REAL ISSUE FOR ACROSS THE BOARD IN THE BAY AREA AND I THINK THAT EVERYONE CAN DO THEIR PARTS TO HELP RESOLVE THAT. AND ALTHOUGH THIS APPLICATION IS NOT ABOUT THE BUILDING OF A ADU, IT DOES PROVIDE A MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR HOMEOWNERSHIP, SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK YOU KNOW IT DOES HELP WITH THAT SITUATION AND I HOPE TO DO MANY MORE PROJECTS SIMILAR TO THIS IN THE FUTURE. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> DO YOU LIVE ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY? >> SORRY? >> DO YOU LIVE ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY? >> I DON'T. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION IS AWARE OF THIS BUT JUST TO PUT IT ON THE RECORD, STATE LAW SPECIFIES THAT THE CITIES CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS. >> PURELY YES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU, I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN THE PROPERTY GETS SPLIT, THAT THERE ARE PROPOSED TO BE CC AND OURS BECAUSE IT IS A CONDOMINIUM RATHER THAN TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY. IS THAT PART OF OUR DECISION TONIGHT OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT GOES OVER WITH THE CITY? AS IN THE PROCESS? >> SO THEY ARE REVIEWED BY OUR ENGINEERING DIVISION. SO THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION. HOWEVER, IF THE COMMISSION HAD A SPECIFIC ITEM OF INTEREST WE COULD PASS THAT ON TO ENGINEERING STAFF ON YOUR BEHALF. >> THANK YOU. >> IS NOW THE TIME TO COMMENT ABOUT ONE OF MY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS ON CCNR'S OR SHOULD I HOLD THAT FOR LATER? >> I WILL HOLD THAT UNTIL AFTER THE PUBLIC PERIOD OF THIS IS CLOSED. >> NO FURTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU FOR JOINING US, IF WE HAVE ANYTHING FOR YOU WE WILL CALL YOU BACK UP I APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US TONIGHT. WITH THAT WE WILL MOVE THE COUPLET COMMENT. FOR THIS ITEM. IF THERE IS ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO JOIN US TO SPEAK TONIGHT? THE MICROPHONE IS YOURS. >> ALL RIGHT, CAN I ASK QUESTIONS AND GET ANSWERS? >> USE YOUR THREE MINUTES TO OFFER COMMENTS AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK QUESTIONS WE WILL ANSWER THAT AT THE END OF IT. >> I DON'T HAVE A THREE-MINUTE SPEECH I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. >> THEN LAY HIM ON US. >> IS ITS OWN, IS IT A PART OF EITHER ONE OF THOSE TWO PARCELS OR IS IT LIKE JUST A SEPARATE EASEMENT TYPE THING, WHAT IS IT? >> THE COMMON AREA? >> SO THE COMMON AREA AS EXPLAINED EARLIER BY STAFF CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG IS THERE'S TWO PARCELS NOW ON IT THE COMMON AREA THAT WAS SHARED. BETWEEN THOSE TWO. SO IT'S NOT SOLD, IT STAYS WITH THE OVERALL FOOTPRINT OF THE LOT, CORRECT? >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO EXPLAIN IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY SO IN ESSENCE WHAT IT IS IS YOU HAVE A PARCEL THAT IS CREATED FOR EACH OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE THE RESPECTIVE UNITS ARE LOCATED. SO THERE IS A PARCEL THAT IS CREATED THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE MAIN RESIDENCE AND THERE IS A PARCEL THAT IS CREATED THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT. THEN THERE IS A COMMON AREA PARCEL THAT BOTH OF THOSE OTHER PARCELS HAVE RIGHTS TO AND THEY HAVE SHARED RIGHTS TO THAT SPACE. BUT THAT COMMON AREA PARCEL DOES NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOP ABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. AND IT CANNOT BE SOLD SEPARATE OR SEPARATED FROM THOSE OTHER TWO. >> CORRECT IT'S USUALLY OWNED OR MANAGED BY HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WHICH IS THE COMMON PRACTICE AND WHICH WOULD BE TYPICAL FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. A SHARED SPACE WHICH WOULD BE A ROOFTOP OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> OFTEN TIMES THERE IS A SEPARATE PARCEL NUMBER ASSIGNED TO IT. BUT IT'S NOT ANOTHER LEGAL ENTITY THAT HAS ANY ADDITIONAL DEVELOPABLE ABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH IT. >> DOES THIS ONE HAVE A SEPARATE PARCEL'S NUMBER? >> WE DON'T ASSESS THAT, IT WOULD BE WHEN THE FINAL MAP IS RECORDED. >> IS THERE A MINIMUM DIMENSION OF THE SEPARATION BETWEEN BUILDINGS FOR THE COMMON AREA? >> I WILL JUST DEFER TO STAFF ON SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS I THINK IT WILL MAKE IT A LOT EASIER. >> SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN BUILDINGS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH COMMON AREA SPACE. BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT DOES RELATE TO BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS BUT AGAIN THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS AT THIS POINT IN TIME. >> WHO WOULD PASS JUDGMENT ON THAT? THE FIRE MARSHAL? >> FIRE RATING REQUIREMENTS, WITH BUILDING CODE TO BE MANAGED BY THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL, WHEN AND IF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ARE PROPOSED ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. >> SO WHERE I AM HEADED WITH THIS IF THERE WAS SOME OF THE PROPERTY IN WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF MARTINEZ THAT WANTED TO DO THE SAME THING, DO THE TWO BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER IN ORDER TO QUALIFY? >> WE WILL EXTEND COMMENTS AND WORK WITH YOU ON THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR QUESTIONS GET ANSWERED, THEY DON'T NEED TO BE PHYSICALLY SEPARATED SIMILAR YOU CAN HAVE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO A MAIN RESIDENCE AS WELL AS DETACHED JUST THE MAPPING WOULD BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THAT. >> YOU WOULD HAVE TO CREATE A COMMON AREA? >> YOU WOULD STILL BE CREATING A COMMON AREA SOMEWHERE. >> CORRECT. >>'S OFTEN TIMES IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE YOU WOULD BE CREATING A COMMON AREA SPACE THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH LIKE A PARKING AREA OR WOULD BE SHARED IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. >> LAST QUESTION, IF YOU WANTED TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS LET'S SAY, CHANGE THE WINDOWS. YOU KNOW IN ONE OR TWO OR BOTH, DOES THAT THEN THROW YOU INTO YOU MUST CONFORM THE ENTIRE BUILDING OF TWO CONFORMING WITH CURRENT BUILDING CODES? >> TYPICALLY JUST WINDOW REPLACEMENT IS NOT GOING TO TRIGGER THAT, THERE IS A WHOLE SERIES OF TRIGGERS FOR WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS AND USUALLY EVEN SOMETHING THAT SMALL AS A BATHROOM REMODEL YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO BRING THE ENTIRE RESIDENCE INTO CONFORMANCE. IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, AND IT'S DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON WHAT THE NONCONFORMING SITUATION IS. BUT IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE DOING JUST GENERAL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR ITEMS, AS LONG AS YOU ARE NOT EXPANDING IN THE NONCONFORMING SITUATION ABOUT MAKING SITUATION MORE NONCONFORMING YOU GENERALLY DON'T, WITH CERTAIN SITUATIONS THAT IF YOU ARE AFFECTING OVER 50%, THEN YOU MAY HAVE TO BRING CERTAIN OTHER COMPONENTS INTO CONFORMANCE. THERE IS CERTAIN CRITERIA THOUGH IF, OF THINGS YOU NEED TO DO EVEN JUST BASED ON THE VALUE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT YOU ARE DOING AS WELL. SO THERE IS A WHOLE SERIES OF CRITERIA AND ALL OF THAT WOULD BE EVALUATED AT THE TIME OF BUILDING PERMIT AND IT IS APPLIED FOR BY BOTH HOLDING DIVISION STAFF THAT ISSUES PERMITS AS WELL AS BY THE INSPECTORS THAT WOULD INSPECT THE PROJECT ASSOCIATED WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> INTERESTING I HAVE NEVER HEARD OF BEING ABLE TO DO THIS. I MEAN I KNOW IT'S NEW , BRANDON EXPLAINED IT TO ME YESTERDAY REALLY WELL. BUT, I DON'T UNDERSTAND, WE WENT BY AND WE OWN THE PROPERTY KITTY CORNER FROM THIS AND WE DON'T HAVE A ADU SO WE CANNOT DO IT. BUT, WE , I DON'T SEE WHERE YOU'RE REMOVING A DRIVEWAY. I MEAN THE PICTURES I SEE I DON'T SEE A DRIVEWAY, THERE IS THE ALLEYWAY BUT I DON'T SEE IT. >> ON THE RIGHT, ON ROBINSON. >> CORRECT, THAT DRIVEWAY TO GET INTO THE ALLEY IS WHAT WE WERE, WHAT I WAS MENTIONING AS THE DRIVEWAY. SO IT IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE ALLEYWAY, IT HAS A DRIVEWAY THERE. THE CURB CUT. >> CORRECT. >> SO THE ALLEYWAY IS STAYING. RIGHT? >> THE ALLEY IS STAYING. YOU ARE NOT REMOVING ANYTHING, JUST A DIP, SO PEOPLE CAN DRIVE IN THERE FROM ROBINSON IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I DON'T. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING REMOVED. >> YES, THE DIP. >> SO THE DIP IS BEING REMOVED? >> CORRECT. >>. >> WHAT THAT DIP WOULD TAKE TO YOU WILL NOT BE AFFECTED THAT'S THE ALLEY, IT'S THE DIP IN THE SIDEWALK THAT BILL, THAT WILL BE REMOVED. >> THAT'S NOT AN ACCESS POINT. IS WHAT I AM HEARING, RIGHT? >> CORRECT, AS MENTIONED BEFORE THE ALLEY IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> OKAY. I JUST NEVER KNEW THAT ALLEYWAY WAS THERE. I JUST. AND, MY QUESTIONS ARE ALL OVER THE PLACE, BUT IS THIS THE FIRST, IS THIS THE FIRST SITUATION LIKE THIS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE COME ACROSS? BECAUSE I KNOW IT'S VERY NEW, MAY 1. AND THEN, SO, WILL EVERY PERSON, WE HAVE A MEMBER OF OUR FAMILY ONCE WE HEARD ABOUT THIS WE WERE LIKE YES. YOU KNOW, WE ARE VERY INTERESTED IN DOING IT, WILL EVERY PERSON HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS? FOR THIS NEW BILL? >> IT'S NOT A NEW BILL, THIS IS AN EXISTING ADU THAT IS BEING SOLD BILL, THE AB. >> AND I CLARIFY? SO, LET'S TAKE IT IN TWO POINTS SO FIRST AND FOREMOST THERE WILL BE A DISTINCTION IF THERE IS OR IS NOT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THEY ARE ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IF THEY CONFORM WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THEY ARE JUST APPROVED MINISTER LEE BY STAFF, THERE IS NOT A PUBLIC PROCESS THAT THEY GO THROUGH. IF A ADU IS PROPOSED THAT DOES NOT CONFORM TO ONE OR MORE STANDARDS THAN IT WOULD POTENTIALLY BE GOING THROUGH PUBLIC PROCESS. ONCE THERE IS A ADU IN PLACE IF THERE IS AN INTEREST IN SEPARATING THE OWNERSHIP TO MUELLER TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THIS EVENING THEN YES, THAT WOULD GO THROUGH THE PROCESS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS EVENING. >> BUT FOR MANY OF THESE HOUSES DOWNTOWN, YOU KNOW THEY WERE BUILT IN 1904, 1922, FOR THOSE SITUATIONS YOU KNOW, LIKE THIS A ADU, THERE WERE TWO HOUSES ON ONE PROPERTY. SO, YOU HAVE TO GRANDFATHER IN THE MULTIPLE UNIT ISSUE I GUESS, FOR THE OLDER STRUCTURES BEFORE. >> CORRECT, IT WOULD NEED TO CURRENTLY BE UNDER A SAME PARCEL AND IT WOULD NEED TO MEET THE GENERAL CRITERIA THAT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT WOULD NEED. >> SO EVERYBODY IN THIS THAT HAS THESE OLDER SITUATIONS, WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS, CORRECT? >> ONE OF THE JOYS IN MARTINEZ'S WE HAVE A LOT OF OLDER BUILDINGS WITH OLDER DESIGNS AND SOMETIMES IT HAS TO BE KIND OF WORKED OUT IN A MEETING LIKE THIS AND OTHER TIMES WE WOULD PUT TOGETHER PROCESSES IN PLACE WHERE IT CAN BE DONE IN OTHER WAYS. >> THERE IS ONLY TWO JURISDICTIONS THAT I KNOW OF THAT SINCE THE BILL PASSED TO AUTHORIZE THIS TO ACTUALLY HAPPEN THAT ARE ALLOWING A SIMILAR PROCESS SO AT THIS POINT IT IS THE CITY OF SAN JOSE IN THE CITY OF MARTINEZ SO IT LIKELY WILL BE A PROCESS THAT GETS REFINED BOTH LOCALLY AND AT THE STATE LEVEL AS THERE IS CLARIFICATION THAT ARE ADDED TO THE PROCESS. >> IF YOU DO HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS FOR DOING THIS I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP THIS FOCUSED ON THIS HERE, PLEASE CONTACT STAFF, THEY WOULD BE HAPPY TO CHAT WITH YOU ABOUT IT OFF-LINE. >> OKAY, SO YOU, DO YOU DECIDE AS A COMMITTEE IF HE CAN DO THIS? LIKE TONIGHT? >> THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CONSIDERING, YES. >> OH, OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> INC. YOU SO MUCH. >> WE WILL GO TO OUR ONLINE AUDIENCE IF ANYBODY IS ONLINE AND WISHING TO OFFER COMMENT YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES PLEASE USE THE RAISE HAND FEATURE. NOT SEEING ANYONE WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT AND BRING IT BACK. DISCUSSION, THIS IS OUR FIRST TIME GOING THROUGH SOMETHING LIKE THIS I ACTUALLY READ THE ARTICLE ABOUT THE ONE IN SAN JOSE. IT'S EXCITING WE GET TO BE NUMBER TWO. AND ANOTHER GUINEA PIG ON THIS, BUT I DID HAVE ONE FOR THE QUESTION IS THERE ANY NUMBER ON THIS OR IS ALREADY CONSIDERED A HOUSING UNIT UNDER THOSE GUIDELINES? >> THERE ARE NO APPLICATIONS DIRECTLY BECAUSE THE UNIT IS EXISTING, HOWEVER IT IS, WE REPORT ON NEW UNITS THAT ARE CREATED, WE ALSO REPORT ON PROGRAMS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF PROGRAMS THAT RESULT IN HOUSING IMPROVEMENTS. AND AS WE ADOPTED THE REGULATIONS EARLY THIS YEAR AND TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THEM, THIS WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD SPEAK TO IN OUR ANNUAL REPORT. >> GOT YOU. >> WHAT ABOUT, I FORGET ABOUT , THE THE PACKET BUT IT SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DEVELOPER, WITH THIS WHILE IF I FOR THAT? >> 90 BILLED. THOSE FEES COULD COME INTO PLAY IF THERE WAS EXPANSION OF THE USE. >> AND HOW IS FUTURE CONSTRUCTION ON THE LOT HANDLED? SO SAY, I DON'T KNOW FOR SOME REASON ONE OF THE CONDO UNITS THEY WANT TO TEAR DOWN AND BUILD SOMETHING NEW, IS IT VIEWED AS A SINGLE PARCEL STILL, 3.5, OR ARE THEY INDIVIDUALLY EVALUATED AFTER THE CONDO CONVERSION? >> IT WOULD BE SIMILAR TO A TRADITIONAL CONDO PROJECT SO IF YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT YOU WOULD NEED TO, YOU COULD REPLACE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS THERE, THAT WOULD FALL WITHIN THE NEWEST ESTABLISHED PROPERTY LINES FOR THAT. FOR THAT CONDO THAT IS CREATED FROM A MAPPING STANDPOINT. IF YOU ARE WANTING TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT AND BUILD SOMETHING SLIGHTLY BIGGER AND TAKING A BIGGER SPACE THAN WHAT WAS CALLED OUT ON THE MAP AND YOU WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE MAP. IT IN SOME CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR IF YOU ARE EXPANDING BEYOND THAT AREA SLIGHTLY. >> WHAT ABOUT SOMEBODY IF THEY WANTED TO UNWIND ALL THIS, IS THERE A MECHANISM LIKE IN THE CITY CODE OR WITHIN THE CCNR'S OR WHATEVER TO DO THAT, COULD THEY ACTUALLY GO BACK TO ONE PHYSICAL THING? >> WE HAVE A MERGER PROCESS THEY COULD GO THROUGH. >> IT WOULDN'T GO THROUGH A SPECIAL THING? >> NO. >