[11:09] [SIDE CONVERSATION]
[11:23] Thanks for dinner.
[11:24] That's what I wrote.
[11:26] Well, just say, I'm fluent in Danish,
[11:28] and I'm going to be responding.
[11:29] [LAUGHTER]
[11:32] I don't know many Danes.
[11:33] [LAUGHS]
[11:34] You do now.
[11:36] Yeah.
[11:37] That's right.
[11:38] All the Mexicans call me vikingo, which means Viking.
[11:43] Viking, yeah.
[11:44] Yeah, I guess.
[11:46] I'll have to get up to speed on my Danish slang.
[11:50] Yeah.
[11:52] Your Danish slang.
[11:53] My Danish slang.
[11:57] So, everybody, the pizza is there
[11:59] if you'd like to grab a piece.
[12:01] Or why don't we get started, then one by one,
[12:03] we can go get it?
[12:03] It's just for a few minutes, I guess.
[12:09] Oh, I saw the pictures on this.
[12:10] Yeah.
[12:12] Is it that big a deal, though?
[12:14] Oops, I'm on--
[12:49] We're going to start getting ready.
[13:00] Recording in progress.
[13:03] Good evening.
[13:04] Welcome to the regular session of the Martinez City Council.
[13:08] I'd like to officially call this meeting to order.
[13:10] It is Wednesday, August 5, and it is 5:35 PM.
[13:14] City Clerk, please call the roll.
[13:16] Council Member Jay Howard.
[13:19] Present.
[13:19] Council Member Greg Young.
[13:21] Present.
[13:22] Council Member Debbie McKillop.
[13:24] Present.
[13:24] Vice Mayor Satinder Malhi.
[13:26] Present.
[13:27] Mayor Brianne Zorn.
[13:28] Present.
[13:30] Great.
[13:31] Thank you so much.
[13:32] All right, we only have one item on the agenda this evening.
[13:38] If it's OK with everyone, I will hold public comment
[13:41] until after we have the presentation from staff,
[13:44] and then we'll give the public an opportunity
[13:46] to comment on the presentation that we received.
[13:48] So with that, we'll go right into our study session.
[13:51] Conduct a study session to discuss potential updates
[13:53] to the city's development impact fees
[13:55] and provide direction to staff.
[13:57] Mike, would you like to--
[13:58] Michael, would you like to kick off this meeting for us, please?
[14:01] Great.
[14:02] Good evening, Mayor and members of the city council.
[14:04] As you indicated, Mayor, before you this evening
[14:06] is a study session on potential updates to our development
[14:10] impact fees.
[14:11] I would like to make sure that it's pointed out
[14:13] that this has been an interdepartmental effort that
[14:16] includes representatives from the City Manager's Office,
[14:19] Community and Economic Development Department,
[14:21] Public Works Department, Finance Department,
[14:25] as well as our esteemed consultant team.
[14:29] I would like to turn over the presentation this evening
[14:33] to Megan Gregory, who's with Economic and Planning
[14:36] Systems, who's been our support on bringing this item before you
[14:40] this evening.
[14:41] So thank you very much.
[14:43] Good afternoon.
[14:45] As Mike mentioned, my name is Megan Gregory
[14:47] from economic and planning systems.
[14:49] I'm also joined this evening by my colleague, Typhian Rice
[14:53] Evans.
[14:54] And we have conducted a development impact fee
[14:58] update and technical analysis.
[15:01] Let me-- there we go.
[15:03] A brief overview for our presentation this evening,
[15:07] we will provide some context for the nexus study,
[15:11] describe the approach we used when calculating and completing
[15:15] the technical analysis.
[15:16] We'll go over the results of that analysis
[15:19] and then present those results in the context
[15:21] of some nearby jurisdictions so you have a point of comparison
[15:26] for where these proposed fee levels might
[15:29] fall with your neighboring jurisdictions.
[15:32] And then we'll discuss next steps, questions,
[15:35] and potential policy directions.
[15:39] A nexus study update allows the city
[15:42] to refresh the list of capital improvements, the projects that
[15:46] are covered by these fees.
[15:48] You can also update the project costs
[15:51] based on new information, revised project descriptions,
[15:55] as well as conforming to recent legislation, such as AB 602.
[16:02] Additionally, we can reflect updated growth forecasts
[16:06] from recent plans, such as--
[16:08] I believe the housing element was
[16:10] one of the primary sources used in this analysis.
[16:16] An intro to development impact fee fundamentals.
[16:20] Development impact fee is a one-time fee on new development.
[16:24] It can fund infrastructure and capital facilities,
[16:27] capital improvements as well, and only funds
[16:31] the proportional share of capital improvements
[16:34] required to serve and accommodate new development.
[16:37] It cannot fund existing deficiencies or operations
[16:41] and maintenance that are ongoing within the city.
[16:45] We established these fees based on a nexus study and a capital
[16:49] improvement program.
[16:51] This identifies the link between new development
[16:54] and these capital improvement needs, the proportionality
[16:58] of the costs that are allocated to go into the fee program,
[17:03] as well as what we plan on using the fee revenues for.
[17:08] Here is a list of the existing fee categories that the city has
[17:14] and is charging for development impact fees,
[17:16] as well as the proposed fee categories in the update.
[17:21] These are largely similar, with some minor changes,
[17:25] like expanding cultural facilities to include
[17:29] public art, and some larger changes, which
[17:32] include removing the child care fee because the city has
[17:39] no plans to add additional child care facilities,
[17:43] as well as adding a marina waterfront infrastructure fee
[17:46] category as part of implementation of the Trust Land
[17:51] Use Plan.
[17:55] Here is a list of the costs that were sourced from adopted plans,
[18:02] such as the five-year CIP and that Trust Land Use
[18:05] Plan that we are allocating to growth
[18:10] and including in the fee program for each of the improvement
[18:12] categories.
[18:15] And using these costs, we can then
[18:17] allocate it to both residential and commercial development,
[18:21] resulting in these levels.
[18:26] These fee levels can be adopted at a lower level.
[18:31] However, we're presenting the full cost recovery level here,
[18:35] which includes all of the costs that are allocated
[18:38] to growth in the fee program.
[18:41] Fees cannot be adopted at higher than these levels,
[18:44] excluding annual adjustments for inflation.
[18:50] AB 602, which I mentioned earlier,
[18:53] requires that jurisdictions charge residential development
[18:57] impact fees on a per-square-foot basis
[19:00] to account for the relative impacts
[19:02] that different-sized units may have.
[19:05] Therefore, we do convert both single-family
[19:07] and multifamily residential fees from a per-unit fee
[19:11] to a fee per square foot.
[19:15] This conversion is using recent development examples
[19:20] from the city to get an average unit size.
[19:28] In addition to calculating the fee levels,
[19:31] we also collected information on development impact fees
[19:35] in the three nearby jurisdictions, Hercules,
[19:37] Benicia, and Concord.
[19:40] The fee comparison considers development impact fees,
[19:43] such as parks, art, capital facilities.
[19:46] It doesn't include permitting fees or utility connection fees,
[19:51] as those tend to vary a little bit more
[19:53] and aren't covered as part of the larger Mitigation Fee
[19:58] Act that development impact fees are covered by.
[20:04] EPS Quantified fees for typical single-family homes,
[20:08] multifamily, and office projects.
[20:10] Due to the variety of fee types, we summarized some fees into--
[20:17] cultural facilities, public art, and public facilities
[20:20] were summed up into a civic facilities category.
[20:23] And then police and fire fees were summed up
[20:26] into a public safety category.
[20:30] So here, we are showing the single-family fee comparison
[20:35] on a per-unit basis.
[20:36] We include the existing fee levels that Martinez currently
[20:41] has, as well as the calculated full cost recovery
[20:46] fees in comparison to these other jurisdictions.
[20:50] And are the other jurisdictions--
[20:52] are those numbers based on full cost recovery?
[21:00] I don't know exactly where policy decisions might have
[21:04] been made in the fee levels.
[21:06] They're publicly charged fees.
[21:09] OK, thank you.
[21:10] But just to clarify, the numbers on the far right
[21:13] under Benicia, Hercules, and Concord,
[21:16] is that existing or full cost?
[21:19] That's what I just said, I think.
[21:21] Yeah, their existing fees is what a project would be charged.
[21:25] I think we can safely make the assumption that they're not
[21:29] full costs because likely they're not--
[21:32] haven't been updated for some period of time
[21:35] for each of the jurisdictions.
[21:37] And just to clarify, the staff report
[21:40] does say that the point is that the nexus
[21:42] study is supposed to tell us what the maximum would be.
[21:46] And then we have the authority to make that choice.
[21:48] So we can assume that the other councils probably also
[21:50] didn't do full cost recovery.
[21:54] Since we're pausing, I do have one question, though.
[21:57] I guess Concord is the best example.
[22:01] It only has two fees here.
[22:04] Are there other fees that don't align with ours,
[22:06] or do they only have the two fees?
[22:09] These are the only two development impact fees
[22:12] that we identified Concord as having.
[22:15] They may charge permitting fees or other fees that
[22:20] aren't considered development impact fees that
[22:22] aren't included in this comparison for any
[22:24] of the jurisdictions.
[22:29] So Martinez currently is falling in the range
[22:34] for single-family fees.
[22:36] And I can actually move to the next slide.
[22:39] This provides a good graphic representation
[22:42] of the comparison of where Martinez is currently falling
[22:46] and where it would fall if the full cost recovery
[22:49] fees were adopted.
[22:53] Let me see.
[22:56] And here is a similar table for the multifamily fee comparison,
[23:01] which generally multifamily fees are
[23:05] less on a per-unit basis than single family
[23:08] but have a similar distribution to single family
[23:11] in terms of the fee categories.
[23:14] So once again, here is a similar place
[23:17] where Martinez falls currently and where
[23:19] they would fall within the range of the jurisdictions.
[23:26] Finally, for office fees, we see Martinez
[23:29] falling in a similar place.
[23:33] What's most different, possibly, for office fees is
[23:37] that Benicia and Concord only charge a transportation impact
[23:40] fee on their office development, whereas Martinez and Hercules
[23:45] charge additional impact fees on office.
[23:49] The fee levels are relatively similar, if not less,
[23:54] in Martinez and Benicia compared to Hercules and Concord.
[23:57] It's just how those facility improvements are allocated
[24:02] within that overall fee amount.
[24:09] Then to wrap things up, we have some questions for council
[24:14] that the city staff and ourselves have put together,
[24:20] looking at how the city should potentially benchmark
[24:24] those impact fees, how changes and updates to those fees
[24:27] might be phased, as well as support
[24:31] on some of the changes proposed within this fee update.
[24:44] Megan, please proceed with the presentation,
[24:46] and we'll circle back to this.
[24:49] Yeah, so that wraps up our presentation.
[24:52] And so we'll go to the city for questions.
[25:05] Is this questions now?
[25:07] OK.
[25:08] Can you go back to the Questions page?
[25:15] Would you mind speaking to the last three bullets?
[25:18] I don't feel like those last three
[25:20] bullets were talked about in your presentation at all.
[25:22] Can you clarify them, why you're asking us about it
[25:25] and what your recommendation is?
[25:30] Or is that a staff question?
[25:32] It could be.
[25:32] It might be a staff question in terms of those--
[25:36] So I can speak a little bit to the last few fees.
[25:40] So if you don't mind, I can just quickly
[25:44] go through each of the questions.
[25:46] That might actually be easier.
[25:47] Yeah, that's even better.
[25:48] Thank you.
[25:48] So the first question is, what should the city
[25:53] use as a benchmark for our impact fees?
[25:56] Should we be in the top, middle, or lower end
[25:58] compared to our peer jurisdictions?
[26:01] For context related to that question, so as you know,
[26:04] there's only so much housing that is reasonably going
[26:08] to get built by market demand.
[26:11] And typically, when individuals are developing homes or office
[26:18] construction, they're oftentimes looking from a profitability
[26:26] standpoint.
[26:27] And so usually, developers will look in a given region and what
[26:33] profit they stand to make in Martinez
[26:36] compared to some of our surrounding jurisdictions.
[26:39] So from a incentivization standpoint,
[26:43] the city could choose to say we're lower than X or Y
[26:48] jurisdiction, so we have the ability
[26:50] to market that we're incentivizing development
[26:54] above and beyond our neighbors.
[26:57] For the next question, this will largely
[26:59] depend upon the first question, but it's,
[27:03] how should development impact fee updates be phased?
[27:06] Should they be 75% the first year
[27:09] and 25% the subsequent year, like what
[27:13] we've done with our other user fee schedule updates?
[27:17] Or should that happen all at once?
[27:20] This is really going to be dependent upon the direction
[27:22] we're provided as the first item.
[27:25] If we keep our fees similar to where they're
[27:27] at or lower our fees, that would not be an applicable question.
[27:31] If we do increase our fees or certain fees,
[27:34] we have the ability that we could increase that
[27:36] all at once or at a later time.
[27:40] For the third bullet on whether or not
[27:44] the city council supports eliminating childcare fees,
[27:48] Megan alluded to this as part of the presentation.
[27:50] The city has no plans in place for adding childcare facilities
[27:55] that the city would be managing or maintaining.
[27:58] So the question is, do we want to eliminate that fee,
[28:02] at least for the time being, until such time we
[28:05] would have plans to potentially use that in the future?
[28:09] For the fourth bullet, it's a question on whether or not
[28:14] the city council supports expanding
[28:16] the cultural facilities fee to include public art.
[28:20] And for a little bit of context for that,
[28:22] I worked with the interim finance director,
[28:25] and we pulled information on what our current fee
[28:28] balances are.
[28:29] And for our cultural facilities fee,
[28:33] we have about $750,000 that are available.
[28:37] And so this would provide an opportunity
[28:40] where there's a little bit more flexibility
[28:42] with other types of projects for how those funds could be used.
[28:47] And then the final bullet point, which is probably
[28:50] one of the more meaty discussion points
[28:52] where we're seeking direction from the city council,
[28:56] is if the city council supports reducing or waiving development
[29:01] impact fees for ADUs over 750 square feet
[29:07] for deed-restricted affordable units or other categories?
[29:11] And to what extent do you support reducing or waiving
[29:14] fees?
[29:15] This is really where staff and the consultant team
[29:18] are seeking direction for what types of projects
[29:22] you want to specifically target to have built in Martinez.
[29:26] For a little bit of additional context for that,
[29:30] as part of state legislation, ADUs
[29:34] that are less than 750 square feet
[29:36] already do not pay development impact fees.
[29:39] So this would be, do you want to extend
[29:41] that for slightly larger ADUs?
[29:44] Additionally, the conversation about,
[29:46] do we want to do something to incentivize
[29:49] deed-restricted affordable units?
[29:51] As the council is inevitably aware,
[29:54] affordable units oftentimes are associated
[29:57] with a mixed-income project, where the market rate
[30:01] project-- excuse me, the market rate units
[30:04] are subsidizing the affordable units.
[30:07] And this could be a way to reduce
[30:09] what that subsidization potentially is,
[30:11] as well as a way to potentially help
[30:14] the city reach our regional housing needs allocation.
[30:17] Or alternatively, if there's other categories, it may be,
[30:22] again, at the council's discretion.
[30:26] And then finally, giving us a little bit of direction
[30:28] on to what extent we want to reduce or waive fees
[30:32] so that we can prepare information
[30:34] to incorporate that as part of the user fee schedule update.
[30:38] The last thing I'd like to add, and it's not a bullet point,
[30:41] if there's any additional comments or direction that
[30:44] relate to these general questions,
[30:46] this would be a good time, at the end of the discussion,
[30:49] for the council to provide direction to staff
[30:51] and the consultants as well.
[30:54] And Megan and I are available for any additional questions
[30:57] that you may have.
[31:00] Thank you for walking through each one of those questions.
[31:04] I wanted to ask a quick question,
[31:06] and then I'm going to let the other council ask
[31:09] their questions, and then we'll circle back.
[31:11] So the cultural facilities fee, I
[31:15] know this has been something that's come up in my meetings
[31:17] with the city manager before.
[31:20] There is a specific list of things
[31:23] that qualify for the cultural facilities fee.
[31:26] Has that in the past been defined by the city of Martinez,
[31:29] or is it defined by the state?
[31:30] How much flexibility do we actually have with that?
[31:33] It was included as part of the previous nexus
[31:36] study for what types of projects could be included.
[31:41] I think it's important to note the intention of what's
[31:44] going to transpire is after we get direction tonight,
[31:48] we'll come back at a future meeting with a public hearing.
[31:52] As part of that public hearing, there
[31:54] will be adoption of the nexus study,
[31:57] there will be approval of what the development impact
[32:01] fees will be, and there will be some code amendments.
[32:04] And so there will be some ability
[32:06] to provide clarification for what types
[32:08] of projects, both in the nexus study as well
[32:10] as part of the code.
[32:12] And if I could jump in as well on that point,
[32:14] there will be a distinction drawn between the monies that
[32:16] were collected under the prior nexus study and monies
[32:19] to be collected after if and when
[32:21] the council adopts a new nexus study.
[32:23] If we expand it to have a broader
[32:25] focus on public art and cultural facilities,
[32:28] that broader expansion to public art
[32:30] would apply to new monies collected under the new nexus
[32:33] study.
[32:33] The existing funds collected would
[32:35] be bound by the prior nexus study
[32:37] within the bounds of what was previously in that prior nexus
[32:40] study.
[32:41] And can you please remind me what's
[32:43] included in cultural facilities, our library, senior center?
[32:46] Library, senior center.
[32:48] And the train depot.
[32:49] And the train depot.
[32:50] So just those three facilities?
[32:52] OK.
[32:53] Yeah, and even in the CIP that you recently adopted,
[32:58] monies have been spent on the old train depot recently.
[33:02] And funds were put into the senior center.
[33:06] And we could always revisit that with additional funding.
[33:09] But we did put--
[33:09] I think it's $250,000 was moved into the senior center
[33:13] to replace what had been general fund money before.
[33:16] And we had talked about using cultural facilities
[33:19] money for a potential stage.
[33:21] So we're not 100%, or am I talking about the wrong thing?
[33:25] No, there was for waterfront stage.
[33:27] And so there's some context within the past nexus study that
[33:31] would have allowed for that, but obviously,
[33:33] because of the waterfront plan development,
[33:35] we are able to free up that money for other uses.
[33:38] And it's been the old train depot and the senior center
[33:40] so far.
[33:41] OK, thank you.
[33:41] I just want to make sure that we provide you the guidance that
[33:43] gets us to where we want to go.
[33:45] And I'm excited about the potential for--
[33:47] I think it's because of the amphitheater.
[33:48] That's why.
[33:49] Amphitheater was listed as--
[33:51] Oh, it was one of the facilities.
[33:52] --or whatever in the old nexus study.
[33:54] So that's why the stage would have qualified.
[33:56] Great.
[33:56] And, Debbie, did you have questions?
[33:57] You can kick us off.
[33:58] In the current attachment under cultural facilities
[34:01] and public art, is that the proposed?
[34:04] Because there's nine different projects
[34:08] listed under cultural facilities and public art.
[34:14] Will you clarify?
[34:15] I'm sorry.
[34:16] What are you looking at?
[34:17] The attachment that actually states what
[34:19] these monies can be used for.
[34:21] Attachment B?
[34:24] Yeah.
[34:24] So yes.
[34:25] So as Megan indicated, as part of the presentation,
[34:28] we took existing plans that were in place and capital
[34:33] improvements that are envisioned as part of those existing
[34:37] adopted plans and, from that, compiled
[34:40] the list that's included in the attachment, which
[34:42] will be used as part of the nexus study
[34:45] for the calculation of what the maximum fees could be.
[34:51] Thank you for calling that out because there are
[34:53] additional ones that called in.
[34:55] So this would be part of the nexus study.
[34:57] So it would give us even more projects to work on.
[35:00] OK, thank you.
[35:04] Oh, but that is a good point now that I'm looking at this.
[35:06] So there isn't a line item under cultural facilities
[35:09] and public art for just general public art, though.
[35:13] Do we need to add that if we--
[35:15] So what we would ask is if you give the direction to expand
[35:19] the scope of that fee, staff and the consultant
[35:22] will work to make sure the nexus study is designed
[35:24] to allow that to occur.
[35:34] Sorry, I didn't have my microphone on.
[35:37] Just in general about the fees, so you
[35:41] had asked about-- hang on.
[35:44] Let me go back.
[35:45] So we're just taking the first question, the first question
[35:49] about benchmarking.
[35:53] Let me go back to that because I just took that off my screen.
[35:56] Hold on.
[35:58] Looking at the benchmarks that you've provided,
[36:01] they seem very, very different and very broad.
[36:06] So, for instance, I wouldn't want
[36:07] to adopt one particular city, like Benicia or Hercules
[36:10] or Concord, because those allocations seem way off
[36:15] from what we're proposing.
[36:17] So I'm not exactly sure.
[36:18] When you say benchmarking, in what capacity?
[36:24] I think the goal of that question is--
[36:27] the intention is not, at today's meeting,
[36:29] to say, we want to charge X number for projects,
[36:32] because I think if we do that, we'll get five
[36:34] different directions on that.
[36:37] I think the goal is, generally, where
[36:41] do you want the city to align?
[36:43] And then part of the discussion about some of the other items,
[36:47] there may be direction that's provided that there's
[36:51] more of a priority for emphasizing one of the fees
[36:55] that we have over others, reducing some, keeping
[36:59] some the same, based on those priorities of the council.
[37:05] OK, great.
[37:06] So with that said, I just want to call out public safety.
[37:12] In comparison to other cities, it seems still somewhat low.
[37:17] And I know there's only two projects right now
[37:19] for public safety.
[37:21] It's an enhancement of the police department
[37:23] and I think vehicles.
[37:25] And say, in comparison to something else which was quite
[37:30] high, parks and recreation, which is over $9,000,
[37:33] and the parkland dedication, which is $6,000,
[37:37] it just seems like we should take a look at the public safety
[37:40] component and see if that seems reasonable to the council
[37:44] and if there's any other projects that we want to look
[37:49] at to support public safety.
[37:54] If that's the direction, staff can
[37:56] work with the chief of police to identify
[38:00] if there's any additional plans beyond what's
[38:03] been identified that may or may not have been codified yet.
[38:08] What I would like to make a minor clarification,
[38:13] there's actually three projects that
[38:15] are included for public safety.
[38:17] The third is securing parking as well.
[38:22] OK, thank you.
[38:23] Thanks So one of the questions I have
[38:26] in looking at some of the projects,
[38:28] under the parkland dedication, I know
[38:31] there was a category called acquisition, land acquisition.
[38:34] We've done a lot of that already,
[38:36] so I wasn't sure which acquisition
[38:37] we wanted to-- what other parks we want to acquire.
[38:40] We've acquired Alhambra Highlands
[38:42] and have a new park in Martinez as well.
[38:46] And then enhancing the dog park was on there.
[38:48] And I know that there was some concern about the dog park,
[38:50] whether or not that was a legit location.
[38:54] And then the last one was the waterfront stage.
[38:56] And I didn't realize we were investing
[38:58] any money in the amphitheater, or is this something different?
[39:05] You guys are looking at me like, what?
[39:07] The waterfront stage I was talking about
[39:09] was part of the original discussion in the Trust Land Use
[39:15] Plan to have a stage, and it predated the waterfront project.
[39:19] Yeah.
[39:20] OK.
[39:20] OK, got that.
[39:22] OK.
[39:24] So I was just going through all the different projects
[39:28] under the different categories and looking at them
[39:30] to determine, is there any place where
[39:34] there's any more room for public safety allocations?
[39:37] I just called that one.
[39:38] There's others just in looking at some of these things.
[39:43] Can I clarify your question?
[39:45] Are you asking to make the public safety fee higher or just
[39:53] list more projects that would qualify for those fees?
[39:57] So at this time, I would like to make sure
[39:59] that we are fully evaluating all the needs of public safety
[40:03] because to me, public safety is really
[40:05] number one in our community.
[40:08] We just celebrated National Night Out last night.
[40:10] And we celebrated all of our first responders
[40:13] and the amazing job that they do.
[40:15] And I know that it's a very challenging job,
[40:17] and there's always a lot of resources that they need.
[40:19] So I would want to make sure that this
[40:21] is an opportunity for Chief White
[40:23] to vocalize anything that he feels he may need to improve
[40:27] our police department.
[40:28] And this would be a time where we can maybe add a project
[40:31] or do something that maybe we aren't aware of
[40:34] and then maybe make some fees somewhat higher in that area
[40:40] to accommodate some of the projects
[40:41] that public safety may be needing or facing.
[40:44] That's just what I'm just shouting out
[40:47] because I think that we should just
[40:48] take a deep look at public safety
[40:50] when we have an opportunity to do so.
[41:01] So I actually was looking to get some clarification
[41:04] on one of the other questions that you referenced,
[41:08] if that's OK, on the childcare.
[41:10] Can I ask about that?
[41:11] OK.
[41:12] So, Michael, do I understand correctly that--
[41:16] so we currently have an allocation for childcare fees.
[41:20] But if I understood you correctly,
[41:24] we don't actually run any childcare facilities.
[41:28] So it closed two years ago.
[41:30] So the question is, how much money have we collected?
[41:35] And what is its status?
[41:37] It's pretty minimal.
[41:38] We have about $8,000 that is available in that fund.
[41:42] And so that would be something that we
[41:44] would need to go through the process--
[41:46] if the fee is eliminated, we would
[41:48] go through the process of refunding
[41:50] that balance and start collecting going forward.
[41:53] OK.
[41:54] We couldn't reallocate it to another bucket, if you will?
[41:58] No.
[41:58] No?
[41:59] All right.
[42:03] So along those similar lines, just
[42:06] for my personal edification, when we bring on a new housing
[42:13] project, for instance, permitted, built out,
[42:17] what have you, what, if any, recourse is there
[42:24] for impacts on our schools?
[42:28] Is there anything in any of this that we
[42:30] collect that helps them offset some of the impacts
[42:35] that they incur?
[42:36] So there are school fees that the individual school districts
[42:39] collect on construction as well.
[42:41] We don't have authority over that,
[42:43] which is why that's not included as part of this nexus study.
[42:46] Oh, OK.
[42:46] Got it.
[42:47] But there is something that does get collected.
[42:50] OK, well, that's somewhat reassuring.
[42:53] What I would also add to that is by having more units constructed
[42:59] and having more residents, we in turn
[43:01] are increasing property values and property taxes
[43:05] and having more people with sales tax purposes,
[43:08] which in turn has other intrinsic benefits
[43:12] for the school district as well.
[43:14] OK, got it.
[43:15] Yes.
[43:16] OK, thank you for that clarification.
[43:18] That is helpful.
[43:21] So just jumping back then to the first question,
[43:25] I think I agree with Council Member McKillop
[43:30] as far as a need to thoroughly evaluate where the need is
[43:36] and if there is an opportunity to further support PD.
[43:43] We understand that we're certainly not where
[43:46] we want to be with our staffing and what have you,
[43:49] but if there's other things that we
[43:51] can do to help support their mission,
[43:54] I think that's worthy of additional discussion.
[44:00] With respect to the question, though, my general sense
[44:05] is that we, collectively, all of us,
[44:10] have been working in earnest to overhaul our zoning
[44:15] over the past many months.
[44:17] We still have some more work to do, as you well know.
[44:21] But essentially, from my vantage point,
[44:24] I'm looking at this as part of a broader toolbox.
[44:28] What can we do to encourage more investment development
[44:36] in the community?
[44:38] And there's a lot, like you said.
[44:40] You referenced, I believe, market forces
[44:43] in the presentation.
[44:45] We have very little control over those market forces.
[44:49] So the parts that we do have control over,
[44:51] such as what we're looking at here as far as impact fees,
[44:55] I would want to try and make it so that it
[45:00] continues to be an incentive to bring
[45:05] in that additional investment.
[45:06] So I think in that low to middle tier, I think,
[45:11] is most appropriate right now from where
[45:15] I'm sitting because I'm looking at it not in isolation.
[45:21] I'm looking at it as part of a broader initiative.
[45:25] What other pieces have we been working on?
[45:27] So when you take the zoning, for instance,
[45:30] that's going to take time to bear fruit because we've been
[45:34] doing that here along the way.
[45:35] That was a huge overhaul after how many decades?
[45:38] I mean, some of the codes--
[45:40] correct me if I'm wrong--
[45:41] they were really outdated.
[45:43] And that was one of the things that-- at least some
[45:46] of the feedback that I have received from folks
[45:49] is Martinez has not historically been a place where
[45:54] people want to come and invest.
[45:56] Some of it is because of market forces, but then some of it
[45:59] is also because of policies that past city administrations
[46:03] have adopted.
[46:04] And so now, given where we are at this critical junction,
[46:10] I think we need to tread cautiously.
[46:15] And if I'm looking at comparison cities,
[46:17] I'm looking at it as not Benicia, Hercules.
[46:22] They're a little bit more similar in population.
[46:24] Then Concord's just a whole beast unto itself.
[46:30] I don't think there's an accurate way for us
[46:33] to benchmark against personally.
[46:37] So those are just some general thoughts that I have
[46:41] as it pertains to that first question.
[46:43] I hope that's helpful.
[46:45] And then I would be remiss if I failed to point out we're
[46:48] looking at our regular standing session tonight.
[46:52] Census tracts, opportunity zones,
[46:54] that's an additional tool in the toolbox.
[46:57] So I want to be able to be cognizant of we need
[47:03] to be holistic In our thought process
[47:11] here, if that makes sense.
[47:14] Thank you.
[47:15] Thanks.
[47:16] I just want to make a comment.
[47:19] You both have talked about the first bullet,
[47:21] and I just want to provide my little input
[47:24] on the very last bullet about reducing or waiving fees.
[47:27] I very much appreciate the comments about the public safety
[47:32] fee, but I want to provide a little bit of input
[47:36] from conversations that I had with other cities at the Cal
[47:39] League of Cities Conference last year.
[47:42] I spoke to a mayor from a city who
[47:44] had had several really great housing projects built.
[47:48] And I said, how did you do this?
[47:49] How did you attract people?
[47:50] And he said, we waived development fees.
[47:53] And so I just want us to be mindful that development impact
[47:57] fees might be something that is one of the ways
[48:00] that we can absolutely flag to people that we're
[48:03] interested in attracting projects.
[48:05] And so we could both, simultaneously, benchmark
[48:10] ourselves at the middle or lower, but we could also say,
[48:13] this is where we want our fees to ultimately be,
[48:16] but on the short term, we would like to reduce or waive
[48:18] fees for various categories.
[48:20] And we can talk about that of what that means,
[48:23] or we could tie it to our housing element
[48:25] because that expires.
[48:26] And this one does, at least in 2031.
[48:29] And so if we're trying to really spur those 1,345 housing units,
[48:37] maybe that's the way to go.
[48:38] So I just wanted to say that so people can think about--
[48:41] that those are two different ideas,
[48:42] and they can both exist at the same time.
[48:47] Mayor, do we have flexibility project
[48:50] by project in how we apply our fees?
[48:52] Do we know that?
[48:53] That's a question for Michael.
[48:54] I don't know.
[48:56] So we do need to apply fees consistently.
[49:01] So you can say types of projects that you want to incentivize.
[49:06] And as long as there's ways that you're
[49:09] distinguishing that-- so you could prioritize
[49:12] multifamily projects.
[49:14] You could prioritize projects that
[49:16] have a certain percentage of affordable units.
[49:19] You could prioritize multifamily projects of a certain size.
[49:24] There's utmost flexibility.
[49:26] You also have the ability that you
[49:28] could lock in fees for projects that are already going--
[49:34] have already received entitlements so that there's not
[49:37] a change beyond what they previously were envisioning.
[49:41] And this would be something going forward
[49:43] for new projects that are submitted.
[49:46] And then finally, throwing out another option--
[49:48] I mean, there's many, many options
[49:49] of how the council could choose to go
[49:51] about this-- you could incentivize this for the first X
[49:56] number of units that come in, rather than it
[49:59] being an open-ended provision as well.
[50:02] And when I was asking you about this last week, one
[50:05] of the other questions I said, I said,
[50:06] could we tie it to the opportunity sites
[50:09] that were called out in the housing element?
[50:11] Because remember, we had--
[50:12] I don't know.
[50:13] Would you say 60?
[50:15] 20?
[50:16] I don't remember the exact number,
[50:17] but there are many, many housing element opportunity sites.
[50:21] And they're marked on the map throughout the city
[50:23] of opportunity sites.
[50:26] It's a very different category than what he just mentioned,
[50:29] but that's an option, too.
[50:34] Would you like to go?
[50:35] I just don't even know where to start.
[50:40] Yeah, it's a lot of moving parts.
[50:48] I want us to be attractive to development.
[50:56] I want us to stop always being the low-cost leader.
[51:08] Looking at the fee comparisons, you
[51:14] think about, if we're talking about housing,
[51:20] more people are going to affect transportation.
[51:23] More people are going to require more around public safety.
[51:27] And so just looking at this in the comparison,
[51:30] I still think it's an apples to oranges comparison
[51:34] because different cities, and it's not
[51:37] calculating full cost recovery.
[51:41] We appear to be low and trailing.
[51:45] So I definitely want to make us competitive with impact fees
[51:59] but not to the extent where it makes us less attractive.
[52:06] So this is definitely going to be something
[52:10] that has to be nuanced.
[52:13] And the mayor just brought up waiving.
[52:18] I don't know why I just cringed with waiving impact
[52:23] fees because it's just that to me, I mean,
[52:25] we're losing revenue, or that could potentially
[52:29] be putting more pressure on our general fund.
[52:33] So I don't have an answer.
[52:37] This just seems it's going to have to be nuanced.
[52:43] But I guess what oftentimes frustrates
[52:47] me is that in situations like this, we're always lagging.
[52:53] And we've got to get to a point where we're competitive
[52:57] and not giving away the store.
[53:04] I really appreciate your report.
[53:06] Just for everybody's edification, Michael,
[53:08] can you remind me why we're not using
[53:10] Pleasant Hill as a comparison?
[53:14] So the consultant team actually originally
[53:16] pulled information for Pleasant Hill, but it was so dissimilar.
[53:20] And the reason it was so dissimilar
[53:21] is their entire structure is different than the other cities.
[53:25] They have a special district that handles all of their parks
[53:29] and recreation components, which is a major component
[53:32] of our current fee structure.
[53:34] So there was no ability to do an apples and apples
[53:37] comparison since there are multiple entities involved.
[53:42] And then also, remind me, because it
[53:44] seems like we're closest in fees for the single family
[53:49] fee per unit to Hercules, why are we
[53:51] so close or similar to them?
[53:55] Or are we?
[53:58] I don't think there's necessarily
[54:00] a reason for why we're similar to Hercules.
[54:03] I think it's just that we currently
[54:04] are based on previous decisions that both councils have made.
[54:09] OK.
[54:10] So it sounds like these are the questions you're
[54:14] looking for help on, right?
[54:16] So if I just go through those, I would
[54:20] like to be in the low to middle comparatively to our peers.
[54:28] I would like to use Hercules just
[54:30] because I think they're very similar to us,
[54:33] more so than Concord.
[54:36] I'm not sure about the second one.
[54:38] I think I need more information on that.
[54:40] I do want to eliminate the childcare fees.
[54:46] And I do support expanding the cultural fees
[54:49] to include public art.
[54:53] And I would like to reduce the fees for ADUs.
[54:58] And does it have to be 750 square feet,
[55:01] or could it be smaller at 500?
[55:04] So currently, there are no impact fees charged for ADUs
[55:08] that are less than 750 square feet.
[55:11] There are proportional fees that are charged for ADUs that
[55:13] are 750 square feet or larger.
[55:15] So the council would have the option
[55:17] that you could choose to just waive or reduce
[55:20] those fees when they are charged for larger ADUs.
[55:23] Very good.
[55:24] So yeah, I would like to reduce those fees for the 750
[55:28] square feet and above.
[55:30] And I'd like to see our single-family fee per unit
[55:36] closer to Hercules.
[55:38] So I'd like to talk about making it somewhere around $13,000,
[55:48] which would--
[55:49] with the elimination of the childcare fees,
[55:53] I think it would really make us look good.
[55:55] And I think reducing the fees moving forward
[56:00] would help get the message out there that Martinez
[56:02] is incentivizing more building.
[56:06] So I think that would be important.
[56:10] Say again, what is it that is telling people that we're
[56:13] were incentivizing building?
[56:15] By dropping our fees and lowering it down
[56:18] for a single family.
[56:19] Oh, OK.
[56:21] I think that's it.
[56:26] I would note that there is-- correct me if I'm wrong.
[56:32] I believe there is pending legislation in Sacramento right
[56:34] now that speaks to this last question about,
[56:37] do we want to waive the fees for ADUs over 750 square feet?
[56:46] My understanding is that it would dramatically
[56:49] limit the ability of jurisdictions such as ours
[56:55] to be able to charge accordingly.
[57:00] It basically would really do that.
[57:02] And I think there's some concern in some jurisdictions, I guess,
[57:07] that that may unnecessarily hamstring the jurisdiction
[57:13] So I think there's a couple of things to point out.
[57:17] So there are multiple pending bills that will potentially
[57:21] impact development impact fees.
[57:26] Vice Mayor Malhi, you spoke to one of them.
[57:29] Two others I think are important to point out
[57:32] is there's also pending legislation for--
[57:36] and the city attorney can speak more eloquently
[57:38] to this about the potential waiver of impact
[57:45] fees for affordable units when there
[57:49] is state funding that's provided associated with those projects.
[57:54] And then finally, which was alluded
[57:56] to as part of Megan's original presentation, legislation going
[58:01] in the direction of collecting impact fees per square foot
[58:04] rather than per unit.
[58:07] If I could add to that.
[58:08] So the bill that was approved is AB 179, one
[58:12] of the budget trailer bills from June.
[58:16] Effective July 1, '27, so 11 months from now,
[58:21] it requires state entities awarding
[58:24] competitive affordable housing grants for multifamily projects
[58:27] to take into account whether or not
[58:29] the applicant, typically, the city,
[58:32] has waived or reduced impact fees as part of the grant
[58:35] application.
[58:36] The headline that's been batted around
[58:38] is that it requires cities to waive impact
[58:42] fees for restricted affordable housing,
[58:44] and that's not quite right.
[58:45] That headline is a bit too much of a collapse,
[58:48] but it does require that waiver of affordable housing
[58:51] fees, impact fees for affordable housing projects
[58:53] be taken into account as part of any competitive state grant
[58:56] project.
[58:57] And similarly, if the city does not
[59:00] waive fees for an application, then the competitive grant award
[59:05] has to be reduced by the amount of fees not waived.
[59:08] So the incentive is to waive fees
[59:10] for projects that are benefiting from state competitive grants.
[59:14] So that's something to take into account as well,
[59:16] but it doesn't force us to waive fees.
[59:18] It preserves the policy choice for the council.
[59:21] And, yeah, the ADU, there's 1/2 a dozen ADU bills pending,
[59:25] as is typical this time.
[59:26] And we'll see what happens.
[59:28] But we would suggest proceeding with the policy
[59:30] choices the council wants.
[59:31] And then if we have to revisit come January, we will.
[59:39] The only other thing I just want to bring up
[59:44] around the childcare fees is we should just be mindful
[59:51] in future thinking, meaning that one of the things we are seeing
[59:57] are new families coming into our community.
[1:00:02] When we get the waterfront up and running,
[1:00:07] that's going to draw families with younger children
[1:00:14] as we do more housing, single-family housing.
[1:00:17] So just something we may want to be mindful of.
[1:00:21] We may not see it today, but it is coming.
[1:00:25] And so we are going to, at some point,
[1:00:27] need to be thinking about how we do accommodate young families
[1:00:33] coming into our community.
[1:00:35] I support you 100% And I was really disappointed when we
[1:00:39] found out that it was only $8,000 because to clarify,
[1:00:43] we used to have a childcare facility.
[1:00:45] It was a building that was owned by the city of Martinez.
[1:00:47] It was at Murillo Park Elementary.
[1:00:49] And an organization leased it from us.
[1:00:54] And so that's what this fee was for.
[1:00:56] It was to be the landlord of this small, little preschool.
[1:00:59] When they did Murillo parks remodel two--
[1:01:01] was it two years ago?
[1:01:03] Everything's blurry.
[1:01:04] So it may have been three.
[1:01:07] But the school district asked for the property back,
[1:01:10] and they got rid of the preschool.
[1:01:12] So now we don't have literally anything, any facility
[1:01:16] to use the childcare fees for.
[1:01:18] I would love to see us investing in childcare infrastructure,
[1:01:23] but that's different, and that's not currently on this list.
[1:01:26] So that's just something to be mindful of.
[1:01:27] What you're saying?
[1:01:28] 100%.
[1:01:30] But it's not the same thing as that,
[1:01:31] and so we may want to talk more in the future of how
[1:01:35] we can better support childcare in the city of Martinez.
[1:01:38] Right.
[1:01:38] And we don't have to adopt this for a long term.
[1:01:42] Correct?
[1:01:43] This can be a placeholder for now
[1:01:46] until we get forward till 2031.
[1:01:52] Correct.
[1:01:53] So the intention is we would adopt a nexus study that
[1:01:56] would get us through a number of years,
[1:01:59] but we will have to periodically update the nexus study based
[1:02:03] upon changing priorities of the city and city council.
[1:02:12] If the nexus study, again, not setting what the cap of fees
[1:02:17] could be, there is always the ability,
[1:02:20] as part of our regular and routine review of our user fee
[1:02:25] schedule, to make adjustments during those times
[1:02:29] as well as interim changes between when the fee updates are
[1:02:34] approved and when we do the next round of a nexus fee study.
[1:02:40] May I just very quickly follow up on the childcare discussion?
[1:02:48] Is there a stipulation in state law
[1:02:52] that says that if a jurisdiction collects
[1:02:55] these fees, that it could only be used for infrastructure?
[1:02:58] Or could it also be given out as a subsidy
[1:03:04] to those families that meet a certain income threshold?
[1:03:11] Is there any discretion around that?
[1:03:14] Unfortunately, generally, the Mitigation Fee Act
[1:03:17] requires that development impact fees
[1:03:19] be spent on physical infrastructure
[1:03:21] to accommodate new development.
[1:03:24] So off the top of my head, I don't
[1:03:26] think we would be able to put together
[1:03:28] that kind of an incentive program, but we'll take a look
[1:03:30] and confirm.
[1:03:32] What could happen, though, without opening up
[1:03:36] a us going sideways, just as we have done
[1:03:41] some cleanup to regulations for housing and industrial zoning
[1:03:44] incentives, as a couple of examples,
[1:03:46] it could be something that we could
[1:03:48] look at our childcare regulations that
[1:03:50] could incentivize private childcares to be established.
[1:03:56] I mean, I'm certainly open to that.
[1:03:57] And I thank Council Member Young for bringing up
[1:04:01] the point earlier.
[1:04:02] I think it's a very valid one.
[1:04:04] I would just say that we've already
[1:04:08] begun to see a lot of newer, younger families that
[1:04:12] have come in, particularly over the course of the pandemic.
[1:04:17] That's something that's become readily apparent.
[1:04:20] Anybody who goes down Sunday's farmer's market
[1:04:24] can see there's a noticeable uptick
[1:04:26] in the number of young families and strollers
[1:04:30] being pushed, for instance.
[1:04:33] And we know just how much of, gosh, an awful burden childcare
[1:04:39] costs are right now for a lot of working families.
[1:04:42] And so I think it is a very valid point.
[1:04:47] I thank you for bringing that up.
[1:04:49] And, I mean, I think for now, though, I mean, it seems--
[1:04:55] I don't know.
[1:04:55] So if we eliminate it, can we get it back, I guess,
[1:05:00] is the question because it may not make sense now,
[1:05:03] but it may in the future.
[1:05:05] So do we leave it as a placeholder,
[1:05:07] or what is the recommendation?
[1:05:12] So the fee is so low that it's never
[1:05:14] going to actually result in any physical improvement,
[1:05:19] unless there was a substantial increase to that fee, which
[1:05:24] would be counter to what I'm hearing
[1:05:26] the majority of the council indicate that you want
[1:05:29] to incentivize development.
[1:05:31] So staff's recommendation would be that it actually
[1:05:35] be eliminated at this time.
[1:05:38] But when the development pattern changes
[1:05:40] and we do a future nexus fee study,
[1:05:43] and potentially the waterfront is revitalized at that point,
[1:05:47] and we see more development happening throughout the city,
[1:05:50] I think then there may be different opportunities
[1:05:54] to potentially re-establish that fee as a newly added fee.
[1:06:01] I'm fine with that.
[1:06:02] I just didn't want the takeaway and the headline to be,
[1:06:06] we don't support childcare, because this
[1:06:09] is a lot more nuanced discussion,
[1:06:12] and I don't want that to get lost here.
[1:06:14] So I'm comfortable with that, but I just
[1:06:16] want to be on the record.
[1:06:18] None of us are saying, we don't care about childcare.
[1:06:21] This is not about that.
[1:06:24] So I just want to state categorically for the record
[1:06:28] that that is not what this vote is about.
[1:06:30] And I can add that staff hears you loud and clear
[1:06:33] that we can look at other ways to incentivize childcare
[1:06:37] other than it being through our impact fees.
[1:06:41] So if I may, one thing that was different too
[1:06:43] in 2003, the last time that a nexus study was done--
[1:06:47] I mean, this wasn't even just simply a city-owned facility.
[1:06:51] It was actually operated by city employees.
[1:06:53] There were city employees that were running this facility
[1:06:56] for a number of years.
[1:06:57] And then it shifted to a contract model.
[1:07:00] And then it shifted to a lease model.
[1:07:03] And it was in a lease model up until its expiration
[1:07:06] because the school district took it back.
[1:07:08] So it was a vastly different landscape
[1:07:10] because it had that existing city-owned and city-run facility
[1:07:13] back at the time.
[1:07:14] So that's the difference now as this new study was done.
[1:07:19] I would note that the county does run childcare facilities.
[1:07:22] There's one at Public Works, I believe, if I'm not mistaken.
[1:07:26] So I don't know.
[1:07:27] But I believe it's just for the benefit of the employees there,
[1:07:31] but I could be mistaken.
[1:07:32] So, yeah.
[1:07:34] Yeah.
[1:07:36] So jumping back to childcare-- since I was a single parent with
[1:07:41] twins, it was a huge expense--
[1:07:46] do we need to eliminate it?
[1:07:48] Wouldn't this be the time to consider options?
[1:07:54] You just mentioned three reiterations.
[1:07:59] We had it as city staff, which maybe isn't the best.
[1:08:03] Then we leased it.
[1:08:04] We've gone through this full circle,
[1:08:06] and now we're going to eliminate it.
[1:08:07] Is there any other out-of-the-box thinking that we
[1:08:10] could support childcare through this in some way?
[1:08:13] Or is there--
[1:08:14] Yeah, so staff had some discussions on this.
[1:08:18] The challenge is with impact fees,
[1:08:20] the intention is that when they're collected,
[1:08:23] they're spent in a relatively quick period of time.
[1:08:27] The fact that we're limited to use the funds for city
[1:08:32] facilities and we have no system in place
[1:08:38] to manage a childcare facility, nor do we
[1:08:41] have sufficient funds to build anything,
[1:08:48] I don't think there is a solution in the near term that
[1:08:54] could accommodate that wish.
[1:08:57] Not even working with Woodbridge or anything along those lines?
[1:09:01] No, it's not city owned.
[1:09:02] I think they're working out of the school district facilities.
[1:09:06] We did look creatively.
[1:09:08] We thought, could we do something with the Boys & Girls
[1:09:10] Club as an example?
[1:09:11] We started looking at some other things,
[1:09:13] and we didn't come up with a viable solution, unfortunately.
[1:09:18] One other challenge to bear in mind that's inherent in DIFs
[1:09:22] is the DIF pays for physical infrastructure.
[1:09:25] It cannot pay for operations.
[1:09:27] So a childcare facility in particular
[1:09:29] requires both the facility and the childcare professionals
[1:09:32] to run it.
[1:09:34] And the DIF can only fund one of those two.
[1:09:36] An entirely different funding source
[1:09:38] is necessary to pay for the operations.
[1:09:40] And so that, I think, is something
[1:09:42] that would be a much larger project to take a look at.
[1:09:45] And the childcare fees can't go to assist the Boys & Girls Club.
[1:09:48] It wouldn't be the proper use or dedicated use for the monies
[1:09:54] we have currently or monies we would collect in the future
[1:09:57] because I'm not sure legally what the difference is
[1:10:01] between the fees that we've been collecting
[1:10:03] and any appropriations to the Boys & Girls Club
[1:10:05] since it is a childcare facility, which
[1:10:08] is owned by the city.
[1:10:13] Yeah, there may be some limited application there,
[1:10:16] but I guess as part of an ongoing fee
[1:10:19] that you're collecting that may or may not
[1:10:22] have that viable capital use, it's a little bit different.
[1:10:29] And that was part of the challenge in evaluating this,
[1:10:31] whether that might be appropriate.
[1:10:36] And again, in trying to figure out ways as part
[1:10:40] the underlying theme, trying to be
[1:10:42] competitive in the space with our fees.
[1:10:45] And occasionally, we have situations where we reduce
[1:10:49] or eliminate a fee, of course.
[1:10:52] This was one that we haven't.
[1:10:55] We've continued to collect it because it's on the books,
[1:10:58] and we haven't had a good application for it still.
[1:11:01] So it's been a challenge still having this here.
[1:11:06] And the original intent tied to that nexus study
[1:11:10] from well over 20 years ago, even,
[1:11:12] it doesn't exist anymore for what it was originally intended
[1:11:17] to cover, which it did help.
[1:11:18] Can I propose that we ask staff to put this maybe
[1:11:25] on our next strategic plan discussion?
[1:11:27] Because it's clear the council is interested in childcare.
[1:11:31] I don't think that it's appropriate for us
[1:11:33] to be concerned about childcare infrastructure
[1:11:36] as part of the development fee discussion
[1:11:39] because I think it's very clear that we
[1:11:43] don't know what we want to do.
[1:11:45] So to be collecting fees for something
[1:11:48] that we don't know what we're doing doesn't seem appropriate.
[1:11:51] And I think it's very appropriate to eliminate
[1:11:53] the childcare facility fee.
[1:11:54] And if we can make sure that we always use the phrase
[1:11:57] childcare facility fee instead of childcare fee
[1:11:59] because it goes to what you were saying,
[1:12:02] but can we have staff maybe bring
[1:12:04] that back as part of maybe an upcoming evaluation
[1:12:07] of the strategic plan under the community health, safety,
[1:12:10] and well-being?
[1:12:11] And if there's ways that we can evaluate
[1:12:12] supporting childcare infrastructure in the future,
[1:12:15] because that's what you're getting at.
[1:12:16] That's what you want on the long term.
[1:12:18] We have spent a lot of money on the Boys & Girls
[1:12:21] Club infrastructure improvements,
[1:12:23] thousands, millions.
[1:12:25] So is there a way that we can capitalize on some of these fees
[1:12:29] to help that?
[1:12:30] Because we didn't use these types of fees for those
[1:12:32] they came out of either ARPA or general fund.
[1:12:36] Yeah.
[1:12:36] If you don't mind, Michael and Mike,
[1:12:39] looking into that before we do the refund exercise,
[1:12:42] check to see whether or not the Boys & Girls
[1:12:44] Club could be a potential recipient, that would be great.
[1:12:47] Yeah, and then we can discuss childcare, just
[1:12:50] general infrastructure improvements to it
[1:12:52] in Martinez moving forward at the future.
[1:12:58] Just by a nod of heads, everyone OK with expanding
[1:13:01] cultural facilities to include art?
[1:13:03] Yeah.
[1:13:04] That's OK?
[1:13:05] Yep.
[1:13:05] Up until this point, we've never had any fund for public art,
[1:13:09] so this would be a really great opportunity
[1:13:11] to use some of the cultural fees--
[1:13:13] facility fees moving forward for any city-sponsored art
[1:13:17] installations.
[1:13:18] And then the phasing of the development fees
[1:13:26] feels like the easiest discussion,
[1:13:29] but I don't feel strongly one way or the other.
[1:13:31] And I feel like it more should correlate
[1:13:34] to whatever we decide the answers
[1:13:35] to the first and last bullets are.
[1:13:39] Yeah, I guess that's my question.
[1:13:41] I hate to go back to these fee comparisons per unit.
[1:13:45] So we've done our full cost recovery.
[1:13:48] We have that.
[1:13:50] But looking at the cities that we are benchmarking against,
[1:13:56] these do not include their full cost recovery
[1:14:00] because we don't know that.
[1:14:02] But assuming that they did theirs,
[1:14:06] theirs would probably be increased.
[1:14:10] So we're still lagging.
[1:14:13] Well, it depends on whether or not
[1:14:15] you think lagging is good or bad because I would argue it's good.
[1:14:20] Even at full cost recovery, we will still
[1:14:24] be trailing the cities.
[1:14:26] And so what I'm saying is with a full cost recovery for us
[1:14:31] and we are still trailing, that is probably a good look for us.
[1:14:37] Yeah.
[1:14:37] If development attracting development
[1:14:41] is what we're going for, it's OK.
[1:14:43] And this is our number.
[1:14:44] Yeah, or less.
[1:14:45] I mean, full cost recovery, again, is the highest marker.
[1:14:48] Yeah, that's the highest marker.
[1:14:49] We have the ability to raise it some smaller percentage.
[1:14:53] And I think it is a good look for us, particularly--
[1:14:56] I think it's very important to remember
[1:14:58] that we're not the only ones looking at these cost
[1:15:01] comparisons.
[1:15:02] It's the developers that do this exact same thing.
[1:15:05] Absolutely.
[1:15:06] Right.
[1:15:06] And so that's where I would really
[1:15:08] like us to be able to say, we are lowering our fees
[1:15:11] and stand out that way.
[1:15:13] Well, I don't want to say lowering.
[1:15:14] I just want to say we are maximizing
[1:15:19] our fees in comparison to--
[1:15:24] Well, we will be lowering our fees because we're
[1:15:26] eliminating childcare fees.
[1:15:28] And we will be doing other things
[1:15:31] like reducing the ADU fees.
[1:15:34] If we agree on that, that would be lowering it.
[1:15:37] And then I'd like to see the single-family per-unit fees
[1:15:40] lowered from $14,000, which is existing,
[1:15:44] to be closer to Hercules so it's more like $13,000.
[1:15:49] Yeah, based on this, we don't have to lower our fees.
[1:15:53] I just want to be clear.
[1:15:54] We don't have to lower fees.
[1:15:56] That's what I'm advocating for.
[1:15:58] But we don't have to.
[1:15:58] Yeah.
[1:15:59] We don't have to, but that's what we're here to discuss.
[1:16:01] And I think it's important that that
[1:16:03] is what is seen by developers when they go,
[1:16:06] should I go to Pleasant Hill, Hercules, Benicia, or Concord?
[1:16:10] Look what.
[1:16:10] Martinez--
[1:16:11] If you look at the totality--
[1:16:12] Can I have Michael-- do you want to provide--
[1:16:15] Yeah, so this is an obvious statement,
[1:16:19] but I think it's important to say.
[1:16:22] So I do think full cost recovery is somewhat misleading
[1:16:27] because it's cost recovery assuming we actually
[1:16:31] have development happen.
[1:16:33] If we don't have development happen,
[1:16:36] the fees can be as high as we want.
[1:16:38] We won't actually bring in any money.
[1:16:41] And so it is about balance, and it
[1:16:47] is about setting them at a rate where we see development.
[1:16:53] So we--
[1:16:53] It's all perception, right?
[1:16:55] Correct.
[1:16:56] Yeah.
[1:16:56] It's about what is perceived.
[1:16:59] If we're perceived to be lowering our fees,
[1:17:01] then we will look better.
[1:17:03] Correct.
[1:17:03] And I also think it's important to note
[1:17:07] we are competitive with Benicia currently.
[1:17:13] And, Jay, we don't always have to charge
[1:17:16] the highest amount of the fees, as we had mentioned.
[1:17:19] And we can have the charges lessened if we choose to.
[1:17:24] But this is the highest.
[1:17:26] So you can choose to have them lower.
[1:17:28] Correct.
[1:17:29] Yeah.
[1:17:30] I would like Council Member Young
[1:17:32] to try to convince me more along what you have been--
[1:17:36] you were looking very frustrated in saying that you do not
[1:17:39] want to lower the fees.
[1:17:40] I'm very supportive of waiving impact fees for a short duration
[1:17:46] as we're trying to spur growth and development in Martinez.
[1:17:51] And that seemed to very much not excite you.
[1:17:54] Can you elaborate on that?
[1:17:56] And what would you be comfortable
[1:17:58] with along these discussions?
[1:18:00] The idea of lowering fees versus--
[1:18:02] to me, waiving fees is a temporary incentive.
[1:18:08] Keeping them low and not raising them,
[1:18:10] that becomes a permanent incentive.
[1:18:12] Again, I'm just looking at based on full recovery cost,
[1:18:18] we are still trailing our sister cities, even if we max out,
[1:18:22] unless I'm missing something.
[1:18:24] What number is lagging?
[1:18:25] Can you clarify what you're talking about?
[1:18:31] I am looking at our fee comparison of $24,227.
[1:18:39] And again, looking at our comparison cities,
[1:18:43] these aren't their updated numbers, right?
[1:18:49] We're not sure, are we?
[1:18:51] They're current numbers.
[1:18:52] So what I'm hearing Council Member Young say is
[1:18:56] for single-family homes, using that as an example, currently,
[1:19:00] we charge about $14,000 in development impact fees.
[1:19:03] If we set the fee based on the nexus study and analysis that
[1:19:08] has currently been done, they could go up to about $24,000.
[1:19:12] $24,000 is still $2,000 less than what Benicia currently has.
[1:19:19] Exactly.
[1:19:20] But to clarify, it is significantly higher.
[1:19:24] It's 200% more than Hercules.
[1:19:30] $24,000 to $12,000, that is very much not lagging.
[1:19:34] But wait, wait, wait.
[1:19:34] That's because they don't have parkland dedication fees.
[1:19:38] They don't have marina and waterfront.
[1:19:42] Yes, exactly.
[1:19:43] The reason that it is cheaper to build in Hercules
[1:19:46] is because they have fewer developments.
[1:19:48] That's what we're talking--
[1:19:49] And so are we saying they aren't going through the same process
[1:19:53] that we're going through in looking at full recovery,
[1:19:56] but they don't have different categories like public safety?
[1:19:59] Or am I assuming that they're going--
[1:20:02] We're not required to do this.
[1:20:03] So we're looking at fees at a point in time.
[1:20:08] Every jurisdiction is on their own schedule with when
[1:20:11] those fees will be updated.
[1:20:12] So we could do an update now and set ourselves
[1:20:15] at a particular point.
[1:20:16] And then one of these other jurisdictions
[1:20:18] could turn around and, a couple months later, change their fees.
[1:20:22] So--
[1:20:23] It could go either way.
[1:20:24] --it could go either way.
[1:20:25] And to answer the question that's inherent in there,
[1:20:27] there is no required timeline to update these fees.
[1:20:32] OK.
[1:20:34] OK.
[1:20:35] It feels like the pay for police officers, every time we
[1:20:38] hit this mark, they go to here.
[1:20:39] We go to here, they go to here.
[1:20:41] So it's always jockeying back and forth.
[1:20:44] Which is why we would do the nexus
[1:20:45] study, which would set the maximum that they could be at.
[1:20:48] And we can periodically modify what
[1:20:52] our rates are based on our regular and routine updates
[1:20:55] to our user fee schedules.
[1:20:57] And I think another thing we have
[1:20:59] to remember this is short term.
[1:21:02] It's not forever.
[1:21:04] And we can use these, what does come in, and we can gauge those.
[1:21:08] This one works.
[1:21:09] This one doesn't.
[1:21:10] This one needs to be modified and needs to be lowered,
[1:21:12] or this one needs to be raised by what has worked,
[1:21:14] what has brought in revenue, what has brought in--
[1:21:17] So based on this scenario and this education, thank you.
[1:21:22] I would say we stay at the $14,000.
[1:21:26] I don't want to move that.
[1:21:27] I do not want to waive or lower.
[1:21:34] We are getting near the end of the workshop.
[1:21:37] And I just realized I hadn't opened
[1:21:39] this up to public comment.
[1:21:40] I apologize for those of you who are here.
[1:21:42] Would anyone like to provide public comment
[1:21:43] on this discussion?
[1:21:45] Craig, come on up.
[1:21:56] All right, I really enjoyed this discussion, a very important
[1:21:59] discussion, and really glad to hear the sentiment
[1:22:02] on the council seems to be toward doing
[1:22:05] what we need to do with these fees to stimulate development
[1:22:09] and to help solve our housing crisis
[1:22:10] or address it in a meaningful way, which I think
[1:22:13] is an important dynamic because I don't think we would have
[1:22:16] necessarily heard that four years ago or eight years ago.
[1:22:19] And I think it indicates how the political winds on this issue
[1:22:22] are changing.
[1:22:27] I wanted to suggest off the top about this issue of waiving
[1:22:30] fees versus lowering fees, we need affordable housing.
[1:22:34] We need a low-income housing more than anything,
[1:22:36] and that's the toughest housing to build.
[1:22:38] I would suggest waiving the development fees
[1:22:42] for any projects that hit a certain threshold
[1:22:45] of affordable housing that goes beyond the minimum
[1:22:47] because to the extent that we're getting any development going
[1:22:50] at all in the city, which is very little,
[1:22:53] it tends to be the bare minimum, the 20%.
[1:22:56] If we can get 100% affordable unit project
[1:23:01] in Martinez, which could be a real game changer, which we're
[1:23:03] seeing in some other cities, we should definitely waive the fees
[1:23:07] if that will make it happen.
[1:23:09] That could make a huge dent in this issue.
[1:23:12] I think this fixation on comparisons,
[1:23:14] where we stand comparing to other jurisdictions,
[1:23:18] is a bit of a distraction because the reality is
[1:23:22] we're not getting the development we need
[1:23:24] with the fees where they're at.
[1:23:27] Almost all of our affordable housing growth
[1:23:30] is in ADUs right now.
[1:23:31] We're not getting developers to come to Martinez.
[1:23:34] It doesn't matter where we stand compared to Benicia,
[1:23:37] Pleasant Hill, Hercules.
[1:23:39] We're not getting people to come to Martinez.
[1:23:43] And we can't solve the housing crisis that way.
[1:23:46] OK, so if waiving them will get people to come to Martinez,
[1:23:49] we definitely should do it.
[1:23:51] I also want to push back--
[1:23:54] sorry, Councilman Young-- a bit on some of your comments
[1:23:58] about cost recovery and the burden
[1:24:04] that new population growth puts on the city.
[1:24:07] I don't think that's always the case.
[1:24:09] Look at the amount of resources our police department
[1:24:12] uses on issues regarding the unhoused.
[1:24:14] The unhoused is an extension of the housing crisis.
[1:24:18] If we built more affordable, very low-income housing
[1:24:23] and could put a dent in the homeless issue,
[1:24:27] that would take a burden off the police.
[1:24:29] That wouldn't add to the police's burden.
[1:24:32] That would take a burden off them.
[1:24:35] Transportation, if we could make it
[1:24:36] so that more people could work where they live,
[1:24:40] could live in Martinez instead of having
[1:24:42] to commute in and out of Martinez all the time, that
[1:24:45] could take a burden off our transportation infrastructure.
[1:24:52] As far as young families coming into Martinez,
[1:24:54] I don't see the data to support that.
[1:24:57] The last data I saw from the Martinez School District
[1:24:59] was that student enrollment is down 9% or 10%
[1:25:03] since the pandemic.
[1:25:05] So maybe we're seeing anecdotal evidence,
[1:25:07] but I'm not seeing the data.
[1:25:09] If you have data, I don't think people--
[1:25:10] Time's up.
[1:25:10] --can afford to live in places like Martinez.
[1:25:12] Thank you.
[1:25:15] Thanks, Craig.
[1:25:15] Just one quick data point on the school district.
[1:25:19] They did say enrollment is down, but when
[1:25:21] they're taking into account TK students,
[1:25:24] it's ticking back up again.
[1:25:26] But--
[1:25:28] I'll take a look at the data.
[1:25:29] Sure.
[1:25:31] Anyone else in the room this evening
[1:25:33] who'd like to provide public comment on our workshop
[1:25:36] discussion tonight?
[1:25:40] OK, thank you, Craig, for the comments.
[1:25:41] We appreciate it.
[1:25:42] OK, let's bring it back.
[1:25:44] Oh, I'm so sorry.
[1:25:46] Yes, right.
[1:25:48] Do we have people online?
[1:25:49] I have someone.
[1:25:50] So if that person would like to make
[1:25:51] a public comment on this item, please use the Raise Hand
[1:25:53] feature.
[1:25:59] All right, I have no hand.
[1:26:01] No hands?
[1:26:01] OK, great.
[1:26:02] All right, so for the last 15 minutes of this meeting,
[1:26:06] I'd love to get some thoughts.
[1:26:08] I feel like we came in with our opinions
[1:26:13] on the benchmarking and the waiver,
[1:26:17] and I'm not sure we've convinced each other necessarily
[1:26:20] through this discussion.
[1:26:22] So maybe how about we go just down the line and just
[1:26:26] provide some thoughts on that first and last bullet?
[1:26:29] So just on benchmarking and potential waiving.
[1:26:37] Do you want to start, Jay?
[1:26:39] Go ahead.
[1:26:40] Go ahead.
[1:26:41] Oh, I see.
[1:26:42] Got it.
[1:26:42] Yeah, why don't you start?
[1:26:49] We're in the middle of the meeting,
[1:26:50] so you can come back when we're done with this meeting.
[1:26:53] We're having a meeting now.
[1:26:55] We do start at 7:00, but we're having a workshop before,
[1:26:57] so if you don't--
[1:26:59] yeah, OK.
[1:27:00] Thank you.
[1:27:02] OK, for benchmarking, I do know that different cities have
[1:27:08] different needs and resources, different opportunity zones,
[1:27:11] a whole bunch of different things, marinas, no marinas.
[1:27:14] So it's hard to gauge a benchmark,
[1:27:16] but I would like to see us at least in the middle section
[1:27:20] of the comparison if we were comparing.
[1:27:23] And then just to answer the question
[1:27:25] because I didn't do that, I'm good with the second question.
[1:27:28] I like to phase it in 75/25 if we get to that point
[1:27:31] because that's what we've been utilizing in the past for any
[1:27:34] fees that we've adopted.
[1:27:35] And then let's see.
[1:27:37] The last one for the ADUs, last question,
[1:27:39] yeah, I am definitely in support of waiving the fees for ADUs
[1:27:43] that are over 750 square feet.
[1:27:46] And I don't know what the maximum is,
[1:27:48] but we can discuss that at a future meeting, whatever
[1:27:50] the maximum square feet is for an ADU.
[1:27:54] Is it 500 or 1,200 or something?
[1:27:56] The maximum size of ADUs as per our ordinance is 1,200 square
[1:27:59] feet.
[1:28:00] OK, so I would definitely consider waiving some of those.
[1:28:04] But I definitely do feel that we should,
[1:28:09] if we come to a consensus, really
[1:28:11] try to attract act developers so that these fees would actually
[1:28:16] be collected.
[1:28:16] If we don't have a development, there's
[1:28:18] no fees that are being collected.
[1:28:19] And in particular, trying to incentivize
[1:28:21] the low-income housing component because I think
[1:28:24] there's a lot of people out there
[1:28:25] that are in need of housing.
[1:28:27] And low-income housing is housing
[1:28:29] that would be for a teacher or for a student.
[1:28:32] These are people that are holding
[1:28:35] jobs that really can't afford housing because things
[1:28:37] are so expensive.
[1:28:38] So I would definitely support that as well.
[1:28:43] So next.
[1:28:48] Do you want to go?
[1:28:48] Do you want me to go?
[1:28:49] You can go.
[1:28:50] All right, so I support middle or lower end.
[1:28:56] I also recognize that benchmarking to our other cities
[1:29:00] is somewhat misleading, and so I'm not sure.
[1:29:02] I don't think that should be our priority.
[1:29:05] I appreciate your comment that other user fee schedules do
[1:29:09] 75/25.
[1:29:10] That's a perfectly fine way of doing it.
[1:29:11] No problem.
[1:29:12] And then I'm just going to reiterate that I very much
[1:29:14] support waiving impact fees.
[1:29:16] So I support waiving impact fees for ADUs over 750.
[1:29:21] But I do want to acknowledge that just because ADUs
[1:29:24] are the only thing that is being built, that means
[1:29:27] that, why would we be incentivizing the one
[1:29:29] thing that people are already building?
[1:29:31] So I also want us to think about what other things
[1:29:33] that we can incentivize.
[1:29:36] You asked about multifamily.
[1:29:39] And while I support multifamily, absolutely, I also
[1:29:42] want us to think about smaller multifamily,
[1:29:44] like duplexes and triplexes, because we've all
[1:29:47] talked about how Martinez is basically--
[1:29:49] infill housing is what's left.
[1:29:51] And so I don't want us to be incentivizing ADUs and then
[1:29:55] really large complexes with nothing
[1:29:56] in between because we might find that the best thing that we can
[1:29:59] incentivize right now are some of the newer complexes
[1:30:02] that have been built that have between 6 and 12 units,
[1:30:05] something like that.
[1:30:06] So I want us to think about that.
[1:30:08] So I would love to see staff come back
[1:30:10] with some suggestions and potential innovative solutions
[1:30:14] for waiving for a short duration, maybe just
[1:30:17] through the end of our housing element,
[1:30:20] for some specific categories that we could incentivize.
[1:30:25] And I also very much support the opportunity sites
[1:30:28] that I mentioned.
[1:30:29] I think we should absolutely include those.
[1:30:31] That would incentivize the people
[1:30:33] that have the great properties that are just
[1:30:35] sitting there empty that they might be
[1:30:37] interested in developing those.
[1:30:42] Did that help?
[1:30:43] Sure.
[1:30:44] Go ahead.
[1:30:46] So question one, looking at benchmark,
[1:30:49] I support being in the middle.
[1:30:52] Number two, I'm fine with the 75%, 25% approach.
[1:30:59] And I am OK with waiving impact fees for ADUs over 750.
[1:31:07] Let's see.
[1:31:07] So for me, I would like to see us in the low end comparatively
[1:31:12] to our peers.
[1:31:14] I do like using the benchmark because I
[1:31:17] believe developers use that benchmark to look at as well.
[1:31:21] And I want us to shine.
[1:31:23] When the developers are thinking about,
[1:31:25] where should we go, I want them to see Martinez.
[1:31:27] And I want them to see that we have recently lowered our fees,
[1:31:31] so I would like to bring our fees down.
[1:31:33] I do like the 75% to 25% schedule.
[1:31:40] I absolutely support eliminating childcare fees for entities
[1:31:45] that we don't even have anymore.
[1:31:47] I 100% support childcare across the board.
[1:31:52] But in this particular situation,
[1:31:54] we no longer have that facility, so there's
[1:31:57] no reason to charge fees for something we don't provide.
[1:32:00] I do really support public art, and I think cultural facility
[1:32:06] fees are OK for that.
[1:32:09] I wouldn't mind waiving fees for ADUs.
[1:32:15] I don't think that's a bad idea, but I
[1:32:16] could be talked out of that.
[1:32:20] And I think that covers it.
[1:32:22] Do you support reducing or waiving fees?
[1:32:24] Yes, I do support reducing fees.
[1:32:28] Is that clear enough?
[1:32:29] So, Jay, just to clarify, though, for me, reducing fees
[1:32:35] is not the same thing as waiving.
[1:32:38] And so how do you feel about waiving fees?
[1:32:40] I was talking about other potential categories.
[1:32:43] I feel that waiving fees addresses your concern.
[1:32:48] How do you feel about that for more than just ADUs?
[1:32:50] No, I think that that's very important,
[1:32:52] but I would like to hear more information on what we would be
[1:32:55] reducing fees for specifically.
[1:32:59] I don't think it should be a blanket thing.
[1:33:01] I do appreciate Greg's point that we still
[1:33:06] have to be mindful of the general fund.
[1:33:12] But I think it is important that--
[1:33:15] It's all about perception.
[1:33:17] And so when these developers see this headline,
[1:33:21] Martinez is reducing fees, I think that's important,
[1:33:25] and it will catch their eye.
[1:33:27] I think it's important that if we are doing benchmarks,
[1:33:30] which I do support, I would like us to be just above Hercules.
[1:33:36] So I would like to see our Martinez existing single-family
[1:33:40] fee come down, and I wouldn't mind seeing it somewhere around
[1:33:44] $13,000.
[1:33:46] So if you want an exact number, there you go.
[1:33:49] Great.
[1:33:50] Go ahead.
[1:33:51] OK, thank you very much.
[1:33:54] So I would definitely feel like low to middle
[1:33:59] is where we need to be.
[1:34:02] I think we want to make ourselves as attractive as we
[1:34:04] can in this regard.
[1:34:07] But I also think it's critical for us
[1:34:09] to think and look and see, the mayor referenced,
[1:34:12] there are cities that have had a tremendous amount of success
[1:34:16] in bringing new investment development
[1:34:20] into their communities.
[1:34:21] We ought to be looking at them.
[1:34:23] What are they doing?
[1:34:24] And I think she alluded to the fact
[1:34:26] that one of the things that they did
[1:34:28] was this targeted waiver, perhaps, of impact fees.
[1:34:36] I don't necessarily know if it makes sense
[1:34:38] across the board for every single project that would come.
[1:34:41] Like Council Member Howard, I think it really just depends.
[1:34:45] And I would want to get some more information.
[1:34:49] For 100% affordable project, if that were to come to us
[1:34:52] and if that's what it takes to get that project over the hump,
[1:34:57] for sure, sign me up for that.
[1:34:58] I think that makes a lot of sense.
[1:35:01] Workforce housing?
[1:35:02] Absolutely.
[1:35:03] But if we have a project which is majority market rate and just
[1:35:09] meets the bare minimum qualification
[1:35:11] for affordable housing, that maybe I'm
[1:35:14] going to be a little less hesitant on.
[1:35:16] I think that there ought to be something
[1:35:20] that needs to be brought in.
[1:35:21] So I think it needs to be targeted in that way.
[1:35:23] But I think we need to be looking at, rather
[1:35:26] than the benchmark comparison, open it up and just
[1:35:31] see what the cities in the Bay Area,
[1:35:34] elsewhere in the state-- what have they been doing?
[1:35:36] What are the tools that have brought them
[1:35:40] some success in this area?
[1:35:43] So that's what I would say.
[1:35:44] As far as the last piece, yes, I'm
[1:35:48] fine with that in terms of waiving them
[1:35:50] for ADUs over 750 square feet.
[1:35:53] Like I said, there's legislation,
[1:35:56] as we talked about earlier, that may make this all a moot point
[1:36:00] in the near future.
[1:36:02] But if I'm being asked today, right now,
[1:36:05] while that legislation is still pending, sure.
[1:36:09] All right, we've got 1 and 1/2 minutes.
[1:36:11] Any final 30-second comments?
[1:36:14] I think it's really important that we remember this
[1:36:17] doesn't have to be permanent.
[1:36:18] It's a fluid situation.
[1:36:20] And again, we can come back and revisit this in the near future,
[1:36:24] and we can decide what's working and what's not.
[1:36:27] Can staff summarize what we heard from the majority
[1:36:30] of the city council?
[1:36:33] OK, so what I heard from the majority of the city council
[1:36:37] is looking at the low to mid-range
[1:36:39] for the fees for staff, including
[1:36:46] planning division, to work with the chief of police
[1:36:50] and the Public Works director to look
[1:36:52] at potential additional items that
[1:36:54] could be included as part of the nexus fee study
[1:36:58] that address public safety issues.
[1:37:02] To eliminate the childcare facility fees,
[1:37:05] but to look in the future at other ways to incentivize
[1:37:09] and specifically look at the possibility of bringing back
[1:37:12] a further childcare infrastructure
[1:37:15] discussion as potentially part of the strategic plan
[1:37:17] or another path that's deemed appropriate.
[1:37:22] Prior to refunding the current fees
[1:37:30] associated with the childcare facility fees,
[1:37:33] for staff to relook at the possibility of potentially using
[1:37:36] the remaining balance for the Boys & Girls Club.
[1:37:41] There's general support for expanding
[1:37:43] the cultural facilities fee to include public art
[1:37:46] and ensuring that the nexus fee study addresses that issue.
[1:37:51] For any fee increases, there is a general support
[1:37:56] for an initial 75% increase and then 25% the second year
[1:38:01] for consistency with other fee updates
[1:38:03] that the city has implemented.
[1:38:05] That there's general support for waiving impact fees
[1:38:10] for all ADUs, so adding in ADUs that
[1:38:13] are 750 square feet or larger.
[1:38:16] And for staff to bring back, as a future discussion,
[1:38:21] alternatives in terms of fee reduction or waiver options,
[1:38:25] looking further at what other jurisdictions are doing,
[1:38:28] and that would be a subsequent action.
[1:38:30] Does that sound good, everybody?
[1:38:32] Great.
[1:38:32] Thank you for summarizing.
[1:38:34] Much appreciated.
[1:38:34] All right, with that, thank you to those
[1:38:36] who came to participate.
[1:38:37] And thank you for the presentation.
[1:38:39] And this meeting is adjourned.
[1:38:40] And I'll give everyone a five-minute break,
[1:38:42] and we will come back for our regularly scheduled evening
[1:38:45] meeting.
[1:38:45] Thank you.
[1:38:47] [CHUCKLES]
[1:38:51] Recording stopped.