City Council Study Session

>> GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OF THE CITY OF MARTINEZ CITY COUNCIL. WE HAVE ONE ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, AND IT'S CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION TO PROVIDE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM. TONIGHT WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT AVAILABLE, JUST AS WE NORMALLY DO ON STUDY SESSIONS, AFTER THE PRESENTATION BY STAFF. >> IF THERE IS ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, JUST KNOW THAT WE WILL BE DOING THAT NEAR THE END. WOULD YOU LIKE TO OPEN THIS UP, MICHAEL? >> IF KAT WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP THE PRESENTATION, I CAN GO AHEAD AND START. >> I'M SORRY, I FORGOT TO DO ROLL CALL, WOULD YOU PLEASE DO ROLL CALL? >> PRESIDENT HOWARD IS ABSENT BUT HE WILL BE ATTENDING LATER THIS EVENING. COUNCILMEMBER MALHI? >> HERE.>> AND MAYOR ZORN ? >> PRESENT. SORRY ABOUT THAT, PLEASE CONTINUE. >> NO WORRIES, I'M THE ASSOCIATE PLANNER THIS EVENING TO HELP FACILITATE OUR STUDY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE CITY'S FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFIT PROGRAM, BEFORE WE GET INTO IT, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THERE IS NO FINAL DECISION HE MADE TONIGHT, THE INTENT IS STRICTLY TO RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE POLICY AND HEAR STAFFS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. WE WILL THEN TAKE YOUR FEEDBACK AND DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AND COME BACK AT A LATER DATE FOR ADOPTION. DURING TONIGHT'S REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING, YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING ZONING AMENDMENTS, RELATING TO STATE DENSITY ZONING LAW AND WE WILL COVER THAT LATER THIS EVENING. DO WE HAVE THE PRESENTATION? THANK YOU. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS PRESENTATION IS A TINY BIT LONG SO I'LL TRY TO BE SWIFT, BUT PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, THE PRESENTATION IS BROKEN UP INTO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS, FIRST WE WILL PROVIDE YOU WITH REAL-WORLD EXAMPLES FROM YOUR DAY --NEARBY JURISDICTIONS, AND BASED ON THESE EXAMPLES WE'LL IDENTIFY VARIOUS PROGRAM ELEMENTS WHICH WE SHOULD CONSIDER FOR OUR OWN PROGRAM, STAFF WILL PRESENT A DRAFT FRAMEWORK OF WHAT WE THINK THE PROGRAM SHOULD LOOK LIKE AND FINALLY WE WILL BRING IT TO THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE PLAN AND RESPOND TO ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. ARE WE HERE? THIS EFFORT WAS SPURRED BY SEVERAL OBJECTIVES IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT IN THE PLANNING DIVISION WORK PLAN, PROGRAMS 13 AND 15 FROM THE HOUSING ELEMENT BOTH INCLUDE AN OBJECTIVE TO EVALUATE AND IMPLEMENT A RANGE OF INCENTIVE-BASED AND REGULATORY APPROACHES TO FACILITATE AND ENCOURAGE SITES TO DEVELOP AT THE DENSITIES AND INTENDED USE IS IDENTIFIED AS THE SITES INVENTORY INCLUDING EVALUATION OF A DEVELOPMENT, INCENTIVES AND BONUSES IN EXCHANGE FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS. THE LAST THING I WILL GO OVER QUICKLY BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR INTO IT IS I WANT TO EXPLAIN SOME TERMINOLOGY. THE FIRST IS DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, THESE ARE DEFINED AS DEVIATIONS FROM CITY ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS LIKE HEIGHT, SETBACKS, DENSITY, THESE ARE SEEN AS POTENTIALLY RESTRICTIVE AND LIMITING TO DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL. COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE THE PHYSICAL OR ECONOMIC BENEFITS GIVEN TO THE CITY OF MARTINEZ AND ITS COMMUNITY BY APPLICANTS IN EXCHANGE FOR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES. YOU WILL HEAR ME MENTION MENU OF OPTIONS, THIS IS A METAPHOR FOR THE PREDETERMINED DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND I WOULD LIKE TO THINK OF TONIGHT AS US CRAFTING MARTINEZ'S MENU FOR THIS PROGRAM. AND FINALLY TALKING ABOUT WHAT THE BENEFITS ARE, ON-SITE BENEFITS AND AMENITIES ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT SITE AND OFF-SITE ARE THOSE THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED ELSEWHERE. THESE ARE FEATURES THAT ARE CONSTRUCTED BY DEVELOPERS. SO, AS A PART OF OUR DUE DILIGENCE, STAFF THAT SIMILAR PROGRAMS IN THE U.S. AND THERE'S A LOT OF DIVERSITY, HOWEVER WE WILL BE HIGHLIGHTING TWO EXAMPLES. THE FIRST IS FROM EMERYVILLE AND ONE WE WILL SPENT TIME EXPLAINING AS THE PROGRAM WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR MOST. IT ESSENTIALLY CREATES TWO SETS OF DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ALL ZONING DISTRICTS, ONE IS ABASED HERE --A BASE TEAR WHICH ALMOST COMPLY TO. THE SECOND INCLUDES HEIGHT, DENSITY AND FA ARE. TO UTILIZE THIS, THERE'S A FORMULA THEY CREATED THAT QUANTIFIES A BONUS REQUEST INTO A POINT SYSTEM. DEPENDING ON HOW MANY BONUSES YOU REQUEST, THE MORE POINTS YOU NEED. TWO ACQUIRE THE POINTS, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THE MORE POINTS YOU NEED, THE MORE BENEFITS YOU NEED TO PROVIDE. THIS PROGRAM APPLIES TO ALL USE TYPES RATHER THAN JUST RESIDENTIAL AND IS EXPLICITLY NOT STACKABLE WITH RESIDENCY BONUS. AS FOR THE MENU OF OPTIONS, THE ONLY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT EMERYVILLE REALLY HAVE ARE RELATED TO FAR, HEIGHT AND DENSITY WHICH IS LIMITED IN SCOPE . THEY DO PROVIDE A RANGE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTS THAT COMMUNITIES CAN CHOOSE FROM, THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF BENEFITS, THE FIRST IS ON-SITE BENEFITS, AMENITIES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT ON SITE, THE SECOND IS A CONTRIBUTION TO ONE OF EMERYVILLE'S CITY FUNDED PROGRAMS. AND LAST IS A FLEXIBLE BENEFIT WHICH IT IS A BENEFIT PROPOSED BY AN APPLICANT THAT IS NOT ON THE CITY'S PREAPPROVED LIST. BUT IT DOES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL BETTING TO SUPPORT. I WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS MAP TO ILLUSTRATE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN I SAY THERE'S A TWO TIERED ZONING SYSTEM, THIS IS A HEIGHT MAP. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE TOP RIGHT, EACH OF THE VARIOUS ZONES INCLUDES A BASE AND BONUS TEAR WITH THE BASE ON THE LEFT AND THE BONUS ON THE RIGHT. PROPERTIES THAT NORMALLY REQUIRE A BASE HEIGHT OF 30 FEET CAN GO UP TO 55 FEET IF THEY PROVIDE CERTAIN COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THEY HAVE THESE PREDETERMINED FOR BASE AND BONUS STANDARDS FOR HEIGHT, DENSITY AND FAR. WE'VE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY MEET AND DISCUSS WITH EMERYVILLE STAFF ABOUT THEIR PROGRAM AND FOUND THEIR PROGRAM HAS BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THE MAJORITY OF PROJECTS THAT ARE UTILIZING THIS PROGRAM OVER STATE DENSITY BONUS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. IT OFFERS AMPLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, SO THE CITY REAPS BENEFITS. IT ALSO APPLIES TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, AND THERE ARE SOME DOWNSIDES, PROJECTS UTILIZING THE PROGRAM REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL TO USE SO THAT IS ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO CLEAR. AND THE FORMULA PROVIDED FOR CALCULATING THAT BONUS IS PRETTY COMPLEX, IT CAN BE RELATIVELY DAUNTING TO THE LABOR SOME. THE OTHER CITY I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IS THE CITY OF CONCORD, OUR NEIGHBOR, CONCORD HAS ESTABLISHED THAT BASE AND BONUS TEAR, A MAJOR DIFFERENCE IS THAT CONCORD'S PROGRAM ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS IN PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICTS, THE ONLY WAY DEVELOPERS CAN ACCESS THESE STANDARDS IS PROVIDING AT LEAST 40% OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 20% OF WHICH NEEDS TO BE DESIGNATED AS VERY LOW INCOME. RATHER THAN UNLOCK THESE BONUS STANDARDS WITH POINTS OR INCREMENTALLY, ANY PROJECT THAT PROVIDES THAT 40% THRESHOLD HAS ACCESS TO ALL THE BONUSES AT ONCE. CONCORD PROVIDES A DIVERSE ARRAY INCLUDING DENSITY, LOT SIZE, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, OPEN-SPACE, PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND EVEN SOME EXPEDITED PERMIT PROCESSING. AGAIN, ALL OF THESE BECOME AVAILABLE TO A PROJECT AS LONG AS THEY PROVIDE THE AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT. THE ONLY DOWNSIDE , THE ONLY COMMUNITY BENEFIT THEY ARE GETTING AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING WHICH ISN'T NECESSARILY A BAD THING BUT IT IS RELATIVELY LIMITED. STAFF ALSO HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH CONCORD AND FOUND THEIR PROGRAM IS REALLY VASTLY UNDERUTILIZED, MORE THAN 10 YEARS AGO, ONLY ONE PROJECT HAS UTILIZED THE PROGRAM. WHILE UNDERUTILIZED, IT DOES HAVE SOME POSITIVES, THEY DO PROVIDE A REALLY DIVERSE MENU OF OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, IT IS ALSO STRAIGHTFORWARD AND THAT IF YOU MEET THE THRESHOLD, YOU HAVE THE BONUSES. IT IS PRETTY SIMILAR TO STATE DENSITY LAW, BUT THERE IS NO NEED FOR SUBSTANTIATION LIKE A CONCESSION OR WAIVER THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED. THERE ARE SEVERAL NEGATIVES, THE BIGGEST ONE IS THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, THERE IS A MISSING GAP. THERE'S ALSO NO REAL BENEFITS BEYOND AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LASTLY, THE 40% AFFORDABILITY REQUIREMENT IS A STEEP REQUEST FOR MOST DEVELOPERS AND IT MAKES IT PRETTY ON COMPARATIVE --UNCOMPETITIVE. NOW THAT WE HAVE SEEN A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES, STAFF HAVE TAKEN THE TIME TO BREAK DOWN EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL ELEMENTS TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL OPTIONS WE SHOULD CONSIDER FOR OUR OWN PROGRAM. NOTE WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT STAFFS PROPOSED PROGRAM YET, WE ARE JUST DESCRIBING THE VARIABLES THAT COULD BE INCLUDED. I HAVE BROKEN IT UP INTO A COUPLE DIFFERENT TOPICS, THE FIRST VARIABLE IS THE FRAMEWORK FOR THE PROGRAM, HOW EXACTLY DOES THE PROGRAM WORK? APPLICANTS ACCUMULATE INCENTIVES EITHER INCREMENTALLY OR THROUGH CALCULATION OF POINTS, THAT WAY THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS CAN BE DETERMINED. THE ALTERNATIVE IS A FLAT BASE SYSTEM AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT MEETS PARTICULAR THRESHOLDS, THEY ARE AUTOMATICALLY AWARDED INCENTIVES. THERE'S A FEW OTHERS THAT I DID NOT INCLUDE, FOR EXAMPLE WE SAW OUTSIDE OF CALIFORNIA, IT IS A 121 SQUARE FOOT RATIO, YOU WILL GET ONE SQUARE FOOT EXTRA IN YOUR PROJECT. THE SECOND VARIABLE IS THE PROGRAM APPLICABILITY, AS YOU HEARD, THERE'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THIS STAFF SAW. FOR THE TYPE OF PROJECT, STAFF MAINLY SAW THAT THESE PROGRAMS EITHER APPLY EXCLUSIVELY TO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OR THEY INCLUDE COMMERCIAL, OFFICE AND INDUSTRIAL PROJECTS. THE OTHER QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE ANY KIND OF LOCATIONAL RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE SEEN THESE TWO PARTICULAR GEOGRAPHIC AREAS BUT OF COURSE THERE ARE SOME THAT JUST APPLY TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE. THERE'S ALSO QUITE A RANGE OF DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AS THE THIRD VARIABLE, STAFF HAVE SEEN DEVELOPMENT USE THIS INCENTIVE TO LURE DEVELOPERS TO THE PROGRAM INCLUDING DENSITY INCREASES, HEIGHT INCREASES, LOT COVERAGE INCREASES, SETBACKS, REDUCTIONS, AND PERMIT STREAMLINING. THE FINAL VARIABLE IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS. STAFF HAS SEEN A PRETTY ALLY --WIDE RANGE, SOME OF THE MOST COMMON HAVE INCLUDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ANOTHER THROUGH CONTRIBUTION OF CITY FUNDED PROGRAMS WHICH USUALLY INCLUDES CONTRIBUTIONS TO A CITY'S AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND OR SOME OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT FUND WHICH IS NORMALLY REQUIRED THROUGH IMPACT FEES. A PRETTY UNIVERSAL THEME FOR BENEFITS IS ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, INCORPORATED DIRECTLY INTO PROJECTS AS FEATURES OR AMENITIES. THESE CAN VARY GREATLY FROM CITY TO CITY BUT SOME INCLUDE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN-SPACE, HISTORIC REHABILITATION, SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES, ENCOURAGEMENT OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, 3+ BEDROOM UNITS AND MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS. EASEMENTS AND LAND DEDICATION AND PUBLIC ART REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS ALSO THE INCLUSION OF OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, THESE ARE GENERALLY LIMITED TO FRONTAGE OR RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND THOSE THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED NOT NECESSARILY ON THE PROJECT SITE. LASTLY WE HAVE SEEN FLEXIBLE BENEFIT WHICH AGAIN ARE BENEFITS THAT MIGHT NOT BE PROVIDED ON THE MENU OF OPTIONS BUT COULD BE POTENTIALLY BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY SEEN BY THE DEVELOPER. STAFF HAS ATTEMPTED TO DRAFT WHAT A OPPOSED FRAMEWORK COULD LOOK LIKE IN MARTINEZ. STAFF IDENTIFIED THE FOLLOWING PRIMARY OBJECTIVES. I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE BUT TO SUMMARIZE, WE RECOMMEND A PRACTICAL PROGRAM THAT WILL BE USED AND IS NOT OVERLY COMPLEX, WE RECOMMEND PROVIDING A GOOD MENU OF OPTIONS FOR BOTH DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT WILL BE BENEFICIAL FOR NOT ONLY THE DEVELOPMENT BUT THE MARTINEZ COMMUNITY. AND WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT THE PROGRAM BE AS COMPETITIVE AS POSSIBLE WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. IN ITS SIMPLEST FORM, THE PROGRAM WORKS FOR EVERYONE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES THAT SOMEBODY REQUESTS, ONE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FROM OUR MENU OF OPTIONS MUST BE PROVIDED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO INCREASE THEIR HEIGHT, THEY MUST PROVIDE THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE COMMUNITY BENEFIT. THE MENU OF OPTIONS FOR DEVELOPING INCENTIVES ARE PREDETERMINED, SIMILAR TO OUR BONUS SYSTEMS WE HAVE SEEN. WITH A SET OF LESS RESTRICTIVE AND PREDETERMINED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. AND THE MENU OF OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS SHOULD BE VARIED TO INCLUDE WELL DEFINED ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, ON-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS, CONTRIBUTION TO CITY FUNDED PROGRAMS AND A FLEXIBLE IF IT APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. YOU WILL SEE, WE HAVE ELECTED TO KEEP THESE OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS PRETTY OPEN AS POSSIBLE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PROGRAM APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL, OFFICE, COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT TO HELP STREAMLINE RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL GROWTH IN THE CITY. STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROGRAM APPLY A CITYWIDE RATHER THAN RESTRICTIVE WHICH IN TURN FACILITATES ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC BENEFITS THROUGHOUT MARTINEZ. THE ONLY EXCEPTION CANNOT APPLY TO PROPERTIES WITHIN THE PROTECTED OPEN SPACE AND PARKS OVERLAY REFERRED TO AS THE POPO OVERLAY. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PROGRAM BE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW. LASTLY, WE THINK THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES TO INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING ELEMENT OPPORTUNITY SITES SPECIFICALLY BY EITHER OFFERING ALL OR ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES FOR PROJECTS WHO MEET THE AFFORDABILITY UNIT MIX. AS YOU CAN SEE, WE TRIED TO KEEP THE PROGRAM AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE IN ITS APPLICABILITY, IN ORDER TO REALLY MAXIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND AN ALTERNATIVE AND, THE OPTIONS COULD BE LIMITING THIS TO EITHER RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS OR LIMITING ITS GEOGRAPHIC REGION, POTENTIALLY TO JUST DOWNTOWN. FOR DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, WE RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING DEVIATIONS, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY, FAR, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED EXACTLY HOW MUCH THIS BONUS TEAR WOULD BE BUT, WE DID WANT TO QUICKLY TOUCH ON THE IDEA FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS SO RATHER THAN CREATING NEW PARKING STANDARDS, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PARKING STANDARDS SHOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO THE STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW REQUIREMENTS WHICH ARE TIED TO THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS PER UNIT. STAFF FEEL THAT KEEPING THE PARKING REDUCTIONS LIMITED, SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THE PARKING DISTRICT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND THERE'S OTHER CALIFORNIA STATE LAWS LIKE A.B. 1401 THAT ALREADY LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT CAN BE ENFORCED ON PROJECTS. WE ALSO SAW OPEN-SPACE REDUCTIONS, BUT WE CHOSE TO EXCLUDE THIS TO ENSURE A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF PRIVATE OPEN-SPACE TO BE BILLED FOR PROJECTS AND REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE PUBLIC PARKS AND FACILITIES AS A QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUE FOR OUR RESIDENTS. SO, NOW IT IS TIME FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS POINT WE WANTED TO PROVIDE A WIDE ARRAY OF OPTIONS SO WE HAVE SEPARATED THEM INTO A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES OR BUCKETS. THE FIRST BUCKET ON THE LEFT IS THE ON-SITE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUILT BY THE DEVELOPER. WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THAT RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS UTILIZING THESE PROGRAMS ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO GET ACCESS TO DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES. FOR EXAMPLE, AN APPLICANT COMES FORWARD WITH A RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AND IN THIS INCIDENCE, SAY THAT IS FIVE UNITS, BUT ALSO WANTS TO UTILIZE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, THEY MUST FIRST PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO ACCESS THOSE. ONCE THEY SATISFY THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY CAN UTILIZE THE REMAINDER OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS TO THEM. THIS OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T APPLY TO NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS WHICH WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE BENEFITS WITHOUT AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE ALSO NEED TO WORK ON THE EXACT PERCENTAGES BUT ONE OF THE COMMON THINGS WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO MAKE THIS COMPETITIVE WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW SO THAT IS AN AREA WE WILL BE TARGETING IN TERMS OF DENSITY INCREASES. THE SECOND BUCKET IS CONTRIBUTION TO CITY FUNDED PROGRAMS, SIMILAR TO EMERYVILLE'S PROGRAM, PROJECTS COULD ACQUIRE THEIR INCENTIVES THROUGH A TRADE-OFF. ALSO SIMILAR TO EMERYVILLE, WE BELIEVE THIS CONTRIBUTION SHOULD BE TIED TO A PERCENTAGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION VALUATION. AGAIN, THE EXACT PERCENTAGE CAN CHANGE WHAT WE BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE IN THE BALLPARK OF 5%. AS IT STANDS, THE ONLY DEDICATED FUND AT THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS IS THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, WE HAVE ALSO HEARD POTENTIAL OPPORTUNITIES TO EXPAND THAT TO INCLUDE SOMETHING LIKE THE MARIN WATERFRONT FUND. THE THIRD BUCKET, ON-SITE BENEFITS. IT COULD INCLUDE HISTORIC REHABILITATION, ZERO NET ENERGY AND OTHER PREDETERMINED SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES, INCLUSION OF THREE-BEDROOM UNITS, PRIVATELY OWNED PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE OPEN-SPACE , TRAIL AND OPEN-SPACE EASEMENTS IN PUBLIC ART. AGAIN, THESE BENEFITS WOULD NEED TO BE QUANTIFIED TO A DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO SOMEWHERE IN THE BALLPARK OF 5% TO 10%. OUR FOURTH BUCKET IS OFF-SITE BENEFITS, SO THESE INCLUDE THINGS LIKE I MENTIONED, FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT-OF-WAY IMPROVEMENTS AND POTENTIALLY, FACADE IMPROVEMENTS. THEY COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN TANGIBLE COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT REDUCE THE BURDEN ON THE CITY TO CONSTRUCT AND IMPLEMENT OURSELVES. THAT FLEXIBLE BENEFIT, THESE ARE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OUTSIDE OF OUR MENU OF OPTIONS BECAUSE OF THIS, WE ALSO RECOMMEND THAT PROJECTS UTILIZING THIS BENEFIT WOULD REQUIRE ADDITIONAL APPROVALS. SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE TRIED TO KEEP THE POTENTIAL FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE, AN ALTERNATIVE APPROACH WOULD BE EITHER EXPANDING, INCLUDING NEW COMMUNITY BENEFITS OR LIMITING THE SCOPE WE PRESENTED HERE. FINALLY, HOW WOULD A PROJECT UTILIZING THIS PROJECT -- PROGRAM LOOK? THEY WOULD HAVE TO SIGN A WAIVER. FURTHERMORE, WE ALSO DIDN'T WANT THIS PROJECT TO ADD ADDITIONAL BARRIERS TO APPLICANTS, SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT ASSUMING NO FLEXIBLE BENEFITS ARE USED, THAT A PROJECT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE RESPECTIVE AUTHORITY, FOR EXAMPLE IF A PROJECT WOULD NORMALLY ONLY REQUIRE PLANNING COMMISSION, THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE. TO CAVEAT THIS, THE FLEXIBLE BENEFIT, IF IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE USED, SINCE THE BENEFIT WOULD NOT BE ON THE PREAPPROVED MENU OF OPTIONS, IT WOULD REQUIRE BOTH PLANNING COMMISSION, RECOMMENDATION AND CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. STAFF WOULD ALSO CREATE NEW FINDINGS TO COINCIDE. AND IF A CONTRIBUTION TO CITY FUNDING IS USED, ALL FEES WOULD BE PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT AND CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE DETERMINED PRIOR TO THAT. FOLLOWING OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING, WE WOULD CONDUCT FURTHER OUTREACH TO THE DEVELOPMENT TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK. WE WILL THEN DRAFT AN ORDINANCE, GO TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A RECOMMENDATION AND FINALLY, BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING IS TO CONDUCT A STUDY SESSION TO PROVIDE POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS PROGRAM. SO NOW I HAVE SOME POINTED QUESTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO HELP GUIDE US IN OUR POLICY DIRECTION. BEFORE I PUT THESE UP, AGAIN, THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIRECT US AND ANSWER SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR VARIOUS VARIABLES, BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THE QUESTIONS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT WASN'T CLEAR THAT NEEDS CLARIFICATION. I KNOW IT IS QUITE A BIT SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT, JUST HYPOTHETICAL PROJECT AND WHAT TYPES OF BENEFITS THEY MIGHT GET BY USING THE STATE PROGRAM VERSUS US BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THAT, SO WE WANT THAT IN MIND AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH OUR QUESTIONS. >> STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. IN OUR PROGRAM, WE ARE EXPANDING NOT TO INCLUDE NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECTS, THAT'S ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS. THE OTHER BENEFITS THAT A DEVELOPER MIGHT GET, THERE IS A SLIDING SCALE FOR THE DENSITY, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH AFFORDABLE UNITS YOU PROVIDE AND AT WHAT LEVEL YOU GET THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS TO DEVIATE, SO IT'S NOT ENTIRELY DIFFERENT BUT I THINK OUR SYSTEM IS PROPOSED TO KEEP THINGS ON RAILS, KEEP THINGS WITH IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OF OUR CONTROL AND FOR US TO POTENTIALLY REAP BENEFITS THAT WE OTHERWISE WOULD NOT GET. THAT IS WHY I THINK ONE OF THE KEY THINGS I'VE BEEN HEARING IS IF WE WANT THIS PROGRAM TO BE SUCCESSFUL, WE NEED TO MAKE THE DENSITY SOMEWHAT COMPARABLE TO STATE DENSITY BONUS. IF THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE IT, LET'S GET SOMETHING OUT OF THIS. >> WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE PROJECTS WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS WHO HAVE RELIED ON DENSITY BONUS, COMPLIANT WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS AND THE MOST COMMON REQUEST IS THE HEIGHT, DENSITY AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS, THOSE ARE THE THREE MOST ENVISIONED WOULD LIKELY OCCUR UNDER THIS PROGRAM AS WELL. >> JUST TO SAY BACK WHAT I'M HEARING, THE EXPECTATION IS THE BONUSES THAT THEY ARE LOOKING FOR, THIS CONVERSATION SHOULD BE, IF THE STATE IS ALLOWING FOR TWICE AS MUCH, WE SHOULD BE OFFERING 2.5 TIMES AS MUCH IN EXCHANGE FOR SOMETHING THAT WE WANT. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY CAN CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER. >> EXACTLY. YES. >> THEY COULD CHOOSE ONE OR THE OTHER, ONE OF THE REASONS THAT SOMEONE MIGHT DEPENDING ON HOW YOU BUILD YOUR PROGRAM, CHOOSING YOUR PROGRAM OVER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS BECAUSE UNDER STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, DEPENDING ON YOUR LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY YOU ARE PROPOSING, YOU GET A LIMITED NUMBER OF CONCESSIONS AND INCENTIVES, SO THEY ARE NOT ANALYSTS. AND YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN TO THE CITY WHY YOU WANT OR WHY YOU NEED THAT PARTICULAR CONCESSION OR INCENTIVE AND WHY IT MAKES YOUR PROJECT PENCIL BETTER. AND ONLY AFTER YOU HAVE DONE THAT, IF YOU NEED A WAIVER IN ORDER TO UTILIZE YOUR BONUS UNITS ON YOUR SITE, PLUS UTILIZE THE LIMITED CONCESSIONS YOU WERE GIVEN, THEN YOU CAN ASK FOR A WAIVER. THAT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE BIGGEST REASONS, YOU ARE LIMITED TO THE NUMBER OF INCENTIVES THAT YOU CAN GET. AND WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PROGRAM WHERE IT IS NO SUCH LIMIT. >> AND BY PROVIDING THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THEY WOULD ALSO BE BENEFITS FOR THE FUTURE OCCUPANTS OF THAT PROJECT. SO IN TERMS OF MAKING A PROJECT PENCIL, THEY ARE GOING TO BE SEEN AS ASSETS RATHER THAN OFTEN TIMES THE DENSITY BONUS WHICH CAN BE SEEN AS A CHALLENGE OR LIABILITY. >> DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION THEY WANT TO ASK? >> JUST QUICKLY, I THOUGHT I WAS READING IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN THE STATE PROGRAM OR THE PROGRAM THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE CREATING, SO YOU DON'T USE BOTH, IT IS ONE OR THE OTHER, THEY SIGN A WAIVER TO WAVE OFF THE STATE INCENTIVES AND GO WITH OURS. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS SO THERE'S NOT A DOUBLE DIPPING OR DOUBLE ADVANTAGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> PRECISELY. >> THANK YOU. OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A WAIVER, THERE IS AN OPTION UNDER THE STATE LAW TO OVERRIDE WITH A WAIVER. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY WHAT THE QUESTION IS, PLEASE? >> GO BACK ONE SLIDE, IF WE COULD. THANK YOU. WAIVER RIGHTS TO STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, SO IF WE CAN HAVE A WAIVER THAT THEY CAN SIGN THAT IS ENFORCEABLE AND THEY CAN'T GO BACK LATER AND SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW -- >> I BELIEVE THE LEGAL TEAM IS CONFIRMING THAT IS GOING TO BE AN APPROACH WE ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE BASED ON MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE WHO ALSO HAVE A SIMILAR TERM OR PROVISION IN THEIR PROGRAM, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO DO SO. >> AND TO ADD TO THAT, THE REASONING IS THIS IS AN OPTIONAL PROGRAM THAT DEVELOPERS WOULD BE CHOOSING TO OPT INTO IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE. IT IS NOT A REQUIREMENT. >> BUT, HAVING BEEN THROUGH A FEW OF THESE PROCESSES, LATER DOWN THE ROAD AND THEY DON'T EXACTLY GET WHAT THEY WANT, CAN THEY UNDO THE WAIVER? >> I WOULD THINK SO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THE PROJECT IN WHATEVER NECESSARY STEPS TO DO SO, BUT OF COURSE THE STATE DENSITY BONUS, IT IS STATE LAW SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ACCEPT THE PROJECT AS LONG AS THEY MODIFY IT TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW. >> IT DOESN'T SAY FEES PAID PRIOR TO ISSUANCE, SO IF THEY ARE DOING IN LIEU FEE, THAT BECOMES ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS. >> OKAY, THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE, ON THE VALUATION, ON THE CONSTRUCTION VALUE. SO, THE DEVELOPER, SAY HE IS PUTTING IN A PARK IN A RECENTLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION, AND HE DESCRIBES THE VALUE FOR THIS AS X, HOW DO WE DESCRIBE THE VALUE TO A TRAIL? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, IN MY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY OF EMERYVILLE, ESSENTIALLY THEY HAVE A PREDETERMINED SET AMOUNT LIKE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATION FOR EVERY X AMOUNT OF SQUARE FEET EQUALS CONSTRUCTION VALUATION. IN TERMS OF OFF-SITE BENEFITS, THAT IS SOME OF THE DETAILS WE STILL NEED TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY HOW WE WOULD DETERMINE THAT OR CONFIRM THAT, BUT THOSE ARE THINGS WE WOULD NEED TO WORK OUT. >> I CAN ADD TO THAT, WHEN WE WOULD BE DOING PROJECTS BASED ON CONSTRUCTION VALUATION, IT WOULD BE A VALUATION THAT IS BASED UPON AN ESTABLISHED STANDARD, THAT WOULD BE FROM THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL RATHER THAN BASED ON NUMBERS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A CERTAIN FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE, WE WOULD GET DOCUMENTATION DEMONSTRATING THAT THOSE WERE THE COSTS, SO THE RECEIPTS, INVOICES, ET CETERA. >> I CAN SEE THE DRIVEWAY THAT APPROACH RENDERS BUT IF IT IS AN INTRINSIC BENEFIT AND SUBJECTIVE, THE DEVELOPER MIGHT SAY YEAH, IT COST ME $50,000 TO CREATE THAT TRAIL, WHAT IS THE REAL VALUE? WHO IS THE ARBITER OF THAT? >> WELL, I THINK THE ANSWER TO THAT IS, WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNED ABOUT OPERATIONAL COSTS, IT IS AGAIN, CONSTRUCTION VALUATION, THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH IMPLEMENTING THE IMPROVEMENT AND NOT NECESSARILY ITS OPERATION OR QUALITATIVE VALUE. >> OKAY, AND PLAYING THE DEVILS ADVOCATE, WHAT KEEPS DEVELOPERS JUST BYPASSING THE WHOLE PROCESS, LIKE THEY TRADITIONALLY DO, CALL UP ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND SAY YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO DO THIS AND WE WILL DO THAT. WHAT WOULD PRECLUDE THEM FROM THAT? I THINK THEY WOULD INTRINSICALLY THINK WELL, CITY COUNCIL SAID THEY WANT MORE HOUSING, JUST GIVE US MORE HOUSING, WHY PUT MONEY INTO A BUCKET? WHY DON'T I JUST TELL THEM, WE ARE BUILDING 20 MORE UNITS. >> THE ANSWER TO THAT, WE HAVE RIGID GUIDELINES ON OUR ZONING STANDARDS. SO, AS LONG AS PEOPLE FIT WITHIN OUR PRESET DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO ISSUES. AND IN THE EVENT THAT A PROJECT COMES FORWARD AND THEY WANT TO HAVE SOME OTHER BENEFIT, AGAIN IT CAN BE A FLEXIBLE BENEFIT, AND THAT WOULD HAVE TO AGAIN REQUIRE ADDITIONAL VETTING THROUGH CITY COUNCIL. >> I WOULD ALSO ADD, THIS PROCESS WOULD PROVIDE MORE CERTAINTY TO A DEVELOPER THAN THE POLITICAL PROCESS. AND I THINK THAT CERTAINTY IS IMPORTANT FOR PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD. >> AND I WOULD JUST ADD TO THAT, THE THING THAT I CONTINUOUSLY HEAR YEAR AFTER YEAR IS THAT IS WHAT DEVELOPERS ARE LOOKING FOR, CONSISTENCY, A RIGID SET OF GUIDELINES, COST IS OBVIOUSLY VERY IMPORTANT THAT IF THEY KNOW WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT THE STANDARD IS GOING TO BE, MOST OF THE TIME THEY ARE GOING TO FIGURE IT OUT AND MAKE IT WORK AND THAT IS HOPEFULLY WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THIS PROGRAM, KEEP IT ON GUARDRAILS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND SAY AS LONG AS YOU FIT WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE PROGRAM, IT IS JUST A NORMAL PART OF YOUR ENTITLEMENT. >> I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF THIS APPROACH IN FLEX ABILITY, LIKE I SAID, I'M PLAYING DEVILS ADVOCATE BECAUSE NO MATTER WHAT THE ZONING SAYS, THEY ALWAYS ASK FOR MORE. >> MAYBE NOW WE CAN PUSH THEM, IF YOU WANT TO, HERE'S A PROGRAM FOR YOU. >> THANK YOU, I WANT TO ECHO YOUR ANSWER BECAUSE I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THE WHOLE COMMUNITY HAS CERTAINTY AS WELL, AND I DON'T WANT US TO BE UP HERE SAYING THE DEVELOPERS ARE CALLING US ASKING FOR THIS. THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, STAFF SHOULD BE APPROVING THESE BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY CLEAR SET OF RULES, SO I'M GLAD THAT HE ASKED THE DEVILS ADVOCATE QUESTION BECAUSE YOU WERE ABLE TO GIVE A VERY GOOD ANSWER. SO, THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> OKAY, SO YOU TOUCHED UPON THIS BRIEFLY I THINK IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED AS A PART OF THE PRESENTATION TONIGHT, AS WE KNOW, STATE HOUSING LAW IS EVER EVOLVING AND CHANGING, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHAT YOU HAVE LAID OUT HERE TONIGHT FOR US, KIND OF MORE OR LESS ALIGNS WITH WHERE WE ARE , IN THAT DISCUSSION, WITH THAT MUNICIPALITY, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> YES, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS THAT THE STATE IS OBVIOUSLY INCENTIVIZING AND ENCOURAGING HOUSING PRODUCTION. AND AS IT IS, WE HAVE STANDARDS ABOUT HOW DENSE A PROJECT CAN BE, BY IMPLEMENTING THESE PROGRAMS, WE POTENTIALLY ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO GO BEYOND THAT AND INCREASE THE POTENTIAL IN THE CITY AND AGAIN, A LOT OF PROJECTS ARE ALREADY BEING PUT INTO STATE DENSITY BONUS AND GETTING THOSE INCENTIVES. IF WE CAN INCORPORATE A PROGRAM THAT COULD BE POTENTIALLY BETTER, MORE BENEFICIAL FOR AN APPLICANT, AND ALSO PROVIDE THE CITY AND ITS COMMUNITY WITH TANGIBLE BENEFITS, THEN I THINK WE ARE IN PERFECT ALIGNMENT WITH THAT KIND OF DIRECTION. >> AND MIGHT I ADD TO THAT, SOME OF THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE VERY DELIBERATE BECAUSE OF RECENT DETERMINATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE WITH THE VASTLY CHANGING LANDSCAPE FOR DEVELOPMENT AND A COUPLE OF THOSE EXAMPLES WHICH BRANDON SPOKE TO OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RESIDENTS ALIGNING WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT IS THE DIRECTION THE STATE IS GOING TO CONTINUE GOING. A SECOND EXAMPLE IS HAVING THE REVIEW AUTHORITY THE SAME, WHO IS REVIEWING THE PROJECT OTHERWISE RATHER THAN ACQUIRING A SEPARATE HEARING OR DECISION-MAKING BODY ACTING ON AN APPLICATION THAT WOULD BE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM WITH EXCEPTION TO THE FLEXIBLE PROGRAM. >> THANK YOU, THAT IS VERY HELPFUL. THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD, EARLIER THIS YEAR WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE CANVAS ORDINANCE IN TALKING ABOUT COMMUNITY BENEFITS, DEIB WAS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT, AND I WAS WONDERING, I DIDN'T SEE THAT MENTIONED HERE, I WAS JUST WONDERING WHY OR WHY NOT, OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE COULD SPECIFICALLY INSERT HERE IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM? >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE THAT HOPEFULLY WILL GUIDE US INTO THAT DIRECTION, IS THERE ANYTHING MISSING FROM OUR MENU THAT WE WANT TO INCLUDE THAT STAFF HAVE OVERLOOKED OR AREN'T CONSIDERING OR THINGS THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT YET? WE WILL DEFINITELY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. >> I DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP THE GUN. >> WHEN WE GET THERE, WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER IS ANY NEW FUNDING PROGRAMS THAT YOU WOULD CREATE WOULD BE A PROGRAM THAT STAFF WOULD NEED TO MONITOR AND MAINTAIN, AND THE DDI PROGRAM ASSOCIATED WITH CANNABIS IS DIFFERENT FROM THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE THE CANNABIS BUSINESSES THAT WE HAVE IN MARTINEZ ACTUALLY CREATE THEIR OWN ENTITY THAT MANAGES THAT COMPONENT, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE IN PLACE FOR OTHER DDI INITIATIVES AT THIS TIME. >> THANK YOU FOR HIGHLIGHTING THAT DISTINCTION. WE CAN TALK MORE ABOUT THAT, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO JUMP THE GUN. OKAY, GREAT. AND AS A PART OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS, SO THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED INITIATIVES PROJECTS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT, I'M JUST THINKING AHEAD BECAUSE GIVEN WHERE WE ARE WITH THE WATERFRONT, WITH OUR DISCUSSIONS, WE HAVE ALL BEEN TALKING ABOUT FUNDING SOURCES, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO PUT ALL OF OUR EGGS IN ONE BASKET. WE ARE KIND OF THINKING A LITTLE BIT OUTSIDE THE BOX AND TRYING TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT TOOLS. SO THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING ELSE THAT I'M THINKING. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> DEFINITELY. ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE INCLUDED, AGAIN, I'M KIND OF CATEGORIZING AS OFF-SITE BENEFITS, THESE ARE THINGS THAT MIGHT NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED. IN KEEPING THIS OPEN AS POSSIBLE, SAYING, SAY A PROJECT COMES IN AND THEY WOULD LIKE TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION THAT IS ADJACENT. SOMETHING THAT MIGHT NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED IN THEIR SCOPE, IF THEY PROPOSE, WITH SOME INSIGHT WITH THE CITY ABOUT HOW THEY CAN IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION, MAYBE IT IS THE TIMING OF THE LIGHTS, REPAVING, WHATEVER, THAT IS INCORPORATED INTO THIS PROGRAM AS AN OFF-SITE BENEFIT. >> AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED IS UNDER CONTRIBUTION TO CITY FUNDING PROGRAMS AND AN OPTION WOULD BE TO CREATE A WATERFRONT MARINA FUND AS WE SEE THAT AS ONE OF THE KEY TRUE PUBLIC ASSETS THAT WE HAVE AND IT REALLY WOULD BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FOR THE ENTIRETY OF MARTINEZ TO HAVE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THAT AREA. >> THANK YOU, THAT IS MUSIC TO MY EARS, I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. SO I GUESS THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY, IN GENERAL, I DO SUPPORT PROVIDING THE ARRAY OF OPTIONS IN HAVING IT BEING FLEXIBLE. SO WE DON'T WANT TO PIGEONHOLE AND JUST SAY OKAY, IT ONLY CATERS TO ONE SPECIFIC TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WE WANT TO CREATE AN ARRAY OF OPTIONS BASED ON THE EVER-CHANGING MARKET CONDITIONS AS WELL. SO I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT, THE FACT THAT THERE IS STILL OVERSIGHT REVIEW HERE IN PLACE BY BOTH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE COUNCIL, I THINK ACTS AS A SAFEGUARD. SO I WAS REALLY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT AS WELL. THIS ISN'T JUST A BLANKET GIVEAWAY IF YOU WILL. SOME HAVE CATEGORIZED THESE TYPES OF INCENTIVES IN THE PAST. I THINK JUST GIVEN WHERE WE ARE AND THE DIRECTION THE STATE HAS MOVED OVER THE COURSE OF THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE NEED TO TRY TO FIND THESE TYPES OF INCENTIVES, TO TRY TO SPUR GROWTH AND THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HERE OVER THE PAST MANY MONTHS NOW. SO I DO APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK FOR ME, THE LENS THAT I'M LOOKING AT, AGAIN, I SUPPORT SUSTAINABLE INFILL DEVELOPMENT. AND I THINK THAT IS WHERE OUR FOCUS NEEDS TO BE, WORKFORCE HOUSING AGAIN IS A TOP PRIORITY FOR ME. BUT, I ALSO WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF NOT DOING ANYTHING INADVERTENTLY THAT WOULD SOMEHOW PAVE THE WAY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN OUR OPEN SPACE, I THINK OUR CITIZENS HAVE MADE VERY CLEAR AND I CERTAINLY AGREE THAT OUR OPEN SPACE IS A VALUED TREASURE, AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO SEE HAPPEN, SO AS WE ARE DEVELOPING THESE TYPES OF POLICIES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT SOME UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES HERE THAT WOULD UNNECESSARILY OPEN THIS UP TO A PATH WHERE A DEVELOPER COULD GO AND UTILIZE THIS PROCESS TO START TEARING UP THE HILLS, TO BE SO BLUNT. I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT HAPPEN, I HOPE THAT MAKES SENSE. >> ABSOLUTELY, AND I THINK THERE ARE TWO RESPONSES, ONE IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS I HEARD FROM EMERYVILLE AND THEY WANTED TO MEET --ME TO EMPHASIZE, THIS PROGRAM IS NEVER FINAL, IT IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A DERIVATIVE --ITERATIVE, MAYBE HOUSING IS OUR PRIORITY BUT OVER TIME IT SHIPS AND MAYBE WE NEED MORE OPEN SPACE OR WE NEED TO FOCUS ON IMPROVEMENTS AND WE CAN SHIFT THE POLICY, THAT IS THE BEAUTY WITH THIS, WE CAN ALWAYS MODIFY IT TO ADAPT TO WHATEVER NEEDS THAT WE HAVE. AND ALSO, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE IS THAT, THAT IS WHY WE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ITS APPLICABILITY, IS IT EXCLUDED FROM THE POPO OVERLAY WHICH WAS ENACTED BY THE VOTERS IN 2017 THAT BASICALLY LOCKS IN THE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN FOR SEVERAL OPEN SPACE DESIGNATIONS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE ZONING IS ALIGNED, BUT IT CAN'T BE USED IN THOSE AREAS. SO IT CAN BE EXPANDED BEYOND WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR. >> I APPRECIATE THAT REASSURANCE BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR ME, AS WE ARE LOOKING AHEAD NOW. THE LAST THING I WAS CURIOUS, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT CONCORD AND EMERYVILLE. AND EL CERRITO IS ONE OF THOSE THAT SEEMS TO BE AT THE FOREFRONT, IT SEEMS TO BE A FAVORITE OF THE GOVERNOR AND HIS ADMINISTRATION. I KNOW IT WASN'T ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS FOCUSED HERE BUT OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, I'M JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING ABOUT THEM QUITE A BIT. ARE THEY DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE CITIES, WHERE I KNOW THE MINISTRATION HAS FUNNELED DIRECT MONIES TO THEM TO HELP THEM WITH A LOT OF THEIR PROJECTS, AND GIVING THEM SOME SPECIAL DESIGNATION. I'M JUST CURIOUS, WHAT ARE THEY DOING THAT MAYBE WE MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, THAT IS FINE. >> I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER FOR THAT BUT THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING I WILL LOOK INTO AND CONSIDER AND I WAS NOT AWARE THAT THEY WERE SO ON THE CUTTING EDGE BUT IT IS ALWAYS GOOD TO FIND GOOD CASE STUDIES AND GOOD MODELS TO LOOK AFTER. I WILL KEEP THAT ON MY RADAR, MAYBE THEY HAVE A PROGRAM. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> SO, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? SO HOW ABOUT YOU CAN GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS FOR US, FACILITATE THAT CONVERSATION, THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT AND COME BACK FOR A FINAL, WE HAVE ABOUT 35 MINUTES LEFT. >> PERFECT, AND HOPEFULLY THESE QUESTIONS ARE VERY POINTED AND WE CAN HAVE SOME UNANIMOUS DECISIONS HERE. SO, APPLICABLE AND HE IS THE FIRST QUESTION, SHOULD THE PROGRAM APPLY TO ALL PROJECTS, MEANING USE TYPES OR SHOULD BE LIMITED? SHOULD WE ONLY DO IT RESIDENTIAL LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THIS PROGRAM EXPANDED TO ALL PROJECTS OF ALL USE TYPES? >> WE ARE GETTING WHISPERS OF ALL PROJECTS. ONE THING I DID, AS I WROTE DOWN AS YOU ARE TALKING, THE OBJECTIVE IS HOUSING. SO, TO ANSWER NUMBER FOUR A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, IS THERE ANY INCENTIVE FOR US TO MAKE IT APPLICABLE TO ALL PROJECTS, IF YOU INCLUDE HOUSING WITHIN NONRESIDENTIAL PROJECT? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I THINK THAT COULD DEFINITELY BE SOMETHING THAT WE BUILD IN BUT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THE ZONING IMPLICATIONS OF THAT, FOR EXAMPLE IF SOMEBODY WAS TO PROPOSE A PROJECT IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, WOULD WE WANT HOUSING? >> GOOD POINT. >> THAT IS IN PART WHY WE HAVE A VERBAL HOUSING FUND, SO YOU CAN HAVE PROJECTS IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THAT WOULD PAY AND CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ELSEWHERE. >> SO THE IDEA THAT A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO USE THE INCENTIVE PROGRAM AND WE SAY OKAY, WELL HERE'S YOUR MENU OF OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS AND THEY SAY OKAY, LET'S JUST DO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, LET'S GET 5% OF CONSTRUCTION AND THAT ADDRESSES THAT. THERE ARE CITIES THAT ARE ALSO PRIORITIZING, SO AS THE WAY WE HAVE PUT IT, YOU CAN JUST PICK AND CHOOSE WHICH ONES YOU WANT, BUT THERE ARE CERTAIN CITIES THAT DIRECT YOU, FIRST YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, THEN THIS INCENTIVE, THEN THIS PRINT THERE ARE POTENTIAL OPTIONS IF WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS OUR PRIORITY, THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY REQUIRE THAT AS A PRIORITY COMMUNITY BENEFIT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> CAN YOU BRING ME BACK UP TO SPEED FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND WOULD PAY FOR? >> TO HELP CONSTRUCT OR FACILITATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTION. SO I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THE GUARDRAILS BUT, THE INTENTION IS TO, WHATEVER FORM THAT MAY BE, WHETHER IT IS THE CITY CONTRIBUTING OR THE CITY BEING RESPONSIBLE AS THE DEVELOPER OR POTENTIALLY, I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS ON THE GUARDRAILS, WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN ASSIST A DEVELOPER AND OFFSET SOME OF THE COST FOR AFFORDABLE UNITS. >> THE FUND DOES EXIST. IT IS A CITY FUND BUT THERE IS CONTRIBUTIONS FOR A PROJECT A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO. WE CURRENTLY, ROUGHLY $350,000 I WANT TO SAY, SO IT IS NOT ENOUGH AT THIS POINT TO CONSTRUCT A UNIT BUT, IT WOULD BE MONEY TO HELP A LARGER PROJECT MOVE FORWARD. >> AND I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, OR ADD TO THAT, I KNOW THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT BUT IN TERMS OF AFFORDABLE UNITS, IT IS A THIRD OF THE UNIT, MAYBE. >> IF I COULD, ARE YOU SURE WE STILL HAVE THAT? OKAY. >> YES, WE DISCUSSED IT IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT. >> OKAY, GOOD, THIS WAS A LONG TIME AGO BEFORE WE DID THESE THINGS AND WRITE ON THE FLY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE APPROVAL, SOMEBODY SAID WELL, WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CONTRIBUTE? AND I THINK WE GOT 25,000 PER UNIT OR SOMETHING, A FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER HAD DONE THIS PROJECT. I THOUGHT THE RELEASE OF THAT OBLIGATION -- >> THE THOUGHT PROCESS AGAIN IS WE DO HAVE THE FUNDS RIGHT NOW, IT IS NOT USED BECAUSE WE HAVE LIMITED FUNDING AT THIS POINT IN TIME BUT POTENTIALLY DEPENDING ON THE SUCCESS OF THIS PROGRAM OR OTHER POTENTIAL WAYS TO FEED THAT FUND, IT WOULD MAKE IT A MORE VIABLE PROGRAM AND HELP DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD. >> WITH ONLY ONE CONTRIBUTION IS THAT FUND SINCE ITS STARTED. AND THAT IS NOT THE SAME ENTITY THAT MARK IS TALKING ABOUT, THIS IS A MORE RECENT PROJECT THAT CONTRIBUTED? >> IT WAS THE PASEO DEVELOPMENT, SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THE ARNOLD DEVELOPMENT, THAT ONE ACTUALLY HAD AFFORDABLE UNITS, SO FOR THAT REASON IT DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO THIS FUND AS THE WORKAROUND, THEY ACTUALLY BUILT AFFORDABLE UNITS. >> BEFORE WE MOVE ON, IF WE COULD GO ON A TANGENT FOR ONE SECOND WITH RESPECT TO THE FUNDS BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS APPLICABLE HERE. I THINK WE HAVE VARIOUS IMPACT FEES AND FUNDS THROUGH THE CITY THAT ARE KIND OF VAGUE SO IT IS HARD TO KNOW WHEN TO USE THEM AND I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE FUNDS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, THEY NEED TO BE VERY CLEAR AND HAVE A GOFUNDME TYPE, ONCE WE REACH $100,000, THIS GETS PURCHASED, RATHER THAN SAYING GIVE US MONEY AND AT SOME POINT WE WILL BUILD TRAIL, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE FRUSTRATING FOR ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT BEFORE I FORGOT IT. >> TO CLARIFY, WE CAN DO THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN, IT IS A BALANCING ACT AND THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE EXPLICIT AS A PART OF THE REGULATIONS WE WOULD BE ESTABLISHING HERE, IN THE CREATION OF THE NEW FUNDS OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE FUND THAT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED. WHAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO INDICATE IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS IF THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, THAT THERE IS A CHOICE TO PROVIDE A FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION, THAT FINANCIAL CONTRIBUTION ACTUALLY BE AT THE COST OF PROVIDING A UNIT SO WE DON'T END UP WITH PARTIAL FUNDS THAT CAN'T QUITE DO WHAT WE NEED THEM TO DO AND SIT THERE. >> THAT IS A VERY GOOD POINT. IT IS HARDER TO PAY FOR SOMETHING, SO THAT IS A FAIR PROCESS FOR US TO THINK THROUGH AND MAKING SURE WE DON'T THINK IT TAKES LESS MONEY THAN IT ACTUALLY DOES. >> AND THE CONTRIBUTION RIGHTS, SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE SAYING 5% CONSTRUCTION CONTRIBUTION, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL TO LOWER THAT PERCENTAGE TO INCENTIVIZE ON-SITE DEVELOPMENTS SO YOU CAN SEE, RATHER THAN A CASH DONATION OR CONTRIBUTION, WE WILL DO 3% IF YOU CONSTRUCT SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ON SITE. SO THERE'S THAT OPTION, SO IT PUTS A LITTLE BIT LESS BURDEN ON THE CITY AND MORE IN THE DEVELOPERS HANDS A BIT, THAT IS A POTENTIAL AS WELL. >> IN GENERAL IT SOUNDS LIKE WE ALL SAID A PROJECT, SO THAT IS THE ANSWER TO NUMBER ONE. >> I FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF THIS, BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE SEEN PROJECTS THAT DO IT ACROSS CITYWIDE LIKE EMERYVILLE, AND WE HAVE ALSO SEEN CONCORD WHERE THEY ARE RESTRICTIVE, IS THERE ANY LIMITATIONS WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON IT OR JUST APPLY CITYWIDE TO ALL ZONING? >> I THINK THIS PROGRAM IS A QUALITY OF LIFE INCENTIVE, SO WE WANT QUALITY OF LIFE THROUGHOUT THE CITY. YEAH. >> I THINK WE ARE SAYING CITYWIDE, BUT IS THERE SOME SORT OF IMPEDIMENT OR, YOU KNOW, ISSUE WITH CITYWIDE? IS THERE SOMETHING YOU WOULD WANT TO SHARE THAT WOULD BE A CONSEQUENCE BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE ONE. >> NO, THERE ARE NO QUALMS WITH THAT, I'M TRYING NOT TO BE BIASED AND SAY WE SHOULD DO THIS, THIS IS THE WAY WE NEED TO GO, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS SOMETHING WHERE WE WANT TO TARGET DEVELOPMENT, MAYBE WE WANT TO TARGET DOWNTOWN OR AL HAMMER, THAT IS A WAY WE COULD POTENTIALLY FUNNEL TO VOMIT INTO THOSE AREAS SPECIFICALLY. >> MY ONLY THOUGHT, DOING IT CITYWIDE WAS JUST, WE WENT THROUGH THE HOUSING ELEMENT PROCESS, WE DIDN'T JUST SAY, THE STATE IS NOT JUST ASKING FOR ONE AREA, THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE CITY. THIS IS THE WHOLE ISSUE WITH THE BACK-AND-FORTH WE HAVE HAD WITH THEM. YOU HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT THE SOUTHERN PART OF YOUR CITY, SO TO ME, IT IS A NO-BRAINER, WE WOULDN'T WANT TO LIMIT IT TO ONE AREA, JUST TO ALIGN OURSELVES WITH WHAT WE ALREADY SAID. >> AND I THINK WHAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO IS AFFIRMATIVE FAIR HOUSING , RATHER THAN CLUSTERING IT. >> EXCELLENT, IF WE ARE GOOD I WILL MOVE ON TO QUESTION NUMBER THREE, THIS IS ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WILL FUNCTION. I OUTLINED A COUPLE DIFFERENT SCENARIOS, PEOPLE USING POINTS, JUST A FLAT BASE, THE WAY WE ARE TRYING IS SOMEWHAT NEW. IN EXCHANGE FOR ONE BENEFIT, YOU WOULD RECEIVE ONE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE, AGAIN WE WOULD HAVE TO WORK OUT THE QUIRKS OF EXACTLY HOW THAT WOULD WORK BUT ARE THERE ANY QUALMS WITH THAT POTENTIAL OR IS THERE A WANT TO EMULATE WHAT OTHERS ARE DOING? >> JUST THE EVALUATION ASPECT OF IT. ONE CITIES TRAIL IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT FROM ANOTHER'S. >> AND ON THE FLIPSIDE, TO ME THE VALUATION IS THE DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE, IS IT GOING TO BE EQUAL TO WHAT WE ARE GETTING OUT OF IT, AND TO USE AN EXAMPLE, AT MY COMPANY, WE HAVE A RECOGNITION OF A REWARDS PROGRAM, BEFORE WE ROLLED THAT OUT, YOUR SUPERVISOR JUST GAVE YOU A SPOT BONUS, BUT NOW YOU CAN JUST AWARD POINTS TO PEOPLE IN REALLY SMALL INCREMENTS AND ONCE YOU REACH A CERTAIN LEVEL, YOU CAN EXCHANGE THOSE FOR A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND ALSO DO SPOT BONUS IS, I'M JUST WANTING US TO THINK IN A DIFFERENT WAY, THE POINT SYSTEM MIGHT BE A WAY FOR US TO MAKE SMALL INCENTIVES IN EXCHANGE FOR LARGER BENEFITS. SO THERE MIGHT BE AN ARGUMENT FOR POINTS BUT WITHOUT HAVING FLUSHED THIS PLAN OUT SO FAR, I DON'T KNOW IF I FEEL STRONGLY ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. >> PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ARE RECOMMENDING A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT OPTION DOWN THE TWO EXAMPLES THAT WERE PROVIDED IS WHILE EMERYVILLE'S PROGRAM IS VERY SUCCESSFUL, IT IS COMPLICATED. AND WANTING TO MAKE SURE SOMETHING IS A LITTLE BIT EASIER FROM THE IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT. >> AND I DON'T KNOW IF I TOUCHED ON THIS BUT, STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW IS VERY COMPLICATED AND IT TAKES LAWYERS TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO IT AND IT IS VERY MUCH NOT INTENDED FOR THE LAYPERSON. HOPEFULLY THE WAY WE ARE TRYING TO CRAFT THIS PROGRAM BY KEEPING THE REQUIREMENT LOW, TRYING TO KEEP IT A LITTLE MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD WITH THE ONE-TO-ONE RATIO IS THAT ANYBODY CAN REALLY UTILIZE THIS PROGRAM. >> OKAY, SOUNDS LIKE WE ARE READY TO MOVE ON TO QUESTION NUMBER FOUR. ARE THERE ANY DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES, WE INCLUDED DENSITY, TIER, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR RESIDENTIAL, ARE THERE ANY THAT SHOULD BE REMOVED OR MODIFIED? AGAIN, SO SOME OF THE OTHER EXAMPLES ARE THE OPEN SPACES, STAFF CHOSE NOT TO INCLUDE THAT AND ALSO A REDUCTION IN PARKING REQUIREMENTS BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE ARE TRYING TO SHY AWAY FROM THAT BY PROVIDING OTHER OPTIONS. >> WELL, THE PARKING SEEMS TO BE THE STICKIEST POINT IN MOST APPLICATIONS. SO, ANY THOUGHTS ON HOW WE CAN INCENTIVIZE THOSE? >> THE WAY WE ARE CRAFTING THE PROGRAM IS A DEVELOPER CAN CHOOSE WHICH OF THESE INCENTIVES TO UTILIZE. I WANT TO BUILD A PROJECT UTILIZING THE HEIGHT BONUS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO SELECT THAT AND IN EXCHANGE, WE WOULD GET ONE INCENTIVE, THE OPTION WOULD BE THERE FOR THEM TO UTILIZE IT, IT IS REALLY PICK AND CHOOSE, THAT IS WHY I KEEP USING THE PHRASE MENU OF OPTIONS, WHEN YOU OPEN IT, YOU CAN SELECT AN APPETIZER AND ENTREE AND YOU CAN FIGURE IT OUT THAT WAY. BUT YES, AGAIN, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE ARE COMMONLY SEEN --SEEING. >> I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE REPHRASED MY QUESTION, AGAIN, IT IS ABOUT VALUATION. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, I GUESS IT WILL DEPEND ON THE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT, WHAT IS MORE DEAR TO YOU, SO HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY THE VALUE OF EACH OF THOSE? >> AND I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. POTENTIALLY MAKING HEIGHT MORE VALUABLE. JUST KIND OF THINKING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, SOUNDS LIKE POTENTIALLY YOU ARE SUGGESTING, OR DEVILS ADVOCATE, IF THEY WANT HEIGHT, IS THAT THE SAME FOR ASKING FOR REDUCTION IN A SITE SETBACK OR SOMETHING POTENTIALLY MAKING HEIGHT REQUEST MORE VALUABLE, OR MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS OR THE FINANCIALS, BASICALLY ARE WORTH IT. SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING AND I THINK THOSE ARE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE ARE DEFINITELY GOING TO HAVE WITH MORE DEVELOPERS, ONCE WE GET THIS POLICY DIRECTION, GO TO THESE PEOPLE AND SAY, IS THIS A PROGRAM YOU WOULD USE OR IS THIS JUST NOT ADDING UP FOR YOU GUYS. I THINK THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION AND ONE WE WILL DEFINITELY HAVE TO POSE TO DEVELOPERS. >> I THINK THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE, YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE FLEXIBLE BECAUSE THE HEIGHT IS GOING TO BE MORE VALUABLE TO SOMEBODY DOWNTOWN THAN IT IS SOMEBODY NESTLED UP AGAINST A HILL. IT'S ALL GOING TO BE SUBJECTIVE TO THE PROJECTS SIDING. >> AND A VERY NARROW LOT, THE SETBACK ISSUE IS GOING TO BE MORE VALUABLE. >> RIGHT.>> AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHO WOULD BE THE ARBITER OF IT? WOULD IT BE THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR? >> THE IDEA IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE ALL OF THIS PREDETERMINED AND PRESET, SO IT WOULDN'T BE THE DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO DO HEIGHT AND THEY ARE WILLING TO PAY 5% BUT SETBACKS AREN'T AS IMPORTANT, SO CAN WE DO 3%? THAT IS NOT HOW THIS WORKS, EVERYTHING WOULD BE 5% AND THAT IS WHAT IT IS. IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY, AT LEAST THE WAY IT IS DESIGNED, THERE IS NO PRIORITY OR FLEXIBILITY IN THOSE PERCENTAGES. AS MICHAEL HAD ALLUDED TO, SOME INCENTIVES MIGHT BE WORTH MORE FOR DIFFERENT PROJECTS SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE A LOT OF SUBJECTIVITY ABOUT WHICH ONES ARE MORE IMPORTANT AND THAT TOTALLY CHANGES FROM SITE TO SITE, MAKING SURE THE PROGRAM IS EQUITABLE FOR NOW IS THE APPROACH WE HAVE TAKEN. >> LIKEWISE, TRYING TO BE COMPETITIVE WITH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF WHICH INCENTIVES ARE CHOSEN FOR PARTICULAR AFFORD THE HOUSING PROJECTS IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE. >> ONE THING THAT I THINK MIGHT WANT TO BE INCLUDED, YOU LEFT OFF OPEN SPACE, SO IF YOU CAN EXPAND ON THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT COUNTS TOWARDS SETBACKS OR LOT COVERAGE, BUT I KNOW THAT SOMETIMES DEVELOPERS GET STUCK WITH THE PROPERTY THAT THEY HAVE, IF WE ARE REQUIRING AREAS TO BE OPEN SPACE, IT SEEMS THAT WOULD BE A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES IN EXCHANGE FOR IMPROVING QUALITY OF LIFE SOMEWHERE ELSE AND QUITE A FEW OF THESE INCENTIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS ARE PUBLIC OPEN SPACES, SO IF YOU GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE ON-SITE IN EXCHANGE FOR CONTRIBUTING TO A LARGER OPEN SPACE ELSEWHERE THAT SEEMS LIKE A FAIR EXCHANGE. CAN YOU TALK TO WHY YOU TOOK IT OFF? >> IT IS ACTUALLY A RELATIVELY COMMON REQUEST THAT I HAVE SEEN THROUGH STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, A REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. WHENEVER YOU BUILD A MULTIFAMILY PROJECT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE 100 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE, WHETHER THAT IS LITTLE OPEN SPACES IN AN APARTMENT COMPLEX OR A PRIVATE BALCONY. WE ARE SEEING A LOT OF DEVIATIONS BUT AGAIN, WE DECIDED TO NOT INCLUDE IT IN THIS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT RESIDENTS QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPROVED AT THE SITE AS WELL AS A REDUCED POTENTIAL BURDEN FOR STAFF AND OUR FACILITIES, TO INCENTIVIZE PEOPLE TO UTILIZE THEIR OPEN SPACE WHERE THEY LIVE RATHER THAN NECESSARILY HAVING TO GO OUT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO. >> TO CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER, I USED THE TERM OUTDOOR SPACE RATHER THAN OPEN SPACE BECAUSE OPEN-SPACE IS A LOADED TERM THAT HAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT MEANING, JUST FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION. >> WE'VE SORT OF TALKED A LITTLE BIT HERE AND THERE, SPRINKLING THE IDEA OF HAVING LIKE A TRAIL AND OPEN-SPACE CONNECTIVITY OBJECTIVE, SO THAT IS WHY I WAS THINKING, YES PRIVATE SPACES ON THE PROPERTY FOR SURE, BUT IN EXCHANGE, IF THERE IS A PLACE WHERE THERE COULD BE A TRAIL THAT CURRENTLY DOESN'T CONNECT, THAT THIS PROJECT COULD BUILD THEN THAT IS BENEFICIAL FOR BOTH THE RESIDENTS AND PEOPLE WHO AREN'T RESIDENTS. I'M STILL OPEN TO PUTTING IT BACK ON AND MAYBE THAT PARTICULAR ONE WOULD BE THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DONE SOMEWHERE WITHIN THE CLOSE VICINITY BECAUSE I'M ALSO OPEN TO THE IDEA THAT I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU TALK ABOUT, THEY ARE ALL REALLY CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY, BUT I'M OPEN TO CLEARING SOME DISTANCE. >> I THINK WE ARE MIXING UP THE INCENTIVES AND THE PUBLIC BENEFITS. SO, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING MAKING IT THAT THE OPEN-SPACE OR OUTDOOR SPACE IS NOT AN ITEM THAT DEVELOPERS COULD REQUEST TO DEVIATE FROM. >> AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ADDED BACK ON. >> SO, CLARIFY, IF WE WERE TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO NOT COMPLY WITH OUTDOOR SPACE AND OPEN-SPACE AREAS, IT WOULD BE THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF WHAT WE HAVE INCLUDED AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT TO TRY TO OBTAIN THOSE SPACES. >> I THINK ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION IS THAT WE HAVE INCLUDED POTENTIALLY A BENEFIT FOR EITHER TRAIL EASEMENTS OR TRAIL GAPS, AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO, THE OPEN-SPACE PORTION IS COVERED AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, SO I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IS CLEAR. SO YOU CAN STILL CHOOSE TO ALLOW A DEVIATION TO THIS OUTDOOR SPACE, BUT WE STILL DO ALSO HAVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT POSSIBILITY OF PUBLIC OPEN SPACE. >> YES, I WAS JUST TRYING TO MAKE THE POINT, I DIDN'T WANT TO NECESSARILY REMOVE THAT OPTION AS A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES ON-SITE IF THEY ARE IN PLACE, THEY WOULD PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. IF YOU WANT TO INCREASE YOUR DENSITY ON YOUR PROPERTY, THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS GO UP OR PUSH THE SETBACK BUT IF WE REMOVE THESE OPEN SPACES THEORETICALLY THEY COULD POTENTIALLY PUT IN MORE UNITS AT THE ORIGINAL HEIGHT. >> AND AGAIN, WE CAN ALWAYS PUT THE OPEN-SPACE REDUCTION AS A DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES BUT AGAIN, DEVELOPERS WOULD HAVE FREE WILL TO CHOOSE WHATEVER COMMUNITY BENEFIT. SO AT LEAST THE WAY WE HAVE DESIGNED IT, WE COULDN'T SAY WELL, YOU ARE REDUCING OPEN-SPACE, SO IN EXCHANGE WE NEED A TRAIL EASEMENT OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE. IT COULD BE BUILT IN BUT ADD ADDITIONAL LAYERS AND STIPULATIONS. >> ONE OTHER POINT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OUT THERE FOR CONSIDERATION PURPOSES, IF WE ARE TO WAIVE OUTDOOR SPACE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS AN EQUITY ISSUE BECAUSE THESE LARGELY ARE LARGER SCALE MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS AND IT REALLY IS A FAIRNESS ISSUE OF HAVING ACCESS FOR QUALITY-OF-LIFE AND WHILE WE COULD THEORETICALLY END UP WITH A BETTER IMPROVEMENT IF IT WAS OFF-SITE AND BEING LARGER, WE WOULD BE IN PART DEPRIVING INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE ON THAT SITE FROM QUITE FRANKLY A QUALITY-OF-LIFE ISSUE, THAT OTHER INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO. >> I'M NOT COMPLETELY CONVINCED THAT WOULD BE THE OUTCOME BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS OPPORTUNITIES , I'M GOING TO USE THE PARK AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE A HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD JUST ACROSS THE STREET AND THEY HAVE TINY OPEN SPACES AND PARKS BUILT IN AND THEY HAVE THIS HUGE PARK ACROSS THE WAY, SO THEY ARE ABLE TO USE BOTH SPACES. I JUST DON'T WANT US TO GET TOO CAUGHT UP IN THE IDEA THAT THE CONTRIBUTION WOULD BE MILES AWAY, IT COULD BE CLOSER AND POTENTIALLY BETTER BUT, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. BEFORE YOU TALK, THERE'S THREE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WERE HERE FROM THE BEGINNING, DID YOU GUYS WANT TO SPEAK? DID YOU HAVE COMMENTS? OKAY, WE JUST HAVE THE ONE COMMENT. DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK TODAY? OKAY. , IN THAT CASE, LET'S FINISH THIS LAST ONE. >> IF IT IS A PROJECT, WANTING TO DEDICATE A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE TRAIL, I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE OPEN-SPACE WITH OPEN SPACES AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS HAPPENING, THERE'S THIS CONFUSION ABOUT THE TERMS BECAUSE IT CAN MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS. SO I WANTED TO BE AN INCENTIVE, TO HAVE A PROPERTY THAT HAPPENED TO BE IN PROXIMITY TO THE TRAIL CONNECTIVITY OR THERE'S SOME BENEFIT THEY WANT TO OFFER, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A RESTRICTION. >> YES, I THINK THAT ALIGNS CLOSELY TO WHAT WE ENVISIONED HERE, THANK YOU. SO, THIS IS THE LAST BIG QUESTION. BASED ON THE MENU OF OPTIONS FOR COMMUNITY BENEFITS THAT HAVE, ARE THERE ANY WOULD LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED OR REMOVED OR MODIFIED? >> JUST TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID EARLIER, THE DEIB I THINK NEEDS TO BE ADDED. >> AND WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK TO SEE EXACTLY WHAT THE CANNABIS PROGRAM HAS DONE AND TAKE A LOOK AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY WE CAN EMULATE THAT. >> IS THE ART ALREADY INCLUDED? >> IT IS INCLUDED, YES. >> THE ONE THING I SAID A FEW MOMENTS AGO, IT SEEMS THAT MOST OF THESE, IF THEY ARE OFF-SITE, THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT SO I JUST WANT TO PROVIDE THAT OPTION TO BE ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE ELSEWHERE BUT I THINK THAT IS A PART OF WHAT CONTRIBUTING TO IMPACT FEE FUNDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT IS PROBABLY ADDRESSED. >> WE ALLUDED TO IT BEING ADJACENT, THAT IS JUST MORE OF AN ASSUMPTION BUT I THINK THE WAY WE WILL BUILD IT, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE ADJACENT OR CORRELATED TO THE PROJECT, I'M SURE A DEVELOPER WILL WANT TO POTENTIALLY DO THAT AS THEIR OWN PRIORITIES, BUT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT OPTION IS INCLUDED. >> AND I THINK THE GOAL OF IT WAS IN MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVING THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, BEING IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO WHERE THE POTENTIAL IMPACT IS, SO THOSE THAT HAVE IMPACT GET THE SAME BENEFITS. WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SOME LARGE MAJOR PRIORITIES THAT THE CITY HAS LIKE THE WATERFRONT AS AN EXAMPLE. >> EXCELLENT, JUST TO REITERATE, THIS PROGRAM WILL BE ITERATIVE, SO COMMUNITY BENEFITS WE CAN ALWAYS ADD OR REMOVE. AND IS THE APPLICATION PROCESS ACCEPTABLE? THE INTENT WAS TO REDUCE BARRIERS AND ONLY HAVE FLEXIBLE BENEFITS COME TO CITY COUNCIL, THE ALTERNATIVE COULD BE REQUIRING ALL PROJECTS UTILIZING THIS PROGRAM TO COME FORWARD. >> I LIKE THE WAY IT WAS PROPOSED, I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT A TIME WASTER FOR ALL THE PEOPLE. >> EXCELLENT. I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO CRAFTING SOMETHING FOR YOU ALL TO SEE. >> THANK YOU, GO AHEAD AND LEAVE THE MICROPHONE OPEN. YOU CAN COME UP AND PROVIDE YOUR COMMENT. >> I'M A LOCAL CITIZEN, THIS ALL SOUNDS REALLY GOOD IN A LOT OF WAYS, IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT FOR SO LONG DURING THE UPDATE TO THE GENERAL PLAN AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, ALL THE DIFFERENT COLORED MAPS AND THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN AREA, I JUST WANT THIS TO CATEGORICALLY SUPERSEDE THOSE IDEAS THAT WE ALL TALKED ABOUT, AND IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT EMERYVILLE, WHICH IS UP-AND-COMING. I PERSONALLY WOULDN'T AESTHETICALLY LOVE A FIVE-STORY EMERYVILLE APARTMENT COMPLEX ON MAIN STREET, MAY BE TUCKED AWAY SOMEWHERE. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE DIFFERENT DESIGNATIONS FOR DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS. AND I KNOW IN THE HOUSING ELEMENT, THERE WAS A LOT OF THAT GOING ON AND DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. I WOULD JUST HATE TO SEE SORT OF A QUICK RUBBER-STAMP OF SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO SPRING UP DOWNTOWN THAT PEOPLE AREN'T READY FOR, AND SUDDENLY THERE'S A FIVE-STORY BUILDING GOING UP WHERE THE WELLS FARGO IS. I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO SEE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR HAVE TO PASS CITY COUNCIL AND NOT SIMPLY THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WHICH WOULD BRING THEM MORE INTO THE OPEN. BECAUSE I KNOW NOBODY GOES TO THE MEETINGS ALTHOUGH I FIND THEM VERY INTERESTING. SO I KNOW THAT WOULD SLOW IT DOWN, BUT I KNOW FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS TOWN, THE DOWNTOWN AREA IS VERY IMPORTANT, I WOULDN'T WANT SOMETHING TO SLIP IN AND BE LIKE WE GOT THIS GREAT BACKROOM DEAL WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND WE ARE PUTTING IN A 40 UNIT SPACE ON MAIN STREET. THAT'S ABOUT ALL. BUT WE ARE STILL MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY SHOVELED OFF TO THE MARINA FUND WHICH I KNOW EVERYONE IS EXCITED ABOUT AND NOBODY HAS GOT MONEY FOR. SO THE MORE THE MERRIER, THANK YOU. >> ANYONE ELSE? GO AHEAD. >> I'M GOING TO PIGGYBACK OFF OF HIM, AS A DOWNTOWN RESIDENT, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE WHERE IN THE CITY DIFFERENT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE ALLOWED, I THINK THAT HITS HOME ESPECIALLY DOWNTOWN, OUR STREETS ARE TIGHT, TRAFFIC IS AN ISSUE AS IT STANDS NOW. ALSO WHEN YOU GET ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS, ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE MARINA PROJECTS, IT IS A REAL CONSIDERATION. THINGS LIKE THIS AND HOW YOU DEVELOP AND ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE GOING WITH IT, I THINK THAT IT CAN'T JUST GET STAMPED WHERE NO ONE IS AWARE OR IF WE DO, IT IS ON A LITTLE PLAQUE ON THE SIDE OF THE ROAD, THEN IT IS TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE. SO I THINK A LEVEL OF TRANSPARENCY DEPENDING ON WHERE CERTAIN THINGS ARE BUILT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY. THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY BEFORE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THE INCENTIVES YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT WHERE THE GENERAL PLAN DIDN'T ALREADY ALLOW IT, BUT JUST TO ALLOW A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THOSE PLACES. SO WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING A DEVELOPMENT AT THE WATERFRONT WHERE THE GENERAL PLAN HAS ALREADY SAID WE CAN'T. >> CRAIG, I WILL KEEP IT SHORT, YOU HEARD ME TALK ABOUT HOUSING QUITE A BIT, YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS ISSUE, I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU FOR CONTINUING TO WORK TO SPUR MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING IN OUR CITY. AS YOU KNOW, IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR CITY, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR BUDGET, FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR SCHOOL DISTRICT WHICH HAS LOST NEARLY 10% OF ITS SCHOOL-AGED POPULATION IN THE LAST FOUR YEARS AND IT IS CRITICALLY IMPORTANT AS A HUMAN RIGHT FOR THOSE WHO DESERVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE ALL HAVE TO LIVE IN THIS GRE