[1:56] >> As soon as folks are done filling out the cards,
[1:58] then we will begin and call everything to order.
[2:57] >> All right, good evening.
[2:58] It is Tuesday September 8th 28 2026 --
[3:01] Tuesday September 8th.
[3:04] I will now call this meeting to order.
[3:06] If you are able, please stand for the Pledge of Allegiance.
[3:16] I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
[3:19] and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God,
[3:21] indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
[3:32] >> Thank you comment staff.
[3:33] Will you please call the roll.
[3:39] >>
[3:39] [Roll call]
[3:59] >> Thank all.
[4:00] >> Chair, just for the record, alternate Commissioner Bell will
[4:04] be serving as a regular commissioner this evening as we
[4:07] have two absences.
[4:15] >> Thank you.
[4:16] I shall now read the civility statement
[4:17] because you're appointed governing
[4:18] board we will treat each other and the public with patience,
[4:20] civility and courtesy as a model of the same behavior we wish
[4:24] to reflect in the Martinez for the conduct of all city
[4:27] business and community participation.
[4:28] This includes respect for everyone's First Amendment
[4:31] rights to voice their opinions on matters within the city
[4:33] subject matter jurisdiction, even if that opinion is
[4:36] different from our own.
[4:37] The decisions made tonight will be
[4:39] for the benefit of the Martinez community.
[4:41] And not for personal gain.
[4:44] Or first item is for items that are not listed on the agenda
[4:48] this evening.
[4:49] And just to clarify, these are items
[4:51] that are within the subject matter
[4:52] jurisdiction of the commission, but are not on tonight's agenda
[4:56] up here there will be opportunity
[4:58] to comment on items on the agenda for tonight
[5:01] later this evening.
[5:02] Does anyone have comments for items not on tonight's agenda?
[5:10] No one online, I assume?
[5:15] >> There are no hands raised.
[5:17] >> Okay.
[5:17] Thank you.
[5:18] We will close that public comment.
[5:21] Our first item is going to be a presentation from the Bay area
[5:26] sun shares program.
[5:34] >> All right good evening planning Commission and members
[5:36] of the public.
[5:37] I am Carrie Rivers, a management analyst in the city's community
[5:41] and economic Development Department
[5:43] supporting sustainability programing.
[5:44] I will be providing a presentation,
[5:47] a brief presentation on the Bay Area SunShares Program.
[5:56] To start with some background, Bay area sun shares
[6:02] is a solar and battery storage discount program
[6:06] of nonprofit act now Bay area.
[6:09] It is an opportunity for a residential property owners,
[6:12] in all nine Bay area counties, to sign up during an enrollment
[6:17] period from September 1st through November 15th.
[6:24] The SunShares has led to in ten years almost eight megawatts
[6:32] of solar installed and over 500 battery storage units installed.
[6:39] With SunShares the selected partner installers
[6:45] go through an RFP and vetting process
[6:48] with an evaluation committee.
[6:52] The program then negotiates discounts on quality,
[6:56] solar, and storage offerings from the selective installers
[7:01] and prices are turnkey so they reflect
[7:04] the whole cost of getting solar and battery
[7:06] storage from equipment to labor, permitting and installation,
[7:11] and warranties.
[7:16] SunShares provides a no obligation proposal
[7:17] to residential homeowners so they can receive the proposal,
[7:20] decide if they want to move forward with it,
[7:22] but are not obligated to do so.
[7:25] To sign the contract.
[7:29] There are a few different options.
[7:32] For the program, people can choose
[7:36] to install solar only, battery storage
[7:38] only, a combination of both, or if they
[7:42] have an existing solar system in place,
[7:45] they can choose to add battery storage
[7:47] to it, or additional solar.
[7:51] Two participate, there is a form on the Bay area SunShares
[8:00] website.
[8:01] People must sign up from September 1st through November
[8:04] 15th in the enrollment period they can decide which
[8:07] of the Pre-vetted installers they are interested in getting
[8:10] a proposal from.
[8:11] Then they will receive -- they will be contacted
[8:14] by the installer.
[8:15] They will get an evaluation of the needs for their site,
[8:19] and they receive that no obligation proposal that
[8:22] includes the product offerings and pricing.
[8:25] Then participants would review the proposals
[8:27] and decide whether or not they want
[8:30] to move forward with signing a contract with the installer.
[8:33] And the deadline for that is a month after the enrollment
[8:37] period ends on December 15th.
[8:50] >> The fall 2026 installers are listed on this slide.
[8:52] While the program is available to Martinez residents,
[8:56] and throughout the Bay area, the city
[8:59] does not specifically endorse the contractors
[9:02] that have been selected for the Bay Area SunShares Program.
[9:09] Anyone who chooses to participate
[9:10] is doing so at their own risk.
[9:13] For anyone that is interested in getting more information
[9:17] about the program, they can attend
[9:19] one of three upcoming webinars offered by Bay area SunShares.
[9:27] The city has also saved the webinars
[9:29] on the city event calendar.
[9:30] But there is one next week in October and again in November.
[9:34] Opportunities to have a Q and A, and learn more about what
[9:39] the process looks like.
[9:44] That is it.
[9:45] To find out more information, you
[9:48] can go to Bay area SunShares dot org.
[9:54] Find the FAQ pages.
[9:57] And you can sign up in the enrollment period from now
[10:00] through November 15th.
[10:01] For specific questions you can contact the Bay Area SunShares
[10:10] program manager.
[10:14] >> Thank you very much.
[10:15] I appreciate you coming out and giving us the presentation.
[10:17] Especially in the light of economic factors
[10:18] and the rising cost of energy.
[10:20] It is very important for all of us
[10:21] to consider the different options that
[10:24] may be available to us.
[10:25] Particularly when it comes to solar.
[10:28] Does anyone on the commission have any questions?
[10:31] Thank you very much.
[10:44] We are going to proceed a little bit out of order.
[10:46] We had one more but we are going to move that
[10:48] to the end of the meeting.
[10:49] I don't believe we have any consent item
[10:52] calendars this week.
[10:58] Otherwise come out we will move forward
[11:01] to the first regular agenda item this evening.
[11:03] That first item is to conduct the public hearing
[11:05] and adopt Planning Commission resolution number 26 dash ten,
[11:10] approving a request for a design review.
[11:12] The minor exception and a tree permit to construct a new 3712
[11:18] square foot single family dwelling to increase the maximum
[11:21] permitted height to 29ft where 25ft is permitted,
[11:27] and to remove two protected trees located on a vacant
[11:30] and unaddressed parcel on Saint Mary's Street in the residential
[11:34] R-6 Zoning District.
[11:37] Assessor's parcel number (370) 110-0392.
[11:41] Subject to conditions of approval
[11:43] and I believe staff have a briefing for us.
[11:46] Thank you.
[11:49] >> Chair Evans, prior to starting the presentation,
[11:51] given that we have a high volume number of the public present
[11:54] this evening, I thought it would be helpful to quickly walk
[11:57] through how each item is going to work.
[12:00] For this first item, staff, the project planner
[12:04] assigned to the project will provide a presentation.
[12:06] After their presentation, the applicant
[12:09] will have an opportunity to present the project to.
[12:12] And the applicant includes the applicant property owner,
[12:16] and any professionals hired for the project.
[12:19] Upon the completion of that presentation,
[12:21] the public comment period will be opened.
[12:25] Each member of the public who wishes to speak on this item
[12:28] will have up to three minutes to speak.
[12:30] At the end of public comment, the applicant team
[12:34] will then have up to five minutes
[12:36] to respond to any comments they have heard, at which point
[12:40] the Planning Commission will then
[12:42] close the public portion of the meeting,
[12:45] deliberate, and make a determination for the project.
[12:48] For all members of the public and applicant teams
[12:53] who wish to speak you will be using the podium
[12:56] in the middle of the chamber.
[12:59] >> Thank you very much for that.
[13:01] A couple of items to add.
[13:02] For those of us on the commission,
[13:04] keep in mind as we are working through our own process
[13:07] and where we are going to land on these things,
[13:09] if you have additional questions for the applicant,
[13:12] or their consultants when they come back up,
[13:15] we will have to reopen public comment after they speak.
[13:17] Keep that in mind.
[13:19] Also, for the public, again we thank you
[13:21] all for coming out here.
[13:22] There is a lot of comment on the items on the agenda
[13:26] this evening.
[13:26] Hence the limit to three minutes.
[13:28] We want to make sure that everyone gets an opportunity
[13:30] to speak please be cognizant of your neighbors and your time.
[13:34] I know it is a lot to get through.
[13:36] I know a lot of you care deeply about what
[13:38] we are discussing tonight.
[13:40] Let's try to keep it under three minutes so all of us
[13:42] get a chance to speak.
[13:44] Thank you.
[13:46] >> Thank you Joseph Evans and hello everyone planning
[13:50] Commission and members of the public.
[13:51] I am the assistant planner here and I will give a presentation
[13:54] on Saint Mary's Street for design review
[13:57] and minor exception for single family dwelling.
[14:03] A little bit about the subject site.
[14:07] It is zoned R 6.0 which is the Single Family Zoning district.
[14:11] The general Plan designation is residential low with a lot size
[14:17] of 16,244ft².
[14:19] The existing use is a vacant lot surrounded
[14:21] by other vacant lots and some single family residential homes.
[14:27] Saint Mary's Street has had a significant
[14:30] historical and geologic, and sloped stability
[14:33] concerns in the past.
[14:35] June 24th, 1955 the city approved track map 2226
[14:41] subdividing the area near the subject site.
[14:46] Shortly after the subdivision -- the street suffered significant
[14:51] failure due to poor construction and it was reconstructed from
[14:56] the city in 1955.
[14:58] In 1978, the City Council adopted resolution 61-78 which
[15:05] prohibited building permits on those lots and their existing
[15:08] condition and required reconstruction work
[15:10] and acceptable soils and geologic reports before
[15:13] development could proceed.
[15:15] In 2008, the City Council adopted a resolution 00508.
[15:21] For some of the lots including the subject site,
[15:24] allowing building permits to be issued after competing --
[15:28] completing soils and geologic reports that had been submitted
[15:32] and accepted through the city's peer review process.
[15:34] Since my time being here, we have had many inquiries
[15:38] on a handful of these empty lots.
[15:40] And this is the first project that
[15:43] has reviewed the previous conditions of both
[15:46] of those resolutions.
[15:47] And submitted a complete application
[15:52] for this development.
[15:54] A little bit about the project.
[15:57] They are going to construct -- they're proposing to construct
[16:01] a 3712 single family dwelling unit.
[16:05] They are increasing to -- requesting to increase
[16:09] the maximum permitted height to 29ft where 25ft is permitted.
[16:13] And requesting to remove two protected oak trees.
[16:16] Here's the proposed front elevation.
[16:19] This would be the elevation facing when
[16:23] you are on Saint Mary's Street.
[16:27] Here you have the proposed rear elevation.
[16:34] And then here you have the proposed side elevation.
[16:38] I wanted to indicate where the proposed roof
[16:41] ridgeline would be.
[16:42] That is marked in red.
[16:44] Then you have the maximum 25ft height limit indicated in blue.
[16:49] I just wanted to highlight that there.
[16:52] The same on this elevation where red is the proposed roof
[16:56] ridgeline, and 25 is where the maximum height is.
[16:59] That is why they are requesting the minor exception for 29ft.
[17:05] Here are proposed renderings that
[17:09] were sent from the applicant.
[17:14] Here are the renderings from the Hillside.
[17:26] I wanted to point out that this lot is on a slope
[17:32] as you can see, that is the approximate location
[17:34] of the site.
[17:35] As you can see on the left image,
[17:37] you have the dwelling units down below by Canyon Way.
[17:42] And then on the image on the right
[17:44] is where the approximate location of the lot is as well.
[17:54] Here, since it is on a Hillside, staff
[17:59] is required to make the design review findings.
[18:02] Those are the design review findings here, and can be found
[18:06] in the resolution as well.
[18:07] To summarize that, the proposed single family dwelling unit
[18:12] incorporates a contemporary architectural style
[18:15] with a design that steps down into the Hillside reducing
[18:18] the massing while maintaining the natural slope
[18:21] of the existing lot.
[18:24] In addition, minor exception findings
[18:27] are required to be found for the height and the project complies
[18:31] with all of the applicable zoning regulations in the R 6.0
[18:35] Zoning District and is consistent with the intent
[18:38] of the zoning district.
[18:39] The majority of the dwelling unit
[18:41] remains below the applicable height unit and the proposed
[18:44] height design and massing are appropriate
[18:46] to the steep Hillside and the conditions of the subject site.
[18:53] We have received for public comments
[18:56] with concerns for the project.
[18:58] The concerns are related to size, height,
[19:01] potential visual impact on the surrounding neighborhood.
[19:05] Oppositions to remove the protected oak trees.
[19:09] Concerns regarding the landslides, soil stability,
[19:12] and the development on the steep Hillside,
[19:17] including concerns with storm water runoff.
[19:21] Concerns about construction equipment.
[19:24] Materials and debris, and the impact to neighbors.
[19:27] Concerns about reviewing the project
[19:31] and the environmental conditions.
[19:34] The concerns that residents did not
[19:36] receive sufficient notice or adequate time
[19:38] to review the project as well.
[19:40] Those were all incorporated in the public comment
[19:46] that was emailed to.
[19:47] I believe public commission has already seen and read those
[19:50] as well.
[19:50] To respond to the comments, the proposed single family dwelling
[19:57] unit includes a step down design to reduce the massing
[19:59] while maintaining the natural slope of the lot it does comply
[20:02] with all applicable development standards,
[20:05] except for the minor exception in height.
[20:07] This lot has been zoned for single family dwelling
[20:11] units and development for many decades,
[20:14] as indicated in the previous resolutions in 1955 and 2005.
[20:21] The arbors report that is also attached and has been prepared,
[20:28] there is a minimal amount of trees being removed.
[20:30] Only what is necessary for the development of the project.
[20:33] There is a condition of approval for the replacement of trees,
[20:36] or in lieu payment consistent with the city standards.
[20:41] The city engineer and a third party peer reviewer
[20:45] has reviewed the geotechnical reports
[20:48] and will satisfied all geotechnical health and safety
[20:52] requirements for the soil stability.
[20:54] Some modifications required are included as conditions
[20:57] of approval as well.
[20:59] Applicants have also submitted a stormwater control plan
[21:03] that has been reviewed by the City Engineer
[21:05] and shall receive approval by the City Engineer
[21:08] prior to construction.
[21:10] Which requires no drainage off site to.
[21:13] Condition of approval number 18 includes conditions
[21:17] for construction activities.
[21:19] The proposed project must follow standard city guidelines
[21:23] and practices.
[21:24] Public notices have, and are sent ten days prior
[21:30] to the meeting consistent with state law as well.
[21:34] Categorical exemptions under CEQA may apply to the project
[21:40] so a full Environmental impact report is not required.
[21:45] With that being said, there are additional conditions
[21:49] of approval.
[21:50] One is to include a hold harmless agreement.
[21:55] The applicant shall enter into a hold harmless agreement
[21:59] with the city consistent with condition of approval number C
[22:05] 12.
[22:06] The approval with prior resolution 61-78.
[22:09] Hold harness agreement shall be reviewed
[22:12] by the city Engineer and City Attorney
[22:13] and must be executed prior to issuance of a building permit
[22:17] and or site development permit.
[22:19] The second additional condition of approval
[22:23] will be the geotechnical report revisions.
[22:25] The applicant shall incorporate all requested edits provided
[22:29] by BSK associates in their letter dated August 21st 2026,
[22:34] in response to geotechnical report provided
[22:36] by the applicant.
[22:37] Subject to approval by the City engineer,
[22:40] or designee, prior to issuance of a building permit
[22:43] and or a site development permit.
[22:47] With that being said, my recommendation is to conduct
[22:50] a public hearing and adopt planning Commission Resolution
[22:54] number 26-ten, approving a request for design review,
[22:57] a minor exception, and a tree permit to construct a new 3712
[23:02] square foot single family dwelling unit,
[23:05] to increase the maximum permitted height to 29ft,
[23:08] where 25ft is permitted, and to remove two protected trees
[23:12] located on a vacant and unaddressed parcel on Saint
[23:15] Mary's Street in the residential 6.0 Zoning District.
[23:21] With that, I can answer any questions.
[23:27] >> Thank you very much for that report.
[23:29] Definitely gives us additional context for the briefing
[23:31] that we received previously.
[23:33] And it gives us some context for your findings.
[23:35] I also want to mention to the Commission
[23:38] that we keep in mind to tailor your questions to the findings.
[23:44] That is what we are voting on this evening.
[23:47] The findings provided to us by staff.
[23:49] A couple of things that just jump out
[23:53] at me, based upon my background, that I wanted to briefly go over
[23:56] with you.
[23:57] You did mention the slope requirement.
[24:01] Looking at the slope, it is El Nino year.
[24:04] If you could just briefly mention what some of the swipe
[24:12] BMPs that might address the site in itself
[24:15] and that may put some folks minds at ease.
[24:21] >> That is a good question.
[24:22] They did work with the city engineer
[24:23] and sent that information over.
[24:25] I would like the applicant to answer that question when
[24:28] it is their turn to speak.
[24:30] >> All right.
[24:31] I will hold that question for them.
[24:33] And I think most of my questions for modifications come fire,
[24:36] and things like that I will hold for the applicant.
[24:39] Does anyone have any?
[24:44] >> Is part of the construction safety standards by Martinez
[24:48] including an erosion control plan during construction.
[24:53] >> There is a condition of approval for erosion control
[24:56] measures -- measurements.
[24:58] I think that will be determined by the city engineer >>
[25:05] That is also usually addressed during the site development
[25:07] permit, which is usually the grading permit.
[25:11] >> Thank you.
[25:17] >> Can you explain requires no drainage off site.
[25:23] >> That is typically a requirement in most
[25:25] of the conditions of approval.
[25:28] Any storm water runoff should not
[25:30] be drained into a neighboring property.
[25:34] So since they are on the downslope,
[25:36] the requirement would be to not have any of that stormwater
[25:40] runoff into the property below the project site.
[25:47] >> It is going to go to the city system?
[25:51] >> Correct.
[25:53] >> Thank you.
[25:59] >> What would an acceptable In-lieu tree replacement
[26:01] include?
[26:06] >> The in lieu fee payment is included in our city user fee
[26:11] schedule.
[26:11] I don't have it up right now.
[26:13] Typically, if -- they have the two options of paying that
[26:18] payment.
[26:19] It is on our website and online.
[26:21] Or they could replace those trees
[26:23] and put two other trees on site in a different area.
[26:27] >> Two other trees of similar species come a different species
[26:30] come a recommended by the city?
[26:33] >> Recommended by the city.
[26:34] We have a recommended tree list where
[26:36] they can pick trees from this.
[26:38] I believe it has to be a certain size.
[26:41] 15 inch box at the minimum.
[26:45] >> Just a small clarification.
[26:47] It is a 15 gallon tree and the city's in lieu fee
[26:51] is $270 per tree.
[26:55] >> However, it would be the commission's purview if you
[26:58] wanted to specify a very specific species other than what
[27:00] is included on the list, or if you feel because of the project
[27:03] that additional mitigation is warranted.
[27:07] >> Is it possible to relocate the existing trees?
[27:12] >> It would be up to the Planning Commission if that is
[27:15] something.
[27:16] >> Trees of that size, normally there would be a concern about
[27:20] their survival, if you go to move a tree of that age.
[27:23] It is not guaranteed.
[27:25] It is not something I would recommend attempting to do.
[27:31] >> Just looking at turning over all of these stones.
[27:34] Thank you.
[27:37] >> I was also going to ask a similar question regarding
[27:41] possible conditions of approval on these specific trees.
[27:44] I don't know much about California oaks,
[27:47] but I imagine that the trees on the list that the city have
[27:51] are drought resistant.
[27:53] California being native, it probably is on that list.
[27:58] >> That is correct.
[27:59] Native and drought tolerant would be
[28:01] many of the trees on the list.
[28:04] They have already also been approved.
[28:06] They were rooted and approved by other certified arborists
[28:10] and the fire department as well.
[28:18] >> Just to follow up on the trees.
[28:19] Usually it is a mitigation.
[28:22] If you remove something.
[28:24] Usually the mitigation is not a ratio of 1 to 1
[28:29] it is usually 2 to 1 or 3 to 1.
[28:32] So where do we stand on that?
[28:36] >> Let me grab the conditions of approval.
[28:38] But it depends on the size.
[28:40] If it is a smaller tree, it would be a ratio of 1 to 1.
[28:44] If it is a larger tree based on diameter of the tree,
[28:49] then it would be 2 to 1.
[28:51] But it is listed in the conditions of approval.
[28:54] If you would like I can grab that for you.
[28:57] >> That replacement ratio comes directly from the city's tree
[29:00] protection ordinance.
[29:08] >> Is it 1 to 1 then?
[29:13] >> It is one replacement tree for trees that are smaller than
[29:15] 24in in diameter.
[29:17] Trees that are larger than 24in in diameter require 215 gallon
[29:22] sized trees.
[29:23] But again, because this is a discretionary project,
[29:26] the commission could ask for additional mitigation measures,
[29:29] or alternative mitigation measures,
[29:31] if you think it is appropriate.
[29:34] >> To add on to that, in condition number seven,
[29:37] 215 gallon tree replacements.
[29:39] In the arborist report it does include
[29:41] the size of the diameter.
[29:42] That is why it is only two.
[29:50] >> In California and coast live Oaks are included
[29:52] as a recommended species.
[29:55] >> I have one question for staff.
[29:57] Is there any kind of vegetation plan
[29:58] that is going to be proposed on the remaining soil.
[30:02] That is quite a bit of bare land there once it is constructed.
[30:09] >> A landscape plan is submitted and included as a part of it.
[30:15] That will be something that staff will review.
[30:18] >> Okay.
[30:19] And did you say there is an Adu incorporated?
[30:23] >> No.
[30:23] No Adu.
[30:24] This is just a single family dwelling unit.
[30:29] >> Okay.
[30:30] Thank you.
[30:36] >> Do you have any more questions?
[30:37] Anyone else?
[30:39] Thank you comment staff.
[30:41] I believe the applicant has a presentation for us.
[30:58] >> Howard if you could please talk to the commission and use
[31:00] the microphone come up >> I have been your neighbor for 25 years.
[31:06] I'm a homeowner on Rowland Hills Drive.
[31:08] I went to study architecture when dinosaurs
[31:12] ruled Mac roamed the earth.
[31:15] I was lucky enough to be influenced by the greatest
[31:19] American architect Franklin Rice who
[31:22] was an espoused organic architecture.
[31:25] Meaning the house is the part of the surroundings.
[31:27] One thing really stood sure.
[31:30] This is not my first Hillside home.
[31:32] But I stuck to his rule.
[31:35] The house shouldn't be on the hill Comei
[31:38] the house should be of the hill.
[31:39] And that is what we have done.
[31:40] This is not ego but in my opinion com
[31:43] a mission accomplished here.
[31:44] There is a lot of excavation that wants to go into the hill.
[31:51] I want to show you something.
[31:52] I'm going to show you the area that is over the height limit.
[31:55] It is a very small area.
[31:57] Here is the garage.
[32:01] >> Howard comment if you can please stay at the microphone.
[32:04] Thank you.
[32:08] Howard comment in order for the public online
[32:11] to be able to hear comment we need
[32:12] you to stay at the microphone.
[32:20] >> I am with you and I am hearing Mac I'm always here
[32:23] for any questions any time.
[32:24] My website is Howard architect.com
[32:26] and I am local like you are.
[32:28] Thank you very much.
[32:29] I appreciate it.
[32:32] >> Stay at the microphone come on Howard.
[32:34] Thank you.
[32:37] We are going to have a couple of questions
[32:39] for you come up particularly about the design itself.
[32:43] What sort of fire mitigation measures
[32:46] are you going to be taking for this home.
[32:49] >> The house will be fire Sprinklered off of a domestic
[32:52] system.
[32:55] That is the code requirement.
[32:57] >> I was just going to add that I believe it is in the fire
[33:01] severity zone comment which would require that the project
[33:03] comply with wildland interface code which is additional fire
[33:09] sprinkling and other fire mitigation.
[33:11] It is part of building code.
[33:14] >> And I assume there will be some sort of natural barrier
[33:19] going around the property to mitigate fire as well.
[33:24] >> The exterior materials to.
[33:26] Noncombustible stucco and the roof is metal.
[33:29] No wood .
[33:32] We have done our best there.
[33:34] The paving is permeable.
[33:36] It -- I think my client can talk to the stormwater retention
[33:43] better than I can.
[33:44] But we are going to great lengths to that to.
[33:47] Pages and pages.
[33:49] >> Do you have your client present that can brief us.
[33:53] What is your name, sir.
[33:57] Can you approach the microphone and briefly describe
[34:00] the Swipp mitigation plan.
[34:08] >> Good evening everyone.
[34:12] >> Can you briefly describe the plan related to the severity
[34:14] of the slope at this site.
[34:18] >> The civil engineer in coordination with
[34:21] the geotechnical, atom is the civil engineer and Peter
[34:26] and Ross and Patrick are my geotechnical engineers.
[34:31] This, by the way, happens to be the third geotechnical engineer
[34:36] who said this lot can be developed.
[34:39] The first one was William Langbehn .
[34:45] He said that 25 years ago.
[34:47] Peter, Mr. Ross and Patrick Drummond
[34:51] did the testing last year.
[34:54] The testing and all of the details
[34:56] and said it can be developed.
[34:58] And then we got Adam and his team
[35:01] who are the civil engineers and the draining.
[35:04] As far as the water drainage is concerned,
[35:06] all of the water that is coming down in any storm
[35:13] in the impermeable area, which is roughly 2500ft²,
[35:23] will all be caught.
[35:26] All of the water from the roof will be taken into pipes
[35:30] and diverted into concrete box , which is slightly over 1800
[35:40] gallons.
[35:40] And he did a hydrology report, looking
[35:44] at a 100 year study of the storms and peak drainage,
[35:49] and peak rainfall.
[35:51] The maximum amount of the concrete box
[35:56] that we needed to retain the water was 1200 gallons.
[36:01] We are about above two times the amount of what we would require.
[36:09] That concrete box will be in the lowest deck around the pool
[36:13] area.
[36:14] It will catch all of the water and that will then
[36:18] be drained down.
[36:19] There is a 50 foot easement at the side of lot 71, which I own.
[36:27] That will go straight down to the city stormwater drainage
[36:36] system.
[36:36] There will be no water that will be going down over the slopes.
[36:41] As far as the house is concerned,
[36:44] they recommended ten foot drilled spiral concrete Piers
[36:52] for the foundation which will then
[36:54] be anchored into the granite.
[36:58] The granite is below the clay.
[37:01] The clay is about 24ft.
[37:04] We will drill through that and drill an additional ten feet.
[37:08] The concrete Piers will be 24 to 35ft deep into the granite
[37:16] bedrock.
[37:16] That is for the stability of the house.
[37:23] >> Thank you for that.
[37:25] That takes care of rainfall after construction.
[37:28] During construction, particularly, we
[37:31] mentioned erosion control.
[37:32] There being a concern with the amount of sediment
[37:34] that is going to be carried by the rainfall this winter.
[37:37] Particularly post removing the trees,
[37:41] if it is approved to move forward.
[37:43] What have your consultants told you
[37:46] about their mitigation for the additional erosion?
[37:50] >> Excellent question.
[37:51] Peter said we are going to start in May.
[37:53] We are not going to build during the rainy season
[37:55] at all because we just don't want to get into that problem.
[37:59] Then we will have the landscape architect and engineer involved,
[38:03] including the civil engineer, and Peter and Patrick.
[38:07] We have Peter who is the geotechnical engineer.
[38:11] Patrick is a geologist who will mitigate all of the drainage
[38:16] with the civil engineer.
[38:18] Any issues that would come up.
[38:21] We are going to build from May and hopefully
[38:24] we should be putting up the framing within another three
[38:28] months of that period so we will be in the dry season
[38:31] predominantly throughout the building.
[38:33] >> And what is your current total timeline to finish
[38:37] construction?
[38:40] >> If I start in May, we will say 6 to 9 months.
[38:45] >> 6 to 9 months until completion.
[38:47] Okay.
[38:50] That is very fast.
[38:54] >> It may go longer.
[38:55] If it goes a year, we will be out of the peak rainy
[38:59] season for the most important part, which is the foundation.
[39:03] >> When you are digging.
[39:04] Okay.
[39:05] The only remaining question that I
[39:08] had was regarding the additional lot that you say that you owned.
[39:13] This may be a little too prudent since you may have not thought
[39:18] about it yet.
[39:19] Do you have any plans of building on that additional lot?
[39:23] >> At the current time I just want to keep it.
[39:26] I love gardening.
[39:27] At the current time that is my plan.
[39:33] But even in the gardening, I have
[39:37] to look at the counter cost.
[39:38] The county has a whole list of drought tolerant native plants
[39:43] for this environment.
[39:44] I also have to consult with the landscape architect
[39:48] to make sure that whatever plants we used
[39:52] will retain the soil and the slope and hold it together.
[39:57] So that is very important.
[39:58] And then you have the problem of gophers to.
[40:01] My neighbor said she has them.
[40:04] They are digging them up.
[40:06] I have to find gopher resistant plants.
[40:08] >> That it was going to be my next question.
[40:10] It has to do with biology.
[40:13] You mentioned having a geotechnical consultant.
[40:16] Have you had a biologist come out?
[40:21] >> I have the arborist.
[40:22] But not a biologist.
[40:25] >> I have built all over the state of California.
[40:27] There is always concerns with protected species.
[40:29] Particularly on a lot such as yours that is undeveloped.
[40:33] If you haven't had a biologist come out to make sure
[40:38] that you don't have any protected species on the land,
[40:40] that might be something that gets
[40:42] included with the conditions of approval.
[40:45] From taking a look at it myself, it
[40:47] is highly possible that there might be something like that.
[40:51] It is something you will have to look into.
[40:53] I think I have taken up a lot of time asking my questions.
[40:56] Does anyone else have any questions
[40:59] for the client or their architect?
[41:05] >> I have a question.
[41:06] What triggered the height increase
[41:08] that is being proposed around the garage period
[41:10] can you talk through that?
[41:14] >> Yes.
[41:15] The first drawings we did, we used another architect
[41:17] and at that time it was a similar size.
[41:20] It turned out to be one massive box.
[41:23] As they said it was a very boxy house.
[41:29] So then we got Howard who has a lot of experience
[41:33] building the house tiered and stacked into the slope.
[41:40] What was your question?
[41:44] >> To make us understand the reason behind the request
[41:47] for the four foot height >> Whenever we tried to go below
[41:53] the 25ft.
[41:55] The four feet, there were several things we had to do.
[41:59] The garage was stepped up to the side.
[42:02] If we drop the garage four feet, then the height of the garage
[42:05] would go to only seven feet, which is impractical.
[42:09] If we raised it, and the second thing
[42:14] was if we drop the garage down, also the slope
[42:17] became a treacherous 25% slope entering into the garage.
[42:22] Anything more than 15% -- that was asking for every car to have
[42:29] an accident.
[42:30] That was the reason.
[42:31] So we had to increase the ceiling height only
[42:37] at that portion, as Howard was trying to say.
[42:40] It was probably within a ten foot area
[42:42] where it goes above the height limit.
[42:46] The rest of it is all below.
[42:48] 25ft.
[42:50] >> Thank you.
[42:55] >> Whenever we have work in an area such as this,
[42:58] where there is already residential is, --
[43:01] residential communities with people living there
[43:03] because there's always a concern.
[43:05] What additional steps are you taking in terms of construction,
[43:07] to minimize the noise and impact to the surrounding area?
[43:14] >> I'm going to set up a boundary both for safety
[43:17] and also so that everything will be enclosed.
[43:22] That is what we will do.
[43:23] We will also follow the city ordinance, which is,
[43:27] I believe if I'm not mistaken, from 7:00 AM until 6:00 PM.
[43:31] We will not be working every day.
[43:33] 7:00 AM until 6:00 pm.
[43:35] There are some days we will a week or two
[43:38] and then others will be much shorter times.
[43:41] It will vary.
[43:42] But those are what will follow the city ordinance.
[43:46] We are not going to be working after hours or on weekends.
[43:50] >> No weekend work, no after hours work.
[43:52] And you are going to have traffic mitigation,
[43:56] traffic control there as >> Yes.
[44:01] It is a quiet cul de sac at the end of the street,
[44:03] but absolutely.
[44:07] >> I have one question to ask regarding construction trucks
[44:09] and vehicles during construction.
[44:10] Many times you will have as many as four or 5 or 6 vehicles
[44:15] up there at a time during framing and foundation,
[44:18] and so forth.
[44:19] Do you have any kind of accommodations for parking?
[44:24] >> Yes, correct.
[44:25] I'm going to create the driveway first
[44:27] and that will be the staging area.
[44:28] That is a significant size.
[44:30] All of the contractors have said that should
[44:32] be more than enough for parking and for equipment
[44:36] as we move in stages.
[44:47] >> Is that it?
[44:49] >> A super El Nino is coming.
[44:51] It is probably going to be here tomorrow or later.
[44:53] Do you think there is going to be damage
[44:56] to the property during El Nino?
[45:01] >> We are going to build after the rainy season.
[45:04] >> Before you start construction is there a possibility there
[45:06] could be some damage because of the amount of rain that is >> I
[45:16] don't think so because the lot has been there since 1955 and we
[45:18] have had bouts of heavy rain come and everything.
[45:23] And we have never had it.
[45:26] But if there is any, we will fix it and repair it.
[45:29] But I don't anticipate.
[45:30] And all of the vegetation there has been there.
[45:34] Like all of the oak trees there.
[45:36] I love nature and gardening.
[45:39] We are going to protect all of them.
[45:42] They are well rooted into the slope.
[45:45] I don't anticipate anything.
[45:49] >> The oak trees will come out when?
[45:53] >> Right at construction >> Will be in May of next year?
[45:58] >> 106in in diameter and the second one is 14in.
[46:02] They are not massive.
[46:06] >> Okay.
[46:07] Thank you.
[46:08] >> Thank you.
[46:10] >> Thank you.
[46:10] We appreciate you answering our questions.
[46:13] >> Thank you.
[46:19] >> As opposed to the houses on Canyon Way when you drive down
[46:22] the street come the houses have two stories in some editions.
[46:27] When you drive up Saint Mary's, you
[46:29] will not be able to see the house from the street,
[46:31] as you are driving up the street.
[46:33] You can only see it when you come up to the cul de sac
[46:35] and come back down Saint Mary's and look this way.
[46:48] >> We will have an opportunity to -- thank you.
[46:50] We will have an opportunity for public comment later.
[46:54] Thank you.
[46:56] We will keep moving along.
[46:59] Thank you, Howard.
[47:00] Is the appellant here?
[47:02] No.
[47:03] Not here.
[47:05] >> There is not an appellant for this project.
[47:08] >> Okay.
[47:09] Fantastic.
[47:10] We will move on to public comment.
[47:12] Those of you that have filled out a speaker card,
[47:15] I will go through the speaker card period
[47:18] please forgive me if I butcher your name.
[47:20] I may just go by first names to make sure.
[47:22] If you have not turned in a speaker card,
[47:25] please turn it in to staff.
[47:27] Thank you very much.
[47:29] Again, we will be limited to three minutes, just based
[47:33] on the sheer volume of speakers that we have tonight.
[47:37] We will move forward.
[47:38] I think that I have three members of the circle --
[47:46] family.
[47:46] Dante, evergreen and Miramar.
[47:53] Sit right there.
[47:55] Each one of you will have three minutes.
[47:59] >> Good evening, commissioners.
[48:01] I'm a resident of Saint Mary's Street.
[48:03] I thank you for allowing me to speak.
[48:04] I am asking you to consider whether this particular project
[48:07] is appropriate for this sensitive Hillside
[48:09] and for the neighborhood that surrounds it.
[48:11] The city's own records documented
[48:13] history of roadway and slope instability
[48:15] on Saint Mary's Street.
[48:17] The current geotechnical report confirms the presence
[48:19] of artificial fill and historical slope concerns
[48:22] yet the proposal does not adequately
[48:24] address the impact of constructing a 3700 square foot
[48:27] three story home come requiring deep Piers,
[48:30] retaining walls, grading, concrete work
[48:32] and heavy equipment.
[48:33] All of that construction traffic must
[48:35] use a narrow residential street with restricted parking
[48:37] and limited room for larger vehicles to stage or maneuver.
[48:40] The city should require detailed construction plan
[48:42] showing where trucks, equipment, deliveries and workers will go.
[48:45] How the roadway will be protected
[48:47] and how emergency access will be maintained at all times.
[48:50] The size of the proposed home is also a concern.
[48:53] I have reviewed 20 homes on Saint Mary's Street and Canyon
[48:56] Way.
[48:56] The average size is approximately 2156ft² of living
[49:01] space.
[49:01] While the largest is about 2900ft² of livable space this
[49:06] proposed home contains 3264ft² of living space,
[49:10] which is over 300ft larger than the largest existing home
[49:13] in more than 1000ft² larger than the neighborhood average.
[49:17] It is also three stories in an area primarily characterized
[49:20] by one and two story homes.
[49:22] Finally, the project requires the removal
[49:23] of two protected coast oaks, including a healthy 31 foot
[49:27] tree.
[49:27] Before removing mature protected trees,
[49:29] the city should determine whether they
[49:31] are truly unavoidable or simply incompatible
[49:34] with these current size and configuration of the house.
[49:37] I might add, now knowing that the fee to remove a protected
[49:41] tree is only $200 and change, it is a sad reflection
[49:44] of how we value the beauty and environment that makes Martinez
[49:47] a wonderful place to live.
[49:50] Commissioners, I ask you to continue or deny
[49:52] this application until these concerns are fully addressed.
[49:55] I ask the applicant to return with a smaller, lower impact
[49:58] design that better fits the neighborhood,
[50:00] protects mature trees, and minimizes impacts to residents
[50:03] and city infrastructure.
[50:05] Thank you.
[50:09] >> Thank you.
[50:17] >> Hello Council people.
[50:19] I am young and I am anxious, but I feel very strongly
[50:22] about this issue.
[50:24] I understand that people need places to build houses.
[50:29] People -- but I also think that the city needs to consider
[50:35] the people who already live here.
[50:37] Especially during construction period the project like this
[50:40] could mean large trucks, construction equipment, noise,
[50:43] parts of these streets being difficult to use.
[50:46] Possible impact to young children or animals that
[50:49] could be sensitive to noise.
[50:52] For families getting to school, doctors
[50:56] and dentist appointments, work in other community services
[51:00] as part of everyday life.
[51:01] I myself am disabled.
[51:03] If the street is blocked, I have no way
[51:06] to adequately access the Alhambra High
[51:09] School that I attend.
[51:11] I cannot walk down the hill because of my disability.
[51:15] It would be incredibly, physically taxing
[51:17] and possibly dangerous.
[51:18] I also have stress induced non-epileptic seizures.
[51:22] It is a legitimate worry for my own health and safety.
[51:27] I worry about the trucks and the roads,
[51:32] and possible medical emergencies like heart attacks, strokes.
[51:37] It is hot here.
[51:38] It is getting hotter every year.
[51:40] People like to go outside and enjoy nature.
[51:44] You don't know what is going to happen.
[51:45] The human body is very unpredictable.
[51:48] The possibility of a unnecessary truck for an unnecessary house
[51:54] blocking necessary medical attention
[51:56] for the people that currently live in the neighborhood
[52:00] is worrying.
[52:01] If approved, I am asking that the city make
[52:04] sure that the people who already live on Saint Mary's Street
[52:09] can safely get where they need to go while construction
[52:12] is happening.
[52:18] >> Thank you.
[52:19] We appreciate you coming out.
[52:28] >> Good evening.
[52:29] Members of the City Council and Planning Commission.
[52:30] I am here tonight to express an opposition to the proposed
[52:33] housing development and specifically
[52:35] to the loss of mature trees and the natural habitat that
[52:39] makes the residential neighborhood unique.
[52:41] This proposal calls for the removal of three trees.
[52:44] Two of which meet the definition of protected trees
[52:48] under Martinez Tree protection policies.
[52:51] The city has adopted these policies
[52:52] for an important reason.
[52:54] Mature trees provide ornamental esthetic and community benefit
[52:58] that cannot simply be replaced by planting a smaller tree
[53:02] or other landscaping.
[53:03] As I understand it the proposed approach essentially
[53:07] allows the developer to either pay,
[53:10] as we have now heard, very minimal fee,
[53:13] or replace the tree with lesser greenery that
[53:16] may take decades to mature.
[53:18] And may never provide the same environmental value
[53:21] as the trees being removed.
[53:23] This is particularly concerning in this neighborhood
[53:25] because it is known for its lush landscape and mature trees.
[53:29] Trees that take decades to grow into the canopy
[53:32] that we see today.
[53:34] These trees are not simply landscaping.
[53:36] They are part of the character and the identity
[53:38] of this neighborhood.
[53:40] They provide shade, privacy, beauty, habitat,
[53:43] and a sense of place that cannot be replaced overnight.
[53:46] The existing trees also support the significant natural habitat
[53:51] for birds and other wildlife.
[53:53] Habitat that is an integral part of this neighborhood,
[53:57] and is closely connected to its existing topography.
[54:01] And landscape.
[54:03] Removing mature trees can disrupt the ecosystem in ways
[54:08] that cannot be adequately addressed,
[54:10] by simply planting replacement greenery and calling it an equal
[54:14] substitute.
[54:15] I recognize that the city of Martinez needs housing.
[54:18] And I support thoughtful development
[54:20] that respects the needs of our community.
[54:23] This development is not what it is.
[54:26] It should not come at an expense of --
[54:30] I am sorry.
[54:32] It should not come at the expense of protection
[54:34] that the city itself has determined
[54:36] necessary to preserve our environment in our neighborhood
[54:39] character.
[54:40] If the city has adopted tree protection and replacement
[54:43] policies, I believe those policies should mean more
[54:46] than providing a financial option when compliance becomes
[54:50] inconvenient.
[54:51] A fine should not become a price of admission
[54:55] for removing protected species.
[54:57] I respectfully ask for the Council and Planning Commission
[55:00] to require the developer to explore
[55:02] every reasonable alternative to preserving these mature trees,
[55:07] and to carefully consider the permanent environment
[55:10] in the neighborhood impact of their removal.
[55:15] >> Thank you very much for coming out.
[55:18] We really appreciate it.
[55:20] And we thank you our daughter.
[55:22] If more young people were civically minded and engaged,
[55:26] it would be better.
[55:37] >> Jim.
[55:42] >> Pardon me.
[55:43] I am pretty stiff from sitting.
[55:44] I'm not used to doing that very often.
[55:46] My first comment, I would ask each of you
[55:49] before you approve this, that you
[55:50] drive through our neighborhood and see this monstrosity mansion
[55:57] that this person wants to build.
[56:01] So out of character for our neighborhood,
[56:03] it is unbelievable.
[56:04] If you saw the neighborhood yourself come at you
[56:06] would look at it and say, this has no place here.
[56:09] It doesn't fit in.
[56:10] All of the houses are small.
[56:11] They are wood in construction.
[56:14] It doesn't blend in.
[56:16] Earlier there was a diagram shown
[56:18] of the house from the distance.
[56:19] My house looks down on that property.
[56:22] As he takes out trees, it's going
[56:25] to impact our view, which has been a country view for the 14
[56:30] years we have lived here.
[56:32] Other neighbors are going to talk about very specific things
[56:34] they are concerned about.
[56:36] I don't mind if somebody builds, but that
[56:38] is just something that is out of sorts with the environment
[56:42] we are in.
[56:43] We have four herds of deer that roam around the neighborhood.
[56:47] We have three different types of owls.
[56:49] We have all sorts of animals that habitat
[56:52] all around the neighborhood.
[56:54] I think this is going to have an impact on that.
[56:56] It is going to have an impact on our bottom line
[56:58] of homeownership.
[56:59] We are going to have to look at this particular house
[57:02] and I don't care what the architect says, because I
[57:06] used to regulate them.
[57:07] I don't believe them most of the time.
[57:10] Any change to the neighborhood is not
[57:12] going to be for the better if it is that size of a house.
[57:15] I just plead with you.
[57:17] Don't settle now.
[57:18] Wait a while.
[57:19] Go visit the neighborhood.
[57:20] You are looking for -- add it yourself and I'm sure you will
[57:23] say, this doesn't fit in with that.
[57:25] The last comment I want to make before I sit down
[57:29] is on the process.
[57:31] We didn't hear about this.
[57:33] We received a letter Wednesday night.
[57:35] This past Wednesday night.
[57:37] Less than a week before this particular body is meeting.
[57:39] I think that is really unfair.
[57:41] We talked to people down the hill on Canyon Way.
[57:44] They said they never received a notice.
[57:46] Maybe they did and they threw it out.
[57:48] They thought it was junk mail or something.
[57:50] But having less than a week.
[57:52] Six days, two of them, city hall is closed,
[57:56] or three because of Saturday, Sunday and Monday.
[57:59] There was nobody we could talk to.
[58:01] I have been going by for months, over a year, actually you're
[58:05] going down for a meeting with Mr. Thomas and saying,
[58:09] what is going on.
[58:10] I was there two weeks before the letter was sent out
[58:13] and he never mentioned watch out because this
[58:15] is going to be coming to your house soon.
[58:18] I don't think he was trying to blindside me or was dishonest
[58:21] but I don't think he understood public meetings
[58:23] and what that means for good governance and building faith.
[58:26] The public and the people that you serve.
[58:28] I think if you do this again, you really
[58:33] should give more notice to people.
[58:35] This hearing could have been held in two weeks
[58:37] and we would have had plenty of time to get the other neighbors
[58:39] around who don't know this is going on,
[58:41] because they have gone on vacation or on holiday.
[58:44] And say this is pretty important.
[58:47] You might want to contribute to the dialog by coming here
[58:50] or writing, or something like that period we were not able
[58:53] to do that. .
[58:56] >> Thank you.
[58:57] >> Thank you for having us here.
[58:59] And thank you for coming.
[59:01] It is good to have young people involved.
[59:03] You are very articulate.
[59:05] Your parents should be very proud.
[59:07] Thank you.
[59:08] All of you.
[59:10] >> Thank you.
[59:10] Next we have Mr. James Miller.
[59:22] >> Good evening.
[59:22] >> You will have three minutes.
[59:24] Thank you.
[59:25] >> My wife and I have lived on Saint Mary's Street for almost
[59:28] 28 years.
[59:29] In that time the changes have been people moving in
[59:32] and people moving on.
[59:33] But no new houses.
[59:35] Let alone anything with the impact
[59:37] of this project on the scale with the rest
[59:40] of the neighborhood.
[59:41] When our next door neighbors Dante and Rena moved in, they
[59:45] wanted to know what it is like moving -- living here.
[59:48] I told them it is peaceful.
[59:50] The Oak woodland.
[59:52] The profusion of songbirds.
[59:53] The quiet hawks and the owls at night.
[59:56] A peaceful.
[59:57] I am here to talk about the trees.
[1:00:02] Sorry, Dante.
[1:00:05] Everybody has already talked about the trees already.
[1:00:09] I don't know how much I need to add
[1:00:11] but I would like to describe what the woodland is like.
[1:00:14] It covers the whole east side of the hill
[1:00:18] along Saint Mary's Street.
[1:00:21] And then it merges with the woodlands in the neighboring
[1:00:27] parklands.
[1:00:28] It is beautiful.
[1:00:30] People walk up our street all of the time for exercise
[1:00:34] and to look at the view.
[1:00:37] And look at the oak trees.
[1:00:39] They are important to us.
[1:00:42] In the arborist report, he evaluated seven trees
[1:00:48] and recommended for preservation and three for removal.
[1:00:53] There are many more trees on the lot that
[1:00:55] were not covered in the report.
[1:00:58] I believe we should have a tree map available
[1:01:04] that shows all of the trees on the lot.
[1:01:07] The arborist report stated that they had narrowed it down
[1:01:17] to three trees for removal.
[1:01:20] They had to be removed because of the direct and unavoidable
[1:01:24] conflict of the proposed new construction.
[1:01:26] They never really talk about whether they attempted any
[1:01:37] alternative methods of construction that would allow --
[1:01:45] that would spare the trees.
[1:01:47] I believe that is actually required by Martinez municipal
[1:01:51] code .
[1:01:54] Which requires developers to exhaust alterations
[1:01:57] before approving any impacts.
[1:02:01] There is no way of knowing from the arborist report
[1:02:03] whether that was actually ever done.
[1:02:06] I would be very interested in seeing
[1:02:08] what the alternative proposals were like,
[1:02:12] and whether they actually did consider downsizing
[1:02:16] as one of the alternatives.
[1:02:19] That is about it.
[1:02:22] They Saint Mary's community has turned out in force.
[1:02:27] We are passionate about preserving
[1:02:31] the semi-rural character of the neighborhood.
[1:02:33] Our trees are really important to us.
[1:02:36] >> Thank you.
[1:02:38] We appreciate it.
[1:02:40] >> Thank you.
[1:02:45] >> Next up, Maria .
[1:02:46] You also have three minutes.
[1:02:56] >> Thank you for having us.
[1:02:58] I appreciate it.
[1:02:58] I wanted to talk about the precedent of it.
[1:03:00] Once you set a precedent, then there are a lot more lots,
[1:03:05] as you know.
[1:03:06] You can look and see.
[1:03:07] Be sure and be careful about what precedent you set.
[1:03:10] Hopefully he is a really honest guy and the lot right next door
[1:03:14] he will keep as a guard in.
[1:03:15] But he doesn't have to.
[1:03:16] Once you set the precedent, it can keep going down the line.
[1:03:20] All the way down.
[1:03:22] It is quiet.
[1:03:23] It is probably 15 lots.
[1:03:25] I don't know.
[1:03:26] There is a lot of space between where he is building
[1:03:29] and where it stops.
[1:03:31] And the problem is, we fill that up, it is huge.
[1:03:35] It is water.
[1:03:37] We all live off of the pump down there.
[1:03:39] I don't know if you know that there is a water
[1:03:41] pump that is pretty old.
[1:03:42] It is more at the bottom.
[1:03:44] The street itself is narrow.
[1:03:47] It wouldn't handle it.
[1:03:49] Most of us don't have a ton of garage space.
[1:03:52] A lot of us park on the street.
[1:03:54] I know for myself, I have three cars.
[1:03:57] I do have a one car garage and I often put one in there.
[1:04:00] But two are on the street.
[1:04:01] That is true for many of the houses.
[1:04:03] There is not a lot of garage space.
[1:04:06] And even nowadays, even if you have a garage,
[1:04:09] it doesn't mean he won't park on the street.
[1:04:11] A lot of people put other stuff in their garage.
[1:04:14] That precedent, once you guys set this precedent,
[1:04:17] then we can have this problem where it just
[1:04:19] keeps going down the line.
[1:04:21] You talked about stormwater and where it is going.
[1:04:24] Each house is going to have to do that.
[1:04:27] I just don't think that Hillside could support
[1:04:30] multiple houses drilled into the granite,
[1:04:34] like he is talking about.
[1:04:36] It is just too much.
[1:04:37] Be careful when you set a precedent.
[1:04:40] Once you say yes to him, you are going to say yes to him
[1:04:44] again on his other lot.
[1:04:45] Then there is a lot next to it and a lot next to it.
[1:04:47] All of a sudden you will get to a point
[1:04:49] where there is going to be a major landslide.
[1:04:52] A major catastrophe with the water supply.
[1:04:55] Something.
[1:04:56] Fire.
[1:04:57] Something is going to happen.
[1:04:58] I just don't think that street can support.
[1:05:01] And I agree with Jim saying, drive over there
[1:05:04] and take a look.
[1:05:05] See for yourself what do you think as far as,
[1:05:09] what can that street support.
[1:05:10] How many houses can that support before you set a precedent
[1:05:14] to allow another house.
[1:05:16] Thank you.
[1:05:19] >> Thank you.
[1:05:21] Next up we have Michael Deckert.
[1:05:24] Did I get that right?
[1:05:30] We appreciate you coming out.
[1:05:34] You will have three minutes.
[1:05:39] >> I have lived in Martinez now for 18 years.
[1:05:42] I am the last new home on Saint Mary's, up at the top.
[1:05:46] I don't know how many of you have had the opportunity
[1:05:48] to come up there and see our street,
[1:05:51] so I am very privileged to be up there.
[1:05:54] I just want to find out how many of you know how
[1:05:59] we get our water to our homes.
[1:06:04] You do?
[1:06:05] We use a pump system.
[1:06:08] That pump system goes out 4 to 6 times a year.
[1:06:13] I call the water department directly from my house to say,
[1:06:17] I can hear the water evacuating through my house
[1:06:21] and going down the hill.
[1:06:25] What you have here, this is nothing
[1:06:28] that I really tried to get together because I didn't
[1:06:30] have time to get it prepped.
[1:06:32] But if you look at the screen, my water pressure
[1:06:35] is barely 40 pounds right now.
[1:06:38] It has always been that way at the top of the hill.
[1:06:43] Like I said come on I have the personal phone number of one
[1:06:47] of the managers who I can call in the middle of the night,
[1:06:51] because I have an advanced sickness that has taken away
[1:06:54] my insides, pretty much.
[1:06:56] He will tell me come on Michael, I will get somebody out
[1:06:59] there immediately.
[1:07:00] What I'm getting at here is, our internal system
[1:07:04] in the underground is antiquated.
[1:07:07] We have had in 18 years, one time where
[1:07:12] we had that system worked on.
[1:07:15] What I am getting at is, how will this new home at 3700ft²
[1:07:19] come on compared to my 2200.
[1:07:23] Water going up a grade, which is what we do,
[1:07:26] lose it's its friction as it goes.
[1:07:28] Our pumps may be 80 pounds down below, but hitting me at 40.
[1:07:33] I just had it confirmed because Jim just put in an Adu.
[1:07:40] Nice four walnut.
[1:07:41] It was approved and everything was done.
[1:07:43] It is a beautiful unit.
[1:07:45] Their current water pressure is 30 pounds
[1:07:48] going through the house.
[1:07:50] Now when you add a house onto the articulation part,
[1:07:55] somewhere down in this area, what
[1:07:58] is it going to do to all of our homes.
[1:08:02] Nobody has answered the water situation.
[1:08:06] My water goes off, like I said, 4 to 6 times per year.
[1:08:14] Not to make it sound funny, but I'm going to try something here.
[1:08:21] Listen to this.
[1:08:26] If I can get it going.
[1:08:33] I would like to send you to what it sounds like in my house.
[1:08:38] I have had three new water heaters
[1:08:41] in 15 years because of mud.
[1:08:44] I have had four refrigerators.
[1:08:46] All new toilets because I dish out mud to get that out.
[1:08:50] The guys have finally done well by helping me out.
[1:08:55] We had a fire eight years ago.
[1:08:58] In our backyard, it was terrible.
[1:09:04] I worry about this too.
[1:09:06] Jim worked so hard.
[1:09:09] >> I really appreciate you bringing it up here
[1:09:12] >> Please consider the water thing.
[1:09:13] It is out of control.
[1:09:16] >> That is a very good point.
[1:09:17] I appreciate you bringing it up.
[1:09:21] Thank you.
[1:09:22] Next up, we have Zach.
[1:09:27] You will also have three minutes.
[1:09:39] >> Thank you.
[1:09:39] My concerns are mainly on the visual aspect.
[1:09:41] I live next to this lot, right adjacent to it.
[1:09:45] I cannot really tell exactly what the size of this is going
[1:09:48] to be.
[1:09:49] I would like to have story poles put up
[1:09:52] to show the size and impact it will have on the view.
[1:09:55] Also, marking the trees that will be removed,
[1:09:58] so we know what impact that will have on the view also.
[1:10:03] I think that would really help us to kind of clear some of that
[1:10:06] up.
[1:10:06] Also, looking for the images that were shown,
[1:10:09] I can't exactly tell which lot it is being built on.
[1:10:12] If this is the lot with the PGA easement or the lot
[1:10:16] further down.
[1:10:17] Some of the images that were shown
[1:10:19] didn't really clarify that.
[1:10:23] My main recommendation would be story poles.
[1:10:32] >> Thank you.
[1:10:33] We appreciate that.
[1:10:34] Next up, we have Peter.
[1:10:37] >> Hello.
[1:10:38] Thanks for having me.
[1:10:39] I keep hearing about the minor exception for the height
[1:10:44] exception.
[1:10:45] And they keep mentioning minor, minor, every time.
[1:10:50] Personally, I have the house that is across the street
[1:10:54] and down, the very last house on the top of the hill
[1:10:58] before we get up into the cul de sac on the top, which is direct.
[1:11:01] This new home would be adjacent this way.
[1:11:05] People keep saying you should come up and see the hill,
[1:11:09] if you haven't.
[1:11:10] It is probably one of the most beautiful views
[1:11:12] in the city of Martinez.
[1:11:15] From my kitchen window, and my living room window,
[1:11:18] I look this way, which is towards that lot,
[1:11:22] and I see Mount Babel and down below that is the John Muir
[1:11:26] House.
[1:11:27] The railroad tracks.
[1:11:28] It is a beautiful view.
[1:11:31] It is the only section like that,
[1:11:33] other than the folks that live up on the top of the cul de sac.
[1:11:36] For the rest of the street, where
[1:11:37] you have that kind of the view.
[1:11:39] Folks come up come up my parents used
[1:11:44] to meet all of the neighbors because everyone would come
[1:11:46] there with their children, with their dogs,
[1:11:49] and stop right there along where the empty lots are.
[1:11:52] That is kind of where the neighborhood gathering
[1:11:54] spot would be.
[1:11:56] People would come up and walk and go up the cul de sac
[1:11:59] at the top and come back down.
[1:12:04] I am very very concerned about this four foot exception.
[1:12:09] And I agree.
[1:12:10] We need to have some story poles before you okay that four foot
[1:12:15] exception.
[1:12:16] Is it going to block the view that we
[1:12:19] have had for a quarter of a century in my family,
[1:12:25] from that spot.
[1:12:26] I honestly believe it is going to block
[1:12:29] the view, which would be devastating for that property.
[1:12:33] For my property.
[1:12:35] I would ask that before you make the exception,
[1:12:39] maybe come visit the street.
[1:12:42] At the very least come and we do need to see the story
[1:12:45] poles put up so that we can see what it actually
[1:12:47] is going to be blocking.
[1:12:49] And again, as far as the animals go,
[1:12:51] that is where they all come up from the street.
[1:12:54] Right through their.
[1:12:55] That open area in the bottom.
[1:12:58] The deer, wild turkeys, foxes.
[1:13:01] All of the animals that come up around that, which
[1:13:06] makes it wonderful up there.
[1:13:08] You will see the deer trail and come across coming
[1:13:12] to the back behind my house.
[1:13:14] I am really worried that it is going to really affect
[1:13:17] the quality of life.
[1:13:19] In the future.
[1:13:20] And again, once you make the exception,
[1:13:23] and he does own the next lot right there and there is another
[1:13:27] lot that would be directly --
[1:13:30] there is a lot directly across from me, a lot here and his lot
[1:13:33] here.
[1:13:34] Which is Mount Babel.
[1:13:36] I am very concerned about that.
[1:13:39] Hopefully you would consider that.
[1:13:41] Thank you.
[1:13:43] >> Thank you, Peter.
[1:13:45] Next up we have Mark.
[1:13:55] >> Good evening.
[1:13:56] I would like to thank the members
[1:13:57] of the committee for your time and attention to this matter.
[1:14:00] My name is Mark and I reside at the end of the cul de sac
[1:14:03] at Saint Mary's.
[1:14:03] My grandfather is a fireman in San Francisco
[1:14:06] for his whole career.
[1:14:07] He instilled in me the essence of fast response
[1:14:10] during his duties.
[1:14:11] What is proposed for with the subject construction
[1:14:13] raises very real concerns regarding
[1:14:15] the ability of multiple large fire and emergency vehicles
[1:14:18] during the construction period, to reach
[1:14:21] the end of Saint Mary's Street.
[1:14:23] With street parking also, after completion pier keeping in mind,
[1:14:27] Saint Mary's Street is the only access
[1:14:29] for the homes on the end of the cul de sac.
[1:14:32] Once vehicles and construction materials parked and stored
[1:14:36] on the street during construction, which
[1:14:38] may take months to complete, another concern
[1:14:42] would be overflowing street parking from the subject
[1:14:46] residence after completion, making it difficult
[1:14:48] or hampering first responder vehicles
[1:14:51] heading up Saint Mary's Street.
[1:14:53] And, the issue of hampered rapid exit.
[1:14:58] If we need to grab our grab and go bags and get out of there.
[1:15:02] Any obstacles are going to be a problem.
[1:15:07] One item I want to bring up, that the gentleman talked about,
[1:15:12] hampering traffic access during the construction period.
[1:15:16] He said that he was going to build the driveway first.
[1:15:19] There has been minor construction
[1:15:20] on Saint Mary's Street over the past year or so.
[1:15:23] I can tell you that there is no way a driveway is going
[1:15:28] to fit cement mixtures, sheetrock, lumber,
[1:15:31] all of these stuff that is going to be stored on the street
[1:15:34] during the construction process.
[1:15:36] That is not an answer.
[1:15:39] That is all that I have to say.
[1:15:42] Thank you for your time.
[1:15:46] >> Thank you.
[1:15:46] We appreciate you coming out tonight.
[1:15:48] Last we have Barbara.
[1:15:57] >> My name is Barbara Moy.
[1:15:58] I'm a resident in property owner at the top of the cul de sac.
[1:16:01] A lot of things were mentioned.
[1:16:03] I most concerned about Swipp stability.
[1:16:08] After 50 or 60 years of instability.
[1:16:11] Over the period of time the city spent a lot of time and money
[1:16:14] trying to stabilize the slope in two phases.
[1:16:17] There are cracks in the roadway right now.
[1:16:20] A couple of years ago, the roadway was redone.
[1:16:25] I see feathering cracks.
[1:16:27] When the building is built, there
[1:16:29] is more pressure on the hill.
[1:16:33] There was a project applicant hired a geotechnical engineering
[1:16:40] firm, which he mentioned today.
[1:16:42] He also identified many, many things
[1:16:44] which identified conditions of approval.
[1:16:48] Things that needed to be done to make sure the Hillside
[1:16:50] was stable.
[1:16:51] That included specific types of fill.
[1:16:54] The type of compaction they are going to use on the soil.
[1:16:58] Construction methods.
[1:17:00] How the foundation should be built. What the finished grade
[1:17:02] should be.
[1:17:03] They did mention piles.
[1:17:05] Subsurface preparation.
[1:17:07] Handling of Rainwater during construction pier
[1:17:10] even though we have a document that
[1:17:12] says it is provided by the technical engineer
[1:17:16] double geotechnical engineer.
[1:17:17] How do we make sure that the city enforces every part
[1:17:20] of those recommendations.
[1:17:22] You mentioned earlier a firm called BSK.
[1:17:25] Is that the third party Geotech.
[1:17:27] Okay.
[1:17:27] Thank you.
[1:17:28] I wanted to understand that.
[1:17:29] I want to know what due diligence happens
[1:17:32] during the actual review of the plans from site prep,
[1:17:37] to grading, to actual construction,
[1:17:39] and how that is controlled.
[1:17:41] Have we done due diligence and looked at the compaction rates.
[1:17:46] There is pre-construction.
[1:17:47] There is during construction and post construction.
[1:17:50] What is the due diligence we have for testing materials.
[1:17:54] Testing the appropriate compaction.
[1:17:57] And we talked about Rainwater.
[1:18:00] Another suggestion was the Rainwater system --
[1:18:04] system be maintained throughout its life if the property is
[1:18:07] sold, we have to ensure that the Rainwater system , grading,
[1:18:13] and water flow is maintained.
[1:18:14] I want to make sure the city is doing due diligence,
[1:18:17] if the project is approved, that everything
[1:18:20] is watched like hawks.
[1:18:23] Thank >> Thank you, Barbara.
[1:18:27] Is there anyone else that did not
[1:18:29] fill out a speaker card, that wishes to speak on this item.
[1:18:33] Is there anyone online?
[1:18:45] >> There are no hands raised.
[1:18:47] >> Okay.
[1:18:48] We will officially close public comment on this agenda item.
[1:18:53] Now we move on to the part of our evening where we
[1:18:57] as a commission -- >> Chair, before closing the public
[1:19:01] comment period the applicant does get an opportunity
[1:19:04] to respond to any of the public comments that were made as part
[1:19:06] of the item.
[1:19:07] They get up to five minutes.
[1:19:09] >> I will reopen public comment to allow for the client
[1:19:12] to answer any of the questions that he heard this evening from
[1:19:16] the public.
[1:19:24] >> Thank you very much future neighbors.
[1:19:25] I appreciate and I am glad you are also disabled like I am.
[1:19:32] I am a retired physician.
[1:19:34] I practiced for 40 years.
[1:19:36] I have a -- had a stroke.
[1:19:39] That is why I walk with a cane and this is my disabled house
[1:19:42] that I'm going to be living in with me and my wife.
[1:19:44] We just have one daughter, 21 years old, who is at UCLA law.
[1:19:49] We just have three occupants in the house.
[1:19:52] Two cars.
[1:19:53] 99% of the time.
[1:19:55] Only 5% of the car our daughter comes home from UCLA.
[1:20:00] We will a third car be parked on the driveway.
[1:20:04] I am a physician.
[1:20:06] Retired physician.
[1:20:07] And obviously I would never block any emergency vehicles
[1:20:12] or cars, or a driveway, or any normal person
[1:20:18] would never block anybody going down the end of the road.
[1:20:23] That should alleviate your concerns.
[1:20:27] I two, like the 19,000 homes that are in this community,
[1:20:32] out of which 200, by the way, are more than 3500ft²,
[1:20:38] and 120 of them are also more than 3500ft²,
[1:20:44] built on sloping lots in Martinez.
[1:20:48] I am looking for an approval for this project.
[1:20:52] I have no problems complying with anybody's concerns.
[1:20:57] It goes through the city.
[1:20:59] They say yes, this makes sense.
[1:21:01] We follow international building codes.
[1:21:03] We follow California building codes.
[1:21:05] The 40 psi water is actually a normal pressure in the house.
[1:21:11] Put my number says if it ever drops
[1:21:13] he will add a booster pump.
[1:21:15] There is an answer to any problem or solution.
[1:21:20] I can not 100% guarantee that you will
[1:21:24] have 100% view of the mountain.
[1:21:29] I am risking building my house and somebody may
[1:21:32] come next door and next door and try to get another view.
[1:21:38] Just like my current home in Las Vegas, when I moved in
[1:21:42] I was the only house.
[1:21:44] I had 360 degree view.
[1:21:47] 260 -- 270 degree has been blocked off.
[1:21:51] I have no complaint.
[1:21:52] They have every right to live in that community
[1:21:56] because that is the purpose of those lots they are there
[1:22:00] for people to buy and build upon.
[1:22:03] That is how these lots are they are there for people
[1:22:08] to buy and build upon.
[1:22:10] That is exactly what I did.
[1:22:11] The problem with these smaller homes
[1:22:14] is exactly what I told you what happened here the box size.
[1:22:18] It drops at 25 degrees.
[1:22:19] If any one of you can come up with an answer
[1:22:22] to a driveway which is going to be less than 15% slope,
[1:22:26] two stories, I would have Howard redraw that house no problem.
[1:22:31] It is only me and my wife.
[1:22:33] We can live in a two story home.
[1:22:35] The other reason is because I have Parkinson's and I'm
[1:22:40] looking towards the future.
[1:22:42] Every hallway Howard has made in the house is bigger.
[1:22:45] Every room is bigger.
[1:22:47] Every bathroom is bigger.
[1:22:49] Everything is looking forward to me being in a wheelchair,
[1:22:53] possibly, permanently.
[1:22:55] That is what it is.
[1:22:57] With that, I hope you will approve
[1:22:59] come out with conditions.
[1:23:02] It doesn't matter.
[1:23:03] It can have conditions A B C and D and we will follow it.
[1:23:08] And I thank you.
[1:23:10] >> Thank you.
[1:23:11] We appreciate you coming back up.
[1:23:12] I am sorry to hear about your Parkinson's.
[1:23:14] It is truly a horrible disease.
[1:23:17] Staff, do we need to open it back up for public comment.
[1:23:24] >> You can now close the public comment portion.
[1:23:27] >> We will now close public comment.
[1:23:29] To the rest of my commissioners, and to the public,
[1:23:35] we are all residents of this community.
[1:23:38] We are all your neighbors.
[1:23:40] Like you all we care deeply about the city.
[1:23:44] We are all volunteers here trying
[1:23:45] to look out for what is best for all of us.
[1:23:49] We are all parents here we have children that go to our schools.
[1:23:53] We are limited in what the authority is that we have.
[1:23:59] We have to very stringently look at the findings that
[1:24:03] have been provided to us.
[1:24:05] That is what we have to vote on this evening.
[1:24:08] Listening to all of you, and being
[1:24:10] a member of this community, I have
[1:24:13] been up in that area in the past before.
[1:24:15] It is beautiful.
[1:24:17] And I do share many of the concerns that you have.
[1:24:21] Particularly related to the wildlife that is there.
[1:24:25] The water pressure.
[1:24:27] And also understand the need for story poles.
[1:24:30] But I do want to open it up to the rest of this body
[1:24:34] to hear what you all think.
[1:24:36] Do you share the same concerns.
[1:24:38] What are your thoughts?
[1:24:43] >> I will start out.
[1:24:46] I appreciate the work that the architect and the applicant
[1:24:50] has done in this project.
[1:24:52] I have always been an advocate that I am not
[1:24:55] so much against size of homes, but how it fits into the site.
[1:25:01] The site is -- you can make a small house look big and a big
[1:25:05] house look small.
[1:25:06] It is just a matter of how you approach it.
[1:25:09] I would like to see story poles put up here
[1:25:12] from a standpoint of actually seeing
[1:25:15] the massing of the house and the views that would be eliminated.
[1:25:18] But also I would like to see the actual droop lines --
[1:25:24] drip lines from those trees.
[1:25:26] Some are showing a five foot drip line.
[1:25:28] You may have a more accurate description of that.
[1:25:30] I hope the applicant put an elevator in the house
[1:25:34] because using with using a cane, that is probably
[1:25:37] a necessary thing to have in the house.
[1:25:39] As far as the water pressure, I can appreciate that.
[1:25:42] On all hillsides, there are pumping stations.
[1:25:46] I suggest the gentleman that mentioned about the water.
[1:25:50] I hope you have a backflow preventer on your house.
[1:25:53] Otherwise your water goes down the hill, which is required.
[1:25:57] But I can appreciate when you are pumping station goes out.
[1:26:00] I live in a property on the Hillside.
[1:26:02] When the pumping station goes out my water pressure
[1:26:04] is not enough to brush my teeth.
[1:26:06] I can understand that.
[1:26:08] That is my concern.
[1:26:10] The story poles, to let everybody see it.
[1:26:14] I know the street very well and the cul de sac.
[1:26:17] The parking issues.
[1:26:18] I would also ask one other thing is the staging plan of what
[1:26:22] it does during construction.
[1:26:23] Just for purposes of construction vehicles,
[1:26:25] and so forth.
[1:26:27] I know that is asking a lot for the parking,
[1:26:30] creating a parking area for cars,
[1:26:32] but that is usually the number one
[1:26:33] complaint during construction.
[1:26:35] A lot of cities are now requesting, just
[1:26:37] for the sake of the neighbors, so they
[1:26:40] don't have to be worried about people parking
[1:26:42] and taking up the whole block in front
[1:26:44] of their house and their street.
[1:26:45] Especially on a cul de sac area.
[1:26:47] That would be my comment on that.
[1:26:57] >> It was mentioned about how the city and forced
[1:27:01] the conditions in the geological report can you explain how that
[1:27:06] is done.
[1:27:06] For me and for the audience.
[1:27:16] >> I think it is in the applicant's best interest
[1:27:18] to ensure that their house does not collapse.
[1:27:21] More importantly, more relevant is,
[1:27:26] there will be building permits submitted to the city.
[1:27:28] The city will review it and the engineering division
[1:27:30] who is responsible for reviewing the peer review and the soils
[1:27:34] report and the Geotech report will review the building permit
[1:27:36] to ensure that the designs are consistent with what is provided
[1:27:40] in those reports, and while construction is underway there,
[1:27:45] there are continuous inspections by our building division
[1:27:50] that will ensure that foundations
[1:27:52] and other components of the project
[1:27:54] are consistent with what is shown on the plans.
[1:27:59] >> Thank you.
[1:28:02] I concur with fellow commissioner
[1:28:04] about the story poles.
[1:28:06] I think that should be done.
[1:28:08] And actually, personally I would love to see the site.
[1:28:12] I can do it on my own.
[1:28:14] But I think it is a really good idea to see that.
[1:28:18] And also, someone mentioned three map here can that be done?
[1:28:25] There are more trees than we have talked about.
[1:28:30] >> On the site there is a site plan that includes all
[1:28:33] of the trees that are currently there and what is being proposed
[1:28:36] to be removed.
[1:28:38] >> Also, the arborist report might not specifically mention
[1:28:42] all of the trees.
[1:28:44] That is likely because they are not in proximity to the home.
[1:28:49] Therefore, will not be affected by the actual project.
[1:28:52] Perhaps they just were not included
[1:28:55] for that specific reason.
[1:28:56] But all of the trees are at least mapped on the site plan.
[1:29:02] >> Thank you.
[1:29:21] >> Based upon what some of the commissioners have inquired
[1:29:24] about, I think there has been some comments by the public
[1:29:34] related to limiting development on this particular lot I think
[1:29:38] it is important to mention that this area has been zoned
[1:29:43] for residential development.
[1:29:45] Sometimes this body, we do get an opportunity,
[1:29:48] when staff brings it to us.
[1:29:50] And there is a question of rezoning,
[1:29:53] that we do have some control or say.
[1:29:57] Unfortunately, this particular instance,
[1:29:59] it has already been rezoned in the parcels
[1:30:01] have already been purchased by members of the public.
[1:30:04] Limiting the development on that area,
[1:30:07] we don't really have the authority to do.
[1:30:09] We do have the ability to take your concerns into consideration
[1:30:14] to try to make it so those concerns are addressed
[1:30:19] and that the work is done safely,
[1:30:22] with minimal impact to the neighborhood.
[1:30:27] Someone in the public also mentioned
[1:30:30] that this sets a precedent.
[1:30:32] I completely agree.
[1:30:34] It does set a precedent.
[1:30:37] People are going to build on these lots
[1:30:40] at some point in time in the future.
[1:30:42] Since we are setting the precedent,
[1:30:44] I think we need to set the precedent that it
[1:30:46] is done correctly.
[1:30:47] That we address the things that you all have mentioned.
[1:30:50] And that is the precedent that we set in the city of Martinez.
[1:30:54] That if you are going to develop on land, in a community that
[1:30:58] has been there for decades, there is a certain way
[1:31:00] it has to be done.
[1:31:02] That is the precedent that I want
[1:31:04] us to try to work to achieve.
[1:31:06] Is it possible, in terms of the conditions of approval,
[1:31:11] to include some sort of examination and report
[1:31:18] to be provided by a biologist, in particular.
[1:31:22] To address the wildlife concerns that are there.
[1:31:24] I do know that the state of California requires that if --
[1:31:28] it doesn't matter if it was intended to be a residential
[1:31:32] area, but after so many decades, if it turns into a wildlife
[1:31:36] habitat and it is interrupted, you do have to take measures
[1:31:40] to essentially replace what you have interrupted.
[1:31:49] >> So you can add a condition of approval if you would like.
[1:31:50] There might be a difference of what the biologist determines
[1:31:53] endangered or not endangered.
[1:31:55] What animals go there but you can include
[1:31:57] a condition of approval.
[1:32:00] >> I think if we end up moving forward,
[1:32:02] that is something I would like to do.
[1:32:04] I also think it is pretty unanimous on this body
[1:32:09] that folks need to see story pulls there to understand
[1:32:13] exactly the height and how much of the view
[1:32:17] is going to be taken away.
[1:32:18] I understand that views are not part of the findings for this.
[1:32:21] But I think as a good neighbor policy,
[1:32:25] it helps to take steps to address some of your neighbors
[1:32:30] concerns particularly as you are going to be
[1:32:32] a member of the community.
[1:32:33] You definitely want to start off on a good foot
[1:32:35] here because that possible as a condition of approval.
[1:32:39] >> Yes.
[1:32:39] You can also add a condition of approval.
[1:32:43] >> I want to interject on that.
[1:32:44] If the commission is wanting to see story
[1:32:47] pulls come a staff would recommend that the item be
[1:32:49] continued to a date certain to allow the story pulls
[1:32:52] to be installed to allow the public to visually see them
[1:32:56] and the commission to on the project
[1:32:59] after seeing the installation.
[1:33:05] >> That's been done on the street before.
[1:33:06] Poles were put up and the builder
[1:33:08] decided they didn't want to adapt to the changes,
[1:33:10] and they walked away from the project.
[1:33:12] That has happened on three occasions.
[1:33:20] >> The next person -- question I have is for staff.
[1:33:22] The aging water pump.
[1:33:24] As more homes are built on the Hillside,
[1:33:29] the water pressure is going to drop.
[1:33:31] What is our standard operating procedure in terms of that?
[1:33:35] What do we do about decreasing water pressure and aging water
[1:33:40] infrastructure?
[1:33:42] >> I would have to reach out to the water department
[1:33:44] and our public Works director to see what they are doing in terms
[1:33:50] of timelines and updates.
[1:33:51] That is something that I can provide in the future,
[1:33:53] if that is a concern, to see where things are at,
[1:33:58] at the moment.
[1:34:00] >> I would also recommend, if it is a concern of the commission
[1:34:03] that condition of approval is included,
[1:34:06] that minimum water pressure is maintained at the subject site.
[1:34:12] I believe there is a minimum water
[1:34:14] pressure per city standards.
[1:34:15] I believe it is 40 gallons --
[1:34:19] 40 psi.
[1:34:21] Just ensure that level is maintained at the project site.
[1:34:28] >> I have one question for staff regarding,
[1:34:30] what is the fire department's requirements for fire hydrants
[1:34:34] or fire flow in case there is a fire.
[1:34:37] Generally the fire department has certain requirements on that
[1:34:39] as well.
[1:34:40] That would probably take precedence
[1:34:43] over the personal water.
[1:34:46] >> There are certain fire requirements.
[1:34:47] This project was routed to the fire department,
[1:34:51] and did make some comments, but nothing
[1:34:55] that would stop the project.
[1:34:57] If this were to continue, it would still --
[1:35:02] if the project were to move forward to the building permits
[1:35:04] phase, the fire department would review it again and provide
[1:35:08] the input to make sure that the resources and fire access is >>
[1:35:14] Generally they want to see some kind of assurance or booster
[1:35:16] pump, or something in case there is a fire and there is enough
[1:35:20] water to fight the fires up there.
[1:35:23] I know in the Oakland fires we had that real problem where
[1:35:27] we didn't have pressure and couldn't fight the fires.
[1:35:33] >> I live in the part of the city where he have Contra Costa
[1:35:35] Waters.
[1:35:36] There is no city water.
[1:35:37] I would kind of like to understand
[1:35:41] how the water system that serves this area and the pump.
[1:35:46] Is that something that the homeowners
[1:35:49] own as some kind of water district, that
[1:35:54] is connected to the Martinez water system, or water
[1:35:59] department?
[1:35:59] I know they are a separate entity outside of us.
[1:36:06] >> Any infrastructure that is installed within the public
[1:36:08] right of way would be publicly owned infrastructure.
[1:36:11] It is not uncommon for projects for the engineering division
[1:36:15] to require infrastructure improvements
[1:36:18] as part of a development project at the expense of the applicant.
[1:36:22] But then they would be owned by the city,
[1:36:26] or in this case the water department.
[1:36:29] Any improvements that would be installed on private property
[1:36:32] would be privately owned.
[1:36:45] >> Question to staff.
[1:36:46] Somebody mentioned cracks in the road.
[1:36:48] What condition is that road?
[1:36:54] >> Cracks and the road.
[1:36:56] >> That is what I heard.
[1:36:58] >> If it isn't the public right of way,
[1:37:00] that is something that public works also maintains and would
[1:37:03] make sure it is drivable and is up to date.
[1:37:06] If there is any concern or safety,
[1:37:09] you could reach out and submit a request to Public Works
[1:37:12] and they could go ahead and inspect go to the site
[1:37:16] and see what needs to be done for those cracks.
[1:37:21] >> Just to opine further, there is a condition of approval that
[1:37:25] requires the project applicant to fix any roadway issues,
[1:37:30] regardless if they were there before or after the project.
[1:37:34] Again, that nexus would be limited
[1:37:36] to pretty much the centerline of the road,
[1:37:39] adjacent to their property.
[1:37:41] They would not be responsible for the entirety of Saint
[1:37:44] Mary's.
[1:37:46] >> Thank you.
[1:38:01] >> Unfortunately, we can't.
[1:38:02] We have already closed public comment.
[1:38:04] I have questions.
[1:38:07] And I think a lot of us do peer particularly
[1:38:11] relating to wanting to get answers
[1:38:15] on a report on water pressure.
[1:38:20] The erection of story poles and a report
[1:38:25] from a biologist on the wildlife.
[1:38:28] I say that because it impacts the client, particularly.
[1:38:32] The applicant.
[1:38:34] Based upon their findings, it impacts your design drawings,
[1:38:38] your civil drawings.
[1:38:41] That would affect what you are actually
[1:38:43] going to be building outside.
[1:38:45] Could also address some of the concerns that were brought on
[1:38:47] by your neighbor.
[1:38:49] And I think that we need to get answers to those questions.
[1:38:52] See the story poles, before we can say,
[1:38:55] as I mentioned before, we are doing this the right way.
[1:38:58] I don't think this body is saying no,
[1:39:01] but I think we are saying that we do need more information.
[1:39:07] >> Staff can attempt to make a motion for the Planning
[1:39:10] Commission's consideration with what we have heard
[1:39:12] the Commission say, unless there are other commissioners that
[1:39:15] have additional comments.
[1:39:17] >> This is connected to my earlier question about
[1:39:19] the erosion control plan.
[1:39:21] My question is just around the construction safety.
[1:39:25] Conditional approval and understanding
[1:39:27] that in more detail and what is included in the requirement.
[1:39:33] >> We can provide further information on that as well
[1:39:35] added to the conditions of approval.
[1:39:37] More information on that.
[1:39:40] >> I think there should be a motion that is made to table
[1:39:45] this particular agenda item until a later specified date,
[1:39:51] to allow for the addressing of the four questions brought forth
[1:39:56] by this body.
[1:40:03] >> Just to quickly enumerate those .
[1:40:06] The commissioner has a comment before doing those.
[1:40:09] Comments that staff heard were wanting the applicant
[1:40:13] to install story poles.
[1:40:16] Want the plans to be revised to reflect the drip line
[1:40:20] of the trees proposed to be removed,
[1:40:23] as well as the trees proposed dash --
[1:40:26] proposed to be preserved as part of the project.
[1:40:28] A staging plan as it relates to various stages
[1:40:31] throughout construction to ensure adequate accessibility
[1:40:35] for emergency vehicles and adequate safety
[1:40:38] within the neighborhood.
[1:40:43] A biologist to assess the property and any potential
[1:40:47] protected species .
[1:40:51] For additional information in regards to the existing water
[1:40:55] pressure and potential improvements that
[1:40:57] would be required, associated with the project.
[1:41:02] And that is what I am hearing.
[1:41:05] What staff would recommend, given
[1:41:09] the amount of items that are requested by the commission.
[1:41:14] That this item be brought back at the meeting on October 27th,
[1:41:19] to give adequate time for the applicant to respond and gather
[1:41:23] the requested information.
[1:41:26] However, in order to do so, by the shake of the head cometh
[1:41:30] the applicant would need to agree to a 90 day permit
[1:41:35] streamlining act extension for the project.
[1:41:38] And then I would also like to put on the records,
[1:41:42] because the item is being potentially continued to a date
[1:41:45] certain, there will not be additional public notice
[1:41:49] for this item.
[1:41:50] This is the notice.
[1:41:52] The October 27th would be that date.
[1:42:00] >> Okay.
[1:42:01] Can I get a motion for that.
[1:42:06] >> I have a question of what you just said.
[1:42:07] Why is that?
[1:42:09] There is no public notice.
[1:42:11] >> Typically public notice is just provided before the initial
[1:42:14] public hearing.
[1:42:14] Then it is members of the public responsibility
[1:42:16] to follow a project as it continues through the hearing
[1:42:21] process.
[1:42:21] Any member of the public, at any time,
[1:42:23] can reach out to the project planner
[1:42:25] to get an update to see if it is still going
[1:42:27] to be heard on the agenda.
[1:42:30] >> Thank you.
[1:42:36] >> I will move to continue the project until October 27th with
[1:42:39] the time for staff to come back with us with information
[1:42:45] regarding the biologist, story poles to be put up before
[1:42:49] the next ten days prior to the next public hearing.
[1:42:52] Information on the water pressure.
[1:42:55] The drip lines on the site plan, showing the existing
[1:42:58] and proposed choice double trees to be
[1:43:01] removed accurately and a staging plan for parking
[1:43:03] during construction.
[1:43:06] >> I second the motion.
[1:43:08] >> Please record the vote.
[1:43:18] >>
[1:43:20] [Members Voting]
[1:43:25] >> The motion passes.
[1:43:27] >> Thank you all for coming out.
[1:43:29] We really appreciate it.
[1:43:31] We don't always get this much public engagement.
[1:43:35] It has been great for us to see you all out here.
[1:43:38] Hopefully it continues.
[1:43:39] Thank you.
[1:43:43] >> Chair, staff would recommend a two minute recess between
[1:43:45] items.
[1:43:48] >> We will recess for two minutes.
[1:49:44] >> All right come on everyone.
[1:49:46] If you will please grab your seats.
[1:49:49] It is eight:48.
[1:49:51] We will call this meeting back into order.
[1:49:54] We will move on to our next regularly scheduled agenda item.
[1:50:01] Next item is conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution
[1:50:05] denying the appeal and upholding the zoning
[1:50:08] Administrator's decision to approve planning application
[1:50:12] 2026PLN-0029 .
[1:50:20] Yes?
[1:50:20] >> Before getting started on this item I would like
[1:50:22] to outline the process.
[1:50:23] Is a little bit different than the last item.
[1:50:26] >> Before we move on to the staff presentation comment we
[1:50:30] will briefly go on to outline this next item.
[1:50:32] It is a little bit different.
[1:50:37] >> The item will work with staff providing a presentation.
[1:50:40] The applicant team will have up to ten minutes
[1:50:45] to present the project.
[1:50:47] The appellants, plural, will have
[1:50:50] up to ten minutes to present their argument for the project.
[1:50:55] Followed by opening up public comment for up to three minutes
[1:50:59] per speaker.
[1:51:00] That is not an appellant and not part of the applicant team.
[1:51:04] After the public comment period, the appellant team
[1:51:09] will have an additional five minutes
[1:51:11] to provide any additional comments.
[1:51:13] The applicant will have up to five minutes for any comments.
[1:51:18] Then we will close the public portion of the meeting
[1:51:21] and the Commission will deliberate.
[1:51:23] DD will be keeping track of time as she did for the last item.
[1:51:29] >> Thank you.
[1:51:30] Any questions about the scheme or maneuver as we move forward.
[1:51:36] We will keep the ball rolling, staff.
[1:51:39] Thank you.
[1:51:40] >> Thank you chair, Joseph Evans, thank you.
[1:51:43] I'm going to be giving a presentation on 103 Escobar
[1:51:47] Street and the variance and minor exception appeal tonight.
[1:51:55] One second, please .
[1:52:04] Okay.
[1:52:05] Thank you.
[1:52:06] A little bit about the project.
[1:52:09] It is at 103 Escobar Street.
[1:52:11] This is also on a residential single family
[1:52:14] zoning district are 6.0.
[1:52:16] The general plan is a central residential low a.
[1:52:19] The lot size is 5227ft² it is an existing single family
[1:52:25] residential dwelling unit.
[1:52:27] The surrounding land use is also single family residential.
[1:52:32] Prior to the application on September 26th, 2025,
[1:52:38] the applicant submitted a request for historical resales
[1:52:42] evaluation to determine if the single family dwelling unit has
[1:52:47] any historical significance at the local,
[1:52:50] state or federal level.
[1:52:51] On December 15th, 2025, Rincon Consultants determined that it
[1:52:55] would not be considered for historical and ineligible
[1:52:58] for national or California Register.
[1:53:03] After the historic resource evaluation was done,
[1:53:07] the applicant submitted for an application for the proposed
[1:53:11] project and was taken to a Zoning Administrator meeting
[1:53:15] on July 23rd, 2026.
[1:53:18] The project was presented at the Zoning Administrator level,
[1:53:22] at the meeting.
[1:53:23] Public concerns were about height, scale, massing,
[1:53:26] and the existing overgrowth of vegetation and the trees.
[1:53:31] Based on this feedback, the meeting was continued until
[1:53:34] August 13th, 2026.
[1:53:36] The Zoning administrator requested
[1:53:39] that the applicant meet with neighbors
[1:53:41] to discuss their concerns, provide an exhibit,
[1:53:44] or install story poles consider modifications to the project,
[1:53:48] and prune the overgrown vegetation.
[1:53:50] Since then, on August 7th, 2026, the architect and the applicants
[1:53:55] met with neighbors to discuss the project.
[1:53:58] Vegetation has been pruned.
[1:54:00] No changes to the project.
[1:54:03] On August 13th, 2026, Project was presented again
[1:54:09] at the Zoning Administrator meeting.
[1:54:11] Public concerns about the singular
[1:54:13] Story pole that was installed, fire resistance,
[1:54:17] impeding views and lack of sidewalk along the frontage.
[1:54:21] The zoning administrator approved the project
[1:54:23] with additional conditions, which
[1:54:25] include site development permit from the Engineering division
[1:54:29] for frontage improvements and add references
[1:54:32] to the proposed accessory dwelling unit, which I
[1:54:35] will show later in the slides.
[1:54:37] On August 24th, 2026, the appellants filed an appeal
[1:54:41] citing that the size and scale of the proposed project is not
[1:54:46] appropriate for the lot size and the findings made by the zoning
[1:54:50] administrator.
[1:54:50] I will provide more details on the appeal later
[1:54:53] in the presentation but I wanted to give a little bit of context
[1:54:57] of the proposed project.
[1:54:59] The applicants are proposing to construct a 1782 square foot
[1:55:04] addition to the existing single family dwelling
[1:55:07] unit, adding a garage, two bedrooms and two bathrooms.
[1:55:11] In addition to a 401 square foot Adu.
[1:55:15] The new total is 3307ft².
[1:55:18] I would say that it also includes the 400 square foot
[1:55:24] Adu and ADUs are exempt from floor area ratio and lot
[1:55:28] coverage.
[1:55:29] Just to keep that in mind.
[1:55:30] Is the total but it includes the Adu as well.
[1:55:34] Here are the proposed front and rear elevations.
[1:55:37] As you can see on the right, they
[1:55:42] are adding a garage, which they did not have a garage.
[1:55:46] They are adding two covered parking.
[1:55:48] Now they will come into compliance
[1:55:50] with the parking requirements in the R 6.0 zoning district.
[1:55:54] Here are the proposed elevations for the new proposed addition .
[1:56:04] Here is the proposed floor plans.
[1:56:07] You can see the upper floor on the left and the lower floor
[1:56:11] on the right side, which includes the Adu highlighted
[1:56:14] in yellow and the garage space.
[1:56:18] Here are just some elevation comparisons of the existing roof
[1:56:24] ridgeline and what is the proposed roof ridgeline,
[1:56:27] so you have in red what is being proposed in the blue
[1:56:31] is what is existing currently similar elevations,
[1:56:36] but this is going to be from Escobar Street.
[1:56:43] This property also has a slope.
[1:56:47] The slope is on Escobar Street, as you can see
[1:56:50] indicated on this aerial view.
[1:56:55] This was provided by the applicant's.
[1:57:00] It is an image from a neighboring property
[1:57:03] and the views that it has at 103 Escobar Street.
[1:57:06] On the right side you can see where the picture
[1:57:09] was taken on the star.
[1:57:11] That is the approximate area it was taken at.
[1:57:14] There is thin lining and red.
[1:57:17] I just added the proposed roof ridge
[1:57:19] to make it clear for the presentation to where
[1:57:23] the maximum height would be for the new proposed addition.
[1:57:28] Here we have the zoning compliance for our 6.0.
[1:57:33] As you can see, the applicants are requesting a variance
[1:57:37] to standards.
[1:57:39] That includes the front setback, street side yard setback.
[1:57:44] The rear yard coverage.
[1:57:46] FAR and a minor exception for height.
[1:57:53] With this, with the request for variance,
[1:57:58] the staff has to make variance findings.
[1:58:00] Here are the findings that have to be made.
[1:58:04] And here are the minor exception findings that have to be made
[1:58:09] related to height as I mentioned before, on August 24th, 2026,
[1:58:19] the appellants filed an appeal citing the expansion
[1:58:22] into the setbacks obstructing traffic views,
[1:58:25] the size and scale of the proposed project is not
[1:58:28] appropriate for the lot size and height obstructing neighboring
[1:58:32] views that the variance findings do not provide justifications
[1:58:35] for setback deviations.
[1:58:37] Minor exception findings do not provide justifications
[1:58:40] for height deviations.
[1:58:44] This is the response to the appellants
[1:58:47] for the variance portions.
[1:58:49] Neighboring properties within the same R
[1:58:52] 6.0 zoning district are of similar or greater size
[1:58:55] than the proposed project and would
[1:58:57] be generally consistent with the scale of the neighborhood
[1:58:59] neighboring properties, such as 20 Escobar Street, 30 Escobar
[1:59:03] Street, 40 Escobar Street all have reduced front yard setbacks
[1:59:08] they are also highlighted.
[1:59:10] They are on the right.
[1:59:11] The adjacent property at 107 Escobar Street
[1:59:14] has a reduced rear yard setback.
[1:59:18] And 110 Escobar Street exceeds the floor area ratio
[1:59:22] of 0.54 R 6.0 zoning district.
[1:59:27] Variance for the setbacks would not provide special privileges
[1:59:29] as neighboring properties have setbacks demonstrating
[1:59:33] it is an existing characteristic throughout the neighborhood.
[1:59:39] This is in regards to the minor exception.
[1:59:42] The concerns for the appellants related
[1:59:44] to the minor exception in the proposed project, obstructing
[1:59:49] views, do not directly pertain to the findings the findings are
[1:59:53] mostly related to compliance with other applicable standards,
[1:59:56] such as the intent of the zoning district
[1:59:58] and ensuring no impact on health or safety
[2:00:03] would result in the minor exception being granted.
[2:00:07] While the proposed project would potentially
[2:00:10] come a slightly alter existing views from neighboring
[2:00:12] properties, the findings do not establish private views
[2:00:15] as a protected right and proposed development
[2:00:18] does not result in an adverse impact that
[2:00:20] would warrant the denial of a minor exception.
[2:00:23] The properties at 100 Escobar Street and 110 Escobar Street
[2:00:28] have received separate entitlements approved
[2:00:31] by previous planning commissions to exceed the 25 foot height
[2:00:35] limit for their single family dwelling units.
[2:00:37] That was in 2007 and one was in 2004.
[2:00:43] Since then, we have had one written public comment
[2:00:48] for the July 23rd, 2026 Zoning Administrator Meeting.
[2:00:52] Another written public comment in support of the project
[2:00:55] for August 13th, and we haven't had any official written
[2:01:02] comments since this meeting.
[2:01:06] With that, staff is recommending to conduct a public hearing
[2:01:11] and adopt resolution number 26-11,
[2:01:16] denying the Appeal by Arthur and Michelle Price rose Brook
[2:01:23] and Jeremy Gilley.
[2:01:25] Jim Hilgendorf and Cynthia McNamara and upholding
[2:01:30] the zoning administrator's decision to approve planning
[2:01:33] application 2026PLN-0029 approving a request from Tony
[2:01:39] and Tiffany to consider a variance to reduce the rear yard
[2:01:44] setback from 25ft to 20ft.
[2:01:46] Reduce the required yard side yard from 3ft to 5ft.
[2:01:51] Reduce the required front yard setback from 20ft to 5ft.
[2:01:56] Decrease -- increase the maximum lot coverage from 40% to 45%
[2:02:01] and increase the maximum floor area ratio from 0.5 to 0.58.
[2:02:06] And a minor exception to increase the building height
[2:02:11] to 27ft seven inches or where 25ft is permitted to construct
[2:02:15] a 1007 foot square foot addition to the existing single family
[2:02:19] dwelling for a total of 3370ft², located at 103 Escobar Street
[2:02:27] and the residential 6.0 Zoning District.
[2:02:31] With that, as Michael mentioned, I
[2:02:34] am happy to answer any questions,
[2:02:36] but we will also have the applicants
[2:02:39] who may be able to answer questions as well
[2:02:41] as the appellants.
[2:02:42] Thank you.
[2:02:45] >> Thank you.
[2:02:46] And I am as well eager to hear from the applicant
[2:02:49] and the appellant.
[2:02:50] I did have 1 or 2 questions for staff.
[2:02:53] I haven't been to this site myself.
[2:02:57] Is there a stop sign on that corner currently?
[2:03:02] No.
[2:03:03] There is not.
[2:03:04] >> Not that I recall.
[2:03:10] >> Was there any effort made by the zoning administrator to look
[2:03:13] into concerns with visibility as this being a corner lot
[2:03:18] and there being an expansion and reduction from --
[2:03:22] of the setback and how that affects the views for possible
[2:03:25] oncoming traffic, since there is not a stop sign there.
[2:03:30] >> What is currently existing is an existing non-conforming three
[2:03:36] foot from the property line.
[2:03:38] Typically what we require is a visibility triangle of 25ft from
[2:03:43] the intersection.
[2:03:44] That was provided by the architect.
[2:03:48] >> Okay.
[2:03:49] That is still maintained.
[2:03:51] >> Correct.
[2:03:54] >> Worthy story pulls ever installed?
[2:03:57] >> There was, and the applicants can confirm,
[2:03:59] but there was one story pole indicating the highest height
[2:04:03] of where they are proposing the project.
[2:04:06] >> All right.
[2:04:07] Do you guys have any questions for staff
[2:04:09] or do you want to move on to the applicant?
[2:04:17] >> Okay.
[2:04:18] Thank you, staff.
[2:04:28] >> The story pulls we cannot do because you cannot get onto
[2:04:31] the roof.
[2:04:31] It is dilapidated and you will pretty much fall through.
[2:04:34] I am Tiffany.
[2:04:36] I am the owner of 103 Escobar Street.
[2:04:40] Before anything else I want to thank Tony, Kirk
[2:04:43] and the planning team for getting us
[2:04:45] this far on this project.
[2:04:47] I also want to thank the neighbors for their patience
[2:04:49] with the project.
[2:04:50] This house is really important to me.
[2:04:52] It has a lot of memories.
[2:04:54] It is a family home.
[2:04:55] It was never meant to be neglected.
[2:04:58] My nanny moved out and the intent
[2:05:00] was to have her move back in.
[2:05:02] Through a series of health issues and problems,
[2:05:03] we never knew what she would need.
[2:05:05] We were never able to do the remodels for her.
[2:05:07] Once it became apparent that she was not
[2:05:10] going to be able to move in at all,
[2:05:11] I bought the home to keep it in the family
[2:05:13] and to be closer to my parents.
[2:05:16] When it came time to decide what to do with the home,
[2:05:20] I chose to modernize the original 1914 home,
[2:05:24] keeping the bones, character, and memories, while making it
[2:05:27] livable again.
[2:05:29] Do we have a slide quacks there we go.
[2:05:36] Perfect.
[2:05:36] Thank you.
[2:05:37] I want to point out that I do want to be a good neighbor.
[2:05:41] I would not be pushing for this if I thought it would
[2:05:43] hurt the people around me.
[2:05:44] The neighbors that are most impacted
[2:05:45] by this remodel behind me, right adjacent, and across from me
[2:05:50] actually support this.
[2:05:52] I have reviewed the appellant's concerns in detail.
[2:05:57] Their size, height, and corner safety.
[2:05:59] I'm going to walk through quickly why I
[2:06:01] don't think they will be negatively impacted by these.
[2:06:04] And I request the commission uphold the original planners
[2:06:07] approval.
[2:06:10] When it comes to size, this home will not look out of place.
[2:06:15] Escobar Street is already a real mix of size, height, shapes,
[2:06:20] and uniqueness.
[2:06:21] It is very eclectic.
[2:06:22] And this remodel comes the original layout and character,
[2:06:26] rather than turning the house into something really oversize.
[2:06:29] We are only adding 871ft² beyond the original footprint
[2:06:34] and living space, plus the small 401 foot Adu.
[2:06:38] We are finally giving this 1914 home the off street
[2:06:42] parking it has never had.
[2:06:45] I know that double --
[2:06:48] I have a typo up there.
[2:06:50] It is 866.
[2:06:51] But it is actually 871.
[2:06:53] Math is hard.
[2:06:54] That is a mistake by me.
[2:06:57] I do want to call out that most of the additions
[2:07:00] is in the third bedroom, which is on the rear west
[2:07:04] side of the house.
[2:07:05] That is screened by hedges and is not encroached
[2:07:07] by the neighbor's.
[2:07:08] The two car garage adds the off street parking
[2:07:11] and there is a 401 Adu.
[2:07:14] Looking at the existing design, I
[2:07:16] want to call out that the current exterior
[2:07:18] and basic geometry of the existing home
[2:07:20] is remaining the same.
[2:07:21] The main space is the kitchen, dining room, primary bedroom,
[2:07:25] is all basically where it was before.
[2:07:26] We are just building back, like I mentioned.
[2:07:32] The proposed remodel presents a one story profile
[2:07:36] from the uphill of Escobar Street.
[2:07:38] Where as the houses on the east side of Escobar
[2:07:41] present a two story profile, which gives it a bigger mass.
[2:07:45] I have just put a couple of these pictures here.
[2:07:48] There is the beautiful Victorian.
[2:07:49] There is my house that we love, and the house right behind me.
[2:07:54] You can see just kind of how eclectic the neighborhood is.
[2:07:57] That is what makes Martinez really special.
[2:08:06] When it comes to height, the extra height mostly
[2:08:11] comes from digging out space for the garage
[2:08:13] below the existing floors.
[2:08:14] Not from building up.
[2:08:16] We also brought the roof pitch down from eight and 12
[2:08:19] to 6 and 12, specifically to soften the impact.
[2:08:22] It is very much in keeping with other historical Martinez roof
[2:08:26] lines.
[2:08:26] The highest point of the ridge is only 19ft long.
[2:08:29] It is downhill on the Escobar grade.
[2:08:32] The split level doesn't really have a significant view impact.
[2:08:36] And then we took some laser measurements
[2:08:38] to show where the highest part of the roof
[2:08:41] would fit on the house.
[2:08:42] I will show those in a moment.
[2:08:44] I also want to call out we have an appendix
[2:08:47] in the back that shows the roof pitch, the size, the lot size
[2:08:51] and everything around Martinez.
[2:08:53] If you want to look at that later
[2:08:54] you will see that we fall right in line.
[2:08:58] This is hard to see, I know.
[2:09:02] But the two on the left show that our highest pitch will
[2:09:06] fall below their floor level.
[2:09:07] That is what those two lines are.
[2:09:09] And then I believe Imanol pulled up
[2:09:12] a bigger version of the picture on the far right.
[2:09:14] But it has an overlay and we have a bigger picture of it
[2:09:17] towards the end that I think my dad will go over as well.
[2:09:20] It shows where the highest point of the ridge is,
[2:09:23] compared to the existing.
[2:09:27] Corner safety and visibility.
[2:09:30] We haven't really touched the existing setback.
[2:09:32] Front is where it has always been.
[2:09:34] We are just widening the kitchen.
[2:09:35] The side lines up with the farthest part
[2:09:37] that is already there.
[2:09:38] We removed the overgrown tuna purse
[2:09:40] that were sticking out past the house line, which actually
[2:09:43] improves the visibility at the corner, rather than hurting it.
[2:09:47] And then we have these triangulation points.
[2:09:50] If you look at the second one from the far right the dash
[2:09:54] right labeled Bayview Street corner you
[2:09:56] can see the middle down Escobar Street here
[2:09:58] you can see all the way up very clearly
[2:10:01] to Bayview around the corner without any safety issues
[2:10:04] at all.
[2:10:11] Lastly, I just want to say, at the end of the day
[2:10:15] this remodel takes a vacant rundown house
[2:10:16] and turns it into a home that fits into the neighborhood.
[2:10:19] It adds usable housing, parking, adds an Adu.
[2:10:22] To increase its property value to surrounding neighbors
[2:10:25] makes the block more appealing and safer.
[2:10:27] I appreciate everyone's time and patience on this.
[2:10:29] I'm hoping the Council will uphold the original approval.
[2:10:33] With that, I will hand it over to Tony.
[2:10:52] >> Good evening.
[2:10:53] Thank you everyone for being here.
[2:10:54] I thank the neighborhood for having the patience
[2:10:56] over the years for this house.
[2:11:00] This house, our house was built in 1914.
[2:11:04] Long before two days existing building and zoning codes
[2:11:08] were established.
[2:11:09] Throughout Martinez, you can find exceptions
[2:11:12] to all of the building and zoning codes.
[2:11:18] Variance are meant to allow changes
[2:11:21] to homes built before the current codes existed.
[2:11:24] I want to talk about the variances
[2:11:26] and what we are seeking on this remodel.
[2:11:29] We want to widen the front kitchen.
[2:11:34] The footprint on the front has been established since 1914.
[2:11:40] By widening the kitchen, we are not encroaching on the street,
[2:11:46] on Escobar, or on the front.
[2:11:48] Although we are doing, in the middle of the house,
[2:11:50] there is a closet.
[2:11:51] We are just bringing that forward
[2:11:53] to the existing pantry that is already there.
[2:11:57] We are not changing the distance from the front to that.
[2:12:04] That exists and we do not encroach on that.
[2:12:06] We are staying with the established footprint
[2:12:08] of the house.
[2:12:09] We are just bringing it forward so
[2:12:12] that when you look at the front of the house,
[2:12:15] the kitchen becomes wider.
[2:12:18] By doing that, we can accommodate
[2:12:20] the two car garage and the Adu, which California and the city
[2:12:26] state they both would like.
[2:12:29] The increased footage is basically
[2:12:32] needed to have just a standard three bedroom two bath.
[2:12:37] That is what everybody wants.
[2:12:39] Right now it is two bedrooms with one bath.
[2:12:43] It is kind of hard.
[2:12:46] The benefits of the remodel, if you look at the picture,
[2:12:51] this was taken from the corner neighbor, looking down.
[2:12:55] You can see the view is not really impacted.
[2:13:01] The house is below the street level on Bayview.
[2:13:07] The floor level is below that.
[2:13:09] The house sits lower.
[2:13:12] That is the view from the corner house, looking out.
[2:13:16] He gave me permission to take pictures and we have others.
[2:13:19] From that you can see the Bay bridge -- the bay bridge.
[2:13:25] You can see the bridge, you can see shell and if you look,
[2:13:28] the setback in front is going to be the same.
[2:13:30] The only thing is the side comes forward to the front.
[2:13:35] You can still see the courthouse.
[2:13:37] You can see downtown Martinez.
[2:13:39] The view isn't impacted on it.
[2:13:42] What it does, as far as benefits to the neighborhood,
[2:13:47] and we should have shown you a picture
[2:13:49] of the front of the house.
[2:13:51] What it does is it improves the value of the neighborhood.
[2:13:54] It keeps the original character of the neighborhood,
[2:13:57] which is important.
[2:13:59] We are dropping down, as stated from eight and 12 to 6 and 12
[2:14:04] to help lessen the impact.
[2:14:05] But it is important to keep the character of the neighborhood
[2:14:08] and the house.
[2:14:09] The impact on the neighborhood is not a negative one.
[2:14:12] It is a positive one.
[2:14:13] It doesn't cause any safety issues
[2:14:16] and it increases the value of the neighborhood
[2:14:19] because the home would be modern and people
[2:14:22] would be more proud to have it in the character of Martinez.
[2:14:26] That is what we are really going for.
[2:14:29] There is no negative and the couple --
[2:14:34] we can only go back because so that we don't encroach
[2:14:41] on the side street and we don't encroach on the neighbor
[2:14:44] the neighbor in front is in favor of it.
[2:14:48] The neighbor on the side is in favor of it.
[2:14:50] They are the ones who are most impacted.
[2:14:52] Other people basically just drive by.
[2:14:55] The neighbors aren't they back, cannot see their house,
[2:14:59] cannot see this house because of the trees and shrubs we have
[2:15:03] back there.
[2:15:04] >> We are at time.
[2:15:06] >> Thank you.
[2:15:25] >> Ma'am, thank you.
[2:15:25] We will have time for public comment a little bit later.
[2:15:29] We understand the emotions here.
[2:15:32] We want to make sure that you have an opportunity
[2:15:34] to speak at the public comment.
[2:15:35] We do want to keep moving.
[2:15:38] To see if there's anyone that has any questions
[2:15:41] for the applicant.
[2:15:42] If not, we will keep moving on to the appellant.
[2:15:52] Thank you.
[2:15:58] >> Good evening mayor commissioners my name is Jeremy
[2:16:00] Gilley.
[2:16:01] I am speaking on behalf of six neighboring households regarding
[2:16:04] the project at 103 Escobar Street.
[2:16:07] We have provided an appeal presentation.
[2:16:09] Staff has already provided a report and response.
[2:16:12] Which we would like to address here today.
[2:16:15] We want to begin by making one thing clear.
[2:16:18] We are not opposed to the owners improving their property.
[2:16:21] We understand that the existing home is in need of updating.
[2:16:25] We support responsible investment in the neighborhood.
[2:16:28] Our concern is whether this project
[2:16:30] has provided the evidence to justify
[2:16:32] the extraordinary package of variances being requested.
[2:16:35] The project would increase the existing home from 1255ft²
[2:16:39] to 3030 --
[2:16:44] 3037ft² converting into a two story home.
[2:16:47] Our concerns have been raised repeatedly
[2:16:49] and ignored by the city which is why we are here tonight.
[2:16:52] This is not a remodel that maintains the existing setbacks.
[2:16:55] The staff report repeatedly points to the fact
[2:16:58] that the existing house is already non-conforming
[2:17:01] but an existing non-conforming is not by itself
[2:17:06] a physical hardship.
[2:17:08] The question whether strict application of the zoning
[2:17:11] standards creates the kind of practical difficulties
[2:17:14] or unnecessary physical hardship required
[2:17:17] to adjust five variance.
[2:17:19] There is also a specific zoning issue that we believe
[2:17:22] deserves clarification before the project moves forward
[2:17:25] there are six standards identified with a ten foot
[2:17:28] minimum side yard for a second story.
[2:17:31] The project converts the home into a two story structure.
[2:17:34] The staff report identifies the existing and proposed side yard
[2:17:38] is 7.67ft.
[2:17:39] We asked does the ten foot second story requirement
[2:17:45] apply to the project if it does where
[2:17:47] was the resulting deviation evaluated and granted.
[2:17:49] We are asking the Commission to ensure
[2:17:51] that this issue is clearly addressed
[2:17:53] before the project is approved.
[2:17:55] For finding one, hardship, the zoning administrator's reasoning
[2:17:59] relies heavily on the existing five foot front setback.
[2:18:03] Three foot side setback and the size of the lot.
[2:18:07] With those conditions, the existed before the project.
[2:18:11] The proposal isn't nearly observing the existing
[2:18:14] footprint, it substantially increases
[2:18:15] the home size and mass, and extends
[2:18:19] further into existing setbacks.
[2:18:21] The staff report also describes a conforming design
[2:18:25] as potentially unfeasible and undesirable.
[2:18:28] We respectfully disagree that any smaller scale redesign
[2:18:31] is infeasible.
[2:18:32] Nor that and undesirable design is the same thing
[2:18:36] as a zoning hardship.
[2:18:37] There are many ways to build a larger home on this property.
[2:18:41] The fact that one particular design
[2:18:43] is less desirable to the applicant
[2:18:46] does not establish a physical hardship.
[2:18:48] In fact, following the required setbacks on the property would
[2:18:51] still allow the applicant to construct a home around 2500ft²
[2:18:54] with a garage to meet the fire and parking requirements.
[2:18:59] Finding two requires exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
[2:19:03] applicable to this property that are not
[2:19:05] generally applicable to other properties in the same zoning
[2:19:08] district.
[2:19:09] Staff report points to the property's lot size
[2:19:11] from a Hillside location and existing setbacks.
[2:19:14] These are not necessarily exceptional circumstances.
[2:19:17] The appeal materials identified that about 40% of the immediate
[2:19:21] neighborhood consists of lots about 5000ft².
[2:19:24] Also located along the Hillside.
[2:19:27] We ask what is exceptional about this property that
[2:19:31] prevents a reasonably sized addition from complying
[2:19:34] with the zoning standards.
[2:19:36] Finding three is particularly important
[2:19:38] because the staff report relies on other properties
[2:19:41] in the neighborhood to conclude that the requested variances
[2:19:44] would not provide a special privilege.
[2:19:46] The staff report references a small selection of properties.
[2:19:50] These include properties built in 1952 1939 and 1877.
[2:19:55] Long before the current zoning standards existed.
[2:19:59] None of the referenced properties
[2:20:01] are granted every variance being requested.
[2:20:04] The fact that an existing non-conforming structure
[2:20:07] has been allowed to remain does not
[2:20:10] establish a new applicant is entitled
[2:20:12] to receive a variance today.
[2:20:14] And if the city is relying on reference properties
[2:20:17] as evidence the project deserves similar relief,
[2:20:19] we believe the Commission should ask
[2:20:21] whether those properties actually
[2:20:22] received comparable variances or whether they simply
[2:20:26] predate the applicable zoning requirements.
[2:20:28] Numbers matter here.
[2:20:30] Is it five feet, is it ten feet, is it three feet.
[2:20:34] Staff report also stated the property
[2:20:36] is the only existing, non-conforming corner
[2:20:39] lot that has the existing residence three feet
[2:20:42] from the street side property.
[2:20:43] Which is a special privilege that no other property has.
[2:20:48] However, the report failed to address
[2:20:50] that the structure and roof, which we have not talked about,
[2:20:54] are further encroaching on the street corner, and the street
[2:20:58] side property by two feet and three feet, respectively.
[2:21:02] Finding four asks whether the variance would provide
[2:21:05] a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations placed
[2:21:09] on other properties in the same zoning district in addition
[2:21:11] to the special privilege just mentioned,
[2:21:14] the property proposes 45% lot coverage and 0.5841 ten
[2:21:20] is referenced as the property exceeding far.
[2:21:25] But this is the historic Tucker Mansion, built in 1877.
[2:21:29] National Historic Site.
[2:21:31] Using this home as justification for a current build
[2:21:34] is frankly absurd.
[2:21:36] Granting this variance would indeed
[2:21:39] provide yet another exceptional special privilege
[2:21:41] to this property at 103.
[2:21:43] California Code 65 906 states that any variance granted
[2:21:48] shall not constitute a grant of special privileges.
[2:21:53] For finding five we ask the Commission
[2:21:55] to consider the site location.
[2:21:56] This property is at the corner of Escobar and Bayview
[2:21:59] where visibility become a pedestrian movement
[2:22:01] and emergency access are already concerns the proposed
[2:22:04] structure moves substantial building mass into areas
[2:22:07] currently providing separation from the street pier
[2:22:09] the question is whether the evidence before you
[2:22:11] adequately demonstrates the granting the variances will not
[2:22:16] create adverse impacts on the surrounding area.
[2:22:19] This includes encroachment on city property, where the roof
[2:22:23] overhangs to the property line.
[2:22:25] Access for fire trucks.
[2:22:27] Housing density, and a high fire hazard severity zone.
[2:22:31] The availability of fire insurance
[2:22:32] for residents and safety for pedestrians and vehicles.
[2:22:36] Including the potential need for stop and yield signs.
[2:22:39] Fire safety for housing density is the only concern
[2:22:41] here addressed by the draft planning resolution.
[2:22:45] The proposed roof is also a relatively moderate 612 pitch.
[2:22:50] The concern is the combination of height roof form building
[2:22:53] mass and the Hillside setting.
[2:22:55] The lower roof pitch such as 312 or 412,
[2:22:57] which is common in the neighborhood,
[2:22:59] could allow the property to be substantially improved,
[2:23:01] while reducing the overall visual mass
[2:23:04] and helping the project remain within the city's height
[2:23:07] standard.
[2:23:07] The fact is that the pitch is not a necessary design element.
[2:23:12] In addition, there is no reference elevation
[2:23:14] on the plans, which limits recourse against the applicant's
[2:23:18] razing the structure and further obstructing views.
[2:23:20] Reducing surrounding property values.
[2:23:23] This has a detrimental impact on adjacent properties.
[2:23:27] Commissioners, we believe that having existing nonconformances
[2:23:29] is not the same as establishing the legal findings
[2:23:33] necessary for granting those nonconformances.
[2:23:35] Especially new ones.
[2:23:37] We believe that any of these findings failing the test
[2:23:40] should be adequate to deny the variance request.
[2:23:42] We find that the requested variances
[2:23:44] fail all five findings.
[2:23:46] We respectfully ask you to evaluate
[2:23:49] existing Non-conformities and new expansion
[2:23:51] of the Non-conformities.
[2:23:53] Physical hardship.
[2:23:55] The use of existing historical structures for new variances.
[2:23:58] Assumptions and generalizations, versus numerical evidence
[2:24:03] supporting each required finding.
[2:24:04] The second story side yard requirement.
[2:24:07] The corner and street impacts.
[2:24:10] A survey of the existing lots.
[2:24:12] And whether the requested height is appropriate.
[2:24:15] For the stated reasons on behalf of the neighboring households,
[2:24:18] we respectfully request that you deny
[2:24:20] the requested variances and minor exception as currently
[2:24:23] proposed.
[2:24:24] We are not asking that the property remain unchanged.
[2:24:27] We are asking that it be improved within the city zoning
[2:24:31] standards and that any request of deviation
[2:24:34] be supported by clear, numeric evidence satisfying
[2:24:37] every required finding period we believe the California
[2:24:40] law and Martinez Municipal Code were designed specifically
[2:24:43] to protect the community for excessive variances
[2:24:46] and ensure residents can count on certain protections
[2:24:49] to maintain the character of neighborhoods.
[2:24:51] If this extraordinary set of variances approved then we
[2:24:56] establish a new precedent.
[2:24:57] Every new build in R6, in Martinez simply
[2:25:03] needs 2.2103 Escobar Street as the reason they
[2:25:05] should be granted any variance they desire.
[2:25:07] We ask what reason do we have for establishing these zoning
[2:25:11] requirements if we choose to throw them away without regard.
[2:25:14] If we grant these variances today,
[2:25:16] we ruin the integrity of this zoning district for tomorrow,
[2:25:20] and these neighbors will have to live with the consequences.
[2:25:24] I do have questions.
[2:25:26] I can hold them for the next portion, if that is necessary.
[2:25:35] >> You have questions?
[2:25:37] >> I do have questions.
[2:25:39] >> What is the procedure for that.
[2:25:40] That is the first time I have had an appellant that
[2:25:42] had a question.
[2:25:44] >> Any member of the public can say whatever they wish about
[2:25:47] a project during their time to speak.
[2:25:49] And then afterwards, at the direction of the commission,
[2:25:53] we can respond to.
[2:25:55] >> When we have the time for public comment,
[2:25:57] if you have not filled out a comment card, it is fine.
[2:26:00] You can fill that out after.
[2:26:01] At that time you can come with your questions.
[2:26:05] >> Can I quickly ask if the ten foot side yard requirement
[2:26:08] for a second story does apply to this project,
[2:26:10] and why it was not evaluated.
[2:26:14] >> Can I clarify.
[2:26:16] He is allowed to ask -- as the appellant he is allowed to ask
[2:26:21] these questions now and it is the direction of the commission
[2:26:23] if you want staff to respond to that question or not.
[2:26:26] It is not during public comment period.
[2:26:29] During his presentation as the >> Taking that
[2:26:33] into consideration with the time that we have.
[2:26:35] I can grant him a time extension to do that.
[2:26:42] >> Or you can wait until his rebuttal period as well.
[2:26:44] >> You do get a rebuttal period.
[2:26:46] Do you want to save your questions for that period.
[2:26:49] >> I would appreciate the first question being asked since we
[2:26:52] took some time.
[2:26:52] If we can clarify if the ten foot side setback is required
[2:26:56] for the second story, and why that was not evaluated,
[2:26:59] I would appreciate that.
[2:27:03] >> I am okay with giving the time to answer that question,
[2:27:06] if you have an answer readily available.
[2:27:17] >> The appellant is correct .
[2:27:22] I apologize on behalf of staff that that was missed
[2:27:24] during the review process.
[2:27:25] The second story portion of the project,
[2:27:27] there is an increased setback requirement
[2:27:30] for second story portion, which would
[2:27:32] be on the downhill side, which is a ten foot setback.
[2:27:37] We mistakenly identified it as a five foot required setback.
[2:27:42] >> I just wanted to clarify with that variance,
[2:27:45] that means there is a variance exception in every single
[2:27:47] dimension of this property.
[2:27:49] Thank you.
[2:27:52] >> Thank you.
[2:27:55] >> Any questions for the appellant ?
[2:28:00] Okay.
[2:28:00] We don't have any questions for the appellant.
[2:28:04] We will move on to the public comment.
[2:28:06] And just so everybody understands,
[2:28:08] at the end of public comment, both the applicant
[2:28:11] and the appellant will have an opportunity for rebuttal.
[2:28:14] We will move on to Frank.
[2:28:20] Thank you for coming out.
[2:28:23] You will have three minutes.
[2:28:26] >> I am Frank, I am at 530 Bayview.
[2:28:29] What we would like to see is what the size of the roof
[2:28:33] is really going to be.
[2:28:35] We really would like to see the story pulls put up.
[2:28:38] The one pole that is up doesn't give us
[2:28:42] any clue to how the roof line is going to be
[2:28:47] going towards Escobar Street.
[2:28:50] That is about it.
[2:28:58] >> Thank you, Frank.
[2:29:00] We will move on to Jamie.
[2:29:03] Did I get that right?
[2:29:09] >> I think everybody has talked about the same thing.
[2:29:13] The house being too big for the size of the lot.
[2:29:16] Assuming it is not just for financial gain,
[2:29:20] my question is, what is the true hardship
[2:29:24] in building an appropriate sized house for that size lot.
[2:29:30] We always -- all want something to be done there.
[2:29:34] It has been a blight for ten years now.
[2:29:37] I live at across the street.
[2:29:41] It doesn't affect me as much as the other neighbors.
[2:29:44] I would like to see some improvement there
[2:29:46] and the hazards that are around the house
[2:29:48] that we have had to live with for 18 to 20 years now.
[2:29:54] We have been good neighbors to the neighbor
[2:29:58] by not calling code enforcement and getting the dilapidated boat
[2:30:03] pulled out of the driveway.
[2:30:04] The children could climb into and hurt themselves.
[2:30:07] We would appreciate it if the neighbors show us
[2:30:10] the same respect and put together
[2:30:13] a package that is appropriate for the size of the lot,
[2:30:16] instead of asking for a variance on four sides.
[2:30:21] The lot is what it is.
[2:30:23] It should support the house it can support.
[2:30:25] It shouldn't be built to a mini mansion for the neighborhood.
[2:30:31] That is all that I want to say.
[2:30:35] Thank you.
[2:30:37] >> Thank you.
[2:30:39] We have Laura next.
[2:30:43] Thank you.
[2:30:44] You have three minutes.
[2:30:46] >> Thank you so much.
[2:30:47] My name is Laura.
[2:30:48] I live across the street from the property.
[2:30:49] I am delighted to learn that this property may finally
[2:30:52] receive some love.
[2:30:53] It has been a fire hazard and attractive nuisance
[2:30:56] since I married into the neighborhood in 2008.
[2:30:58] We are really excited to see that they
[2:31:01] might make some improvement and rebuild the home.
[2:31:04] The current requirements were established for a reason,
[2:31:08] I have to imagine.
[2:31:09] And just because this home that was built in 1914
[2:31:12] doesn't meet the current requirements
[2:31:14] doesn't mean that this body needs
[2:31:16] to continue a cycle of granting every possible variance
[2:31:19] for this home.
[2:31:21] I heard folks speaking about needing a three bedroom two bath
[2:31:25] home.
[2:31:26] My home is an example of a four bedroom two
[2:31:28] and a half bath home that fits in a much smaller footprint
[2:31:31] than this home is being proposed and fits
[2:31:33] into the 5000 square foot lot that we have.
[2:31:36] It is hard to understand what the hardship is
[2:31:38] that conforming with requirements
[2:31:39] would bring to this applicant.
[2:31:41] The last thing is that I am concerned about impact
[2:31:44] to fire safety and insurance rates we already
[2:31:47] have difficulty getting insurance in this neighborhood.
[2:31:49] Our insurance companies say the fire truck cannot turn around
[2:31:52] at the corner of Bayview and Escobar.
[2:31:54] I have some concerns about encroachment
[2:31:56] and additional difficulty with the swing of the fire truck.
[2:32:00] Additional impacts financially on us
[2:32:02] in terms of securing fire insurance moving forward.
[2:32:06] I really appreciate the work of this commission
[2:32:08] and I look forward to hearing how
[2:32:09] you weigh the community concerns with the needs of the applicant.
[2:32:12] Thank you.
[2:32:14] >> Thank you.
[2:32:15] We appreciate that.
[2:32:16] Is there anyone else in the public
[2:32:18] this evening that would like to speak comment
[2:32:20] that hasn't filled out a card.
[2:32:23] Please approach.
[2:32:25] Say your name.
[2:32:26] You will have three minutes and when
[2:32:28] you are done come if you could please fill out a speaker card.
[2:32:32] >> Gotcha.
[2:32:32] Thank you very much.
[2:32:33] My name is Phil I'm representing 530 Bayview Drive.
[2:32:37] We are concerned about how the height of the roof
[2:32:43] will be determined.
[2:32:44] Where does that measurement start and where does it end.
[2:32:48] There has been no answer on that.
[2:32:51] My concern is that height can change
[2:32:55] with however they are going to start building this house.
[2:32:59] That is a concern there.
[2:33:00] The other main concern for us is the safety issue with the fire
[2:33:06] life safety in the area.
[2:33:08] Another neighbor brought that up to where the fire trucks cannot
[2:33:14] maneuver Escobar onto Bayview.
[2:33:17] My concern about having the house moving
[2:33:20] up forward towards the curb more is
[2:33:26] what happens if in the future, we
[2:33:29] have to widen the road to conform with emergency vehicles
[2:33:34] getting up to Bayview Drive.
[2:33:36] My mother is 93 years old.
[2:33:38] There is problems with getting emergency vehicles up there now.
[2:33:44] There is very restricted view of Bayview derived from where
[2:33:48] they are at right now.
[2:33:49] That is a concern.
[2:33:51] That is a major concern.
[2:33:52] We are in a high fire zone area.
[2:33:55] It has been determined.
[2:33:58] There has got to be that part of the planning.
[2:34:01] On Bayview Drive, if you park a car on one side of the street,
[2:34:05] it turns into a one lane road.
[2:34:07] That is the concern with widening the lot,
[2:34:10] being able to park on Bayview and Escobar.
[2:34:13] How is that going to be considered by the planning.
[2:34:24] Other things, such as, like I said,
[2:34:28] parking and overall safety within the neighborhood
[2:34:31] is extremely important to us.
[2:34:34] The story poles are really important to us
[2:34:36] as well because we look right onto that roof.
[2:34:40] Do want to know how is it going to impact our view.
[2:34:44] I know that is not a right anymore, I guess,
[2:34:47] but it is important to us.
[2:34:49] We want to know how that will impact home values in the area.
[2:34:55] We are asking, respectfully, if you would consider these
[2:35:00] concerns .
[2:35:04] Let's have those concerns addressed.
[2:35:06] Thank you very much.
[2:35:08] >> Thank you.
[2:35:10] Please don't forget to spell -- fill out a speaker card.
[2:35:22] Sir, if you want to speak you can approach.
[2:35:26] You can fill it out after you speak.
[2:35:31] Please state your name for the record and you
[2:35:33] will have three minutes.
[2:35:35] >> It is Evan Walsh Herndon.
[2:35:37] The question is, what is the actual hardship
[2:35:41] that he faces in building a conforming house
[2:35:45] for the size of his lot.
[2:35:50] That is all.
[2:35:53] >> Thank you, Evan.
[2:35:54] Is there anyone else in the public today?
[2:35:56] Do we have anyone online?
[2:36:01] >> Yes, we do.
[2:36:02] First we have someone that is listed as pixel six
[2:36:08] if they could unmute.
[2:36:13] >> They will have three minutes.
[2:36:27] >> Maybe we should go to the next.
[2:36:28] >> Let's move on to the next one.
[2:36:34] >> Then we have John.
[2:36:35] You may unmute and begin.
[2:36:44] >> This is Susie.
[2:36:45] My husband could not make it today.
[2:36:47] We live at 107 Escobar Street.
[2:36:50] We are right below the house.
[2:36:54] I hear all the complaints about the setbacks and the height,
[2:37:00] and everything.
[2:37:02] I know that we are going to be hugely
[2:37:06] affected by this new remodel and we are actually excited for it.
[2:37:12] I think it is time to get this moving.
[2:37:15] This has been a total fire safety for many many years.
[2:37:19] We live right next to them.
[2:37:21] We have squatters going into the house.
[2:37:23] We have people breaking into the house.
[2:37:25] If that house catches on fire or that yard catches on fire,
[2:37:29] our house is going to be gone.
[2:37:32] We are looking forward to getting this project going.
[2:37:37] We have been looking at the plans,
[2:37:40] and we are not affected by the view, or anything.
[2:37:43] But it is right on top of us and we are ready for it.
[2:37:48] We are ready to have a new neighbor.
[2:37:51] I just hope we can get this thing going so we can not have
[2:37:58] a fire hazard right above us , with animals right outside
[2:38:04] our bedroom windows with skunks squirting.
[2:38:09] Anyway, we are ready to get this eyesore taken care of
[2:38:15] and move on.
[2:38:15] That is it.
[2:38:18] Bam thank you very much.
[2:38:22] Is that it for online
[2:38:31] >> We can try pixel six again .
[2:38:38] >> You can tell them to unmute if they are there.
[2:38:40] >> Pixel six, you can go ahead.
[2:38:46] Okay.
[2:38:48] >> Okay.
[2:38:49] Then we move on from online.
[2:38:50] Ma'am, did you want to come up and make a comment?
[2:39:17] >> My name is Rose.
[2:39:17] My husband was John.
[2:39:21] He worked for Martinez for 32 years and died 31 years ago.
[2:39:26] The only concern for me is for him to build the house so high,
[2:39:32] they are going to block my view.
[2:39:34] Why do they want to do that for.
[2:39:36] Why can't they level the house that they have.
[2:39:40] Why do you want to block my view can you tell me that.
[2:39:45] You said they have a right to do that to me.
[2:39:48] I don't think so.
[2:39:50] It is up to you guys, evidently.
[2:39:57] >> Thank you Ma'am.
[2:40:00] We will move on to the rebuttal portion.
[2:40:04] I believe first the appellant will have the opportunity
[2:40:08] for rebuttal, correct?
[2:40:16] >> Thank you.
[2:40:16] Just a few more comments to expand on what we were saying.
[2:40:19] Obviously, a lot of folks are excited to get
[2:40:21] this project started.
[2:40:22] Including us.
[2:40:23] We all want something to be done with this home.
[2:40:26] The reason we want something to be done with the home
[2:40:28] is because it has been neglected and not maintained for decades.
[2:40:33] Animals live in the home.
[2:40:35] People go in the home.
[2:40:37] It sat there.
[2:40:39] A home not being maintained is not
[2:40:42] a reason to grant variances for a new project it
[2:40:45] is the same owners.
[2:40:47] They have had the opportunity to maintain the home.
[2:40:49] This is not something that needed to happen now.
[2:40:52] It could have happened before.
[2:40:54] This is something that should not really
[2:40:58] be a consideration when we are talking about granting
[2:41:00] the variances today.
[2:41:01] Story poles have been mentioned a few times.
[2:41:03] The one pole was put up.
[2:41:05] There are multiple ways, other than getting on the roof itself,
[2:41:09] to install a ridgeline or additional story poles.
[2:41:12] That was not a requirement from the zoning administrator
[2:41:15] in our previous meetings.
[2:41:17] The single pole was done.
[2:41:19] But I think to alleviate concerns,
[2:41:21] it would be nice to have a full ridge line,
[2:41:24] additional story poles.
[2:41:26] More importantly, I think from the city standpoint,
[2:41:29] I have not seen a current survey.
[2:41:31] I don't know that a current survey has been done.
[2:41:33] We are talking about a structure that is going all the way up
[2:41:36] to the property line, according to the drawings that
[2:41:38] were submitted.
[2:41:39] It appears the fence is already over the property line.
[2:41:43] If those things are the case, then
[2:41:46] is this gutter going to be over a future sidewalk,
[2:41:49] or what are we doing.
[2:41:51] How close are we for right at the property line.
[2:41:54] Should we really be evaluating the site
[2:41:56] and getting a proper survey, and making
[2:41:58] sure we understand what the right setbacks are.
[2:42:00] The drawings that we have, this is an older home.
[2:42:04] The assessor's drawings that are approximate from 100 years ago,
[2:42:07] or more.
[2:42:08] A current survey may be appropriate in this case
[2:42:11] to make sure that we understand the exact location
[2:42:14] of the structure and the roof.
[2:42:17] The roof is overhanging an additional three
[2:42:21] feet from the home.
[2:42:23] The current roof ends at the wall of the house.
[2:42:27] There is an extension there because of the slope
[2:42:30] of the hill.
[2:42:33] That roof is going to sit probably less than five feet off
[2:42:37] of the ground, I can estimate.
[2:42:38] Based on the drawings and the slope.
[2:42:40] There is a retaining wall added.
[2:42:42] The roof comes down from the top of the wall height.
[2:42:45] There is a very good chance that the roof additionally
[2:42:48] blocks the view that is not being
[2:42:51] accounted for by the building mass that
[2:42:55] is encompassing the corner.
[2:42:56] When I said it is encroaching an additional two
[2:42:58] feet to the street corner, what we mean is, it is coming out
[2:43:03] and additional feet towards Bayview
[2:43:06] on the front side of the house, which
[2:43:08] is encompassing the north setback
[2:43:12] let me get my directions wrong.
[2:43:14] What I see is the west setback and south setback, I believe.
[2:43:18] It is encompassing that corner, in addition to
[2:43:21] the roof overhang.
[2:43:24] I mentioned the survey.
[2:43:27] Also, asked earlier about the properties that
[2:43:31] were evaluated and referenced for the variances
[2:43:34] and would continue to stress that comparable variances should
[2:43:38] be important here.
[2:43:39] If another property is ten feet, but that is non-conforming
[2:43:43] and now this property is three feet,
[2:43:46] is that really fair to grant those variances
[2:43:49] that are non-conforming.
[2:43:50] Also, I wanted to point out in the staff report it mentioned
[2:43:55] that because the lot was below the 6000ft²,
[2:43:57] it was one of the justifications that did not meet far.
[2:44:01] According to the square footage provided
[2:44:03] it still wouldn't meet the fire requirement
[2:44:06] on a 6000 square foot lot and it still would not
[2:44:08] meet the setback requirement.
[2:44:10] I want to further emphasize that as not
[2:44:14] being adequate justification.
[2:44:16] We also heard from property earlier on a much steeper slope
[2:44:20] that I would consider having a more adequate justification
[2:44:24] for topography as a justification
[2:44:26] to increase height.
[2:44:27] The slope is much gentler on the property.
[2:44:30] And again, it is consistent with the neighborhood.
[2:44:33] Several other homes still meet the 25 foot requirement.
[2:44:39] I guess I will ask if anyone else has any other comments
[2:44:43] at this time.
[2:44:50] >> Thank you.
[2:44:50] We will now move on to the applicant's rebuttal.
[2:44:58] >> I'm going to allow our architect to address most of it.
[2:45:00] The one thing I will say is this property
[2:45:02] wasn't the same owner all of these years.
[2:45:04] My nanny passed away last week.
[2:45:06] She had this property up until two years ago.
[2:45:08] I took this property two years ago
[2:45:10] and we've been working with the city
[2:45:11] planners for the last year it hasn't intentionally
[2:45:14] been neglected.
[2:45:26] >> I'm Kirk Shelby.
[2:45:26] I'm the architect.
[2:45:27] I have a couple of comments.
[2:45:29] One general comment.
[2:45:30] There is always inconsistencies when
[2:45:33] you try to apply zoning requirements to an older
[2:45:35] existing neighborhood, built before such standards were
[2:45:38] established and adopted.
[2:45:39] This is particularly true if the zoning standard adopted
[2:45:42] uses a minimum lot size that is larger than most of the lots
[2:45:47] that it is being applied to.
[2:45:50] The older neighborhood, the more inconsistencies you find.
[2:45:54] You may consider that these inconsistencies are
[2:45:56] what gives older neighborhoods a unique character,
[2:45:58] unlike what can be found in Newark, conforming, more
[2:46:03] homogeneous neighborhoods.
[2:46:04] Fortunately in Martinez you can find
[2:46:06] both types of neighborhoods.
[2:46:08] It is clear that there are other lots in the neighborhood
[2:46:10] in question, which do not meet the zoning standards including
[2:46:13] height, setbacks, minimum lot size, minimum dimensions, etc..
[2:46:16] There are lots that clearly exceed the adopted height
[2:46:20] limits.
[2:46:20] Many of the homes that violate these standards were
[2:46:23] built before these standards were developed and adopted.
[2:46:25] These smaller lot size and more extreme topography
[2:46:29] is the more difficult it is to achieve these zoning standards.
[2:46:32] This is further complicated when you are dealing with an existing
[2:46:35] residence on one of these smaller lots,
[2:46:38] where you are trying to preserve the original character
[2:46:40] of the home while updating it to provide amenities that are not
[2:46:44] typically found in homes over 100 years ago, when
[2:46:46] this was built. The kitchen, I beg to differ with Tony.
[2:46:53] The kitchen has not gotten any wider.
[2:46:55] It has moved location to provide for access to the two car
[2:46:59] garage.
[2:46:59] It is exactly the same width it was before.
[2:47:03] It was 12ft.
[2:47:03] It is 12ft now.
[2:47:05] It slid over to filling the gap that was created.
[2:47:07] The approach and the philosophy was that --
[2:47:12] it is not to encroach any further in terms of distance
[2:47:16] to the property line, with what we were proposing.
[2:47:19] We were also trying not to You get any closer to the down side
[2:47:24] at the 107 neighbor comment because that is the one that has
[2:47:27] the most impact across the street neighbors have the 12ft
[2:47:31] between the property line and the curb.
[2:47:33] The width of the street.
[2:47:34] The 12ft between the property line.
[2:47:37] Their property line and the curb and their setback.
[2:47:40] There is a lot of buffer space between that.
[2:47:43] We are not sitting on top of them.
[2:47:45] The same thing is true with Bayview.
[2:47:47] There is 12ft from our house to the curb.
[2:47:51] There is 20 whatever feet 30ft for Bayview and there is
[2:47:54] a setback there.
[2:47:58] With respect to the second story setback,
[2:48:02] I might have help the planning staff from this.
[2:48:08] We do encroach the ten foot setback only
[2:48:10] in the area where the current house would.
[2:48:12] In other words, there is a gable at the --
[2:48:17] there is a two story section of the house that currently exists.
[2:48:20] The under story where the garage is that extends.
[2:48:23] We are keeping that.
[2:48:25] Where we go beyond that, we Are stepping back four feet.
[2:48:29] If you take the seven feet plus the four feet, you get 11ft.
[2:48:32] The new portion of the house does conform to standards.
[2:48:36] In addition, 13ft of that side that they are saying is two
[2:48:41] story is no longer two story because we have a 20 foot slope
[2:48:44] from corner to corner.
[2:48:46] Upslope.
[2:48:46] By the time you get, if you look at the elevation,
[2:48:49] if you look at the last 13ft, you will see that yes,
[2:48:52] we have some understory, a portion of it,
[2:48:56] but at daylight to grade on the back side.
[2:48:59] We have tried to do that.
[2:49:00] In addition there is a four foot retaining wall
[2:49:03] on the uphill side, simply so we can keep the house where it is.
[2:49:07] It is where it is.
[2:49:08] The subfloor was intended to be where the subfloor is.
[2:49:11] The house was intended to be in the same basic configuration
[2:49:14] that it was.
[2:49:15] Is it exactly?
[2:49:16] No it is not.
[2:49:17] Could it be exactly, yes.
[2:49:19] We could make a one car garage.
[2:49:22] We could do a lot of things.
[2:49:24] It sounds like maybe what the neighbors
[2:49:27] would like us is to demolish the entire house
[2:49:29] and build a house that conforms with what
[2:49:31] the rest of the neighborhood is.
[2:49:33] That is not -- if that is not a hardship, I don't know what is.
[2:49:39] We are trying to keep the house that is there as much as we can,
[2:49:42] and improve on it.
[2:49:43] Additionally, the FAR that is listed at 58,
[2:49:47] includes the area, the gross floor area of the Adu.
[2:49:51] Which my understanding is it shouldn't.
[2:49:53] If you take the Adu outcome of the 400ft² of the Adu,
[2:49:57] if f a are still exceeds five, it is 0.51.
[2:50:02] 0.58.
[2:50:03] Additionally, if you look at the appellant's review,
[2:50:07] they used living area as FAR and didn't include gross floor area.
[2:50:12] If you look at the houses, there are a number of houses.
[2:50:15] I don't know the footprints of the houses because I cannot get
[2:50:18] that information.
[2:50:19] But our house is a one story profile from the uphill side.
[2:50:23] A number of houses across the street
[2:50:25] have a two story profile from the uphill side and a two
[2:50:27] and a half story profile from the downhill side.
[2:50:30] There is definitely room for more.
[2:50:33] >> Thank you.
[2:50:35] >> I could go on.
[2:50:37] >> We are limited on time.
[2:50:39] Thank you very much.
[2:50:42] >> We will now close public comment.
[2:50:45] Two staff, there have been a lot of questions that have recently
[2:50:53] been posed .
[2:50:57] There have been a lot of questions recently posed.
[2:51:01] Are there any in particular that staff would like to address?
[2:51:14] >> There were mentions of variances and they are included
[2:51:16] in the findings as well, citing precedents and things like that.
[2:51:21] As mentioned in the presentation,
[2:51:23] there are two variants or use permits.
[2:51:27] They used to call them use permits back in the day.
[2:51:29] It was to exceed the height so that you have a 30 foot --
[2:51:33] 32 foot tall dwelling unit.
[2:51:36] And that also had the variance for a five foot side
[2:51:41] yard setback where it typically would be
[2:51:46] ten feet, similar to this case.
[2:51:48] I'm not sure.
[2:51:49] I could look into it whether it is two stories or three stories
[2:51:52] but it is 32ft tall.
[2:51:54] Those are references in the other findings,
[2:51:56] just to make that clear.
[2:52:00] >> Okay.
[2:52:01] So that everyone understands, because everyone
[2:52:03] has different levels of experiences
[2:52:04] that are here with us today.
[2:52:06] And staff provide the historical context and reasoning
[2:52:09] behind our setbacks.
[2:52:10] Some of us know, but just in case
[2:52:12] there are folks who do not really understand the purpose
[2:52:14] and intent behind these setbacks we
[2:52:16] have established in this particular zoning area.
[2:52:23] >> Generally, setbacks are a combination of esthetic,
[2:52:27] as well as ingress and egress to allow adequate access,
[2:52:31] especially for side yard setbacks.
[2:52:33] To allow adequate access to and from the rear yard to the front,
[2:52:38] as well as allow space for driveways, garages, and so on.
[2:52:47] >> We have had a lot of incidences over the years where
[2:52:50] we have had exceptions to the setbacks.
[2:52:53] Would you say that this is something
[2:52:56] that is particularly common as this is a very old city
[2:53:01] and we have been making adjustments to the setbacks,
[2:53:04] and sometimes we have to provide exceptions to that.
[2:53:09] >> Yes.
[2:53:10] The city, through the zoning administrator,
[2:53:13] has granted other minor exceptions,
[2:53:16] depending on the level of the nonconformity.
[2:53:20] Either minor exceptions or variances to setbacks
[2:53:23] historically.
[2:53:23] Yes.
[2:53:25] >> Okay.
[2:53:27] Can you, since the question did come up,
[2:53:30] how would you define, specifically,
[2:53:32] the hardship that we addressed that is in your findings.
[2:53:35] It was brought up by the appellant.
[2:53:37] How do we define hardship is it financial?
[2:53:44] >> Hardship is not necessarily defined.
[2:53:49] I want to make sure that we are clear looking
[2:53:54] at the findings for the variance.
[2:53:57] I'm just going to skim over them really quickly.
[2:53:59] Strict or literal interpretation of the regulation
[2:54:02] would result in a practical difficulty
[2:54:04] or unnecessary physical hardship.
[2:54:07] Not financial.
[2:54:08] There is extraordinary circumstances,
[2:54:12] or conditions applicable to the property that just generally do
[2:54:16] not apply to other properties.
[2:54:18] It would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
[2:54:21] by other property owners.
[2:54:22] It will not constitute a grant of special privileges.
[2:54:25] It will not be detrimental to public health and safety.
[2:54:29] As mentioned in the findings, there
[2:54:32] were a few that are related, I believe, specifically
[2:54:37] to the first finding that the project is on a slope
[2:54:42] and slightly more difficult to develop on.
[2:54:44] It is also on a smaller lot than what is actually required
[2:54:49] by the zoning district.
[2:54:51] There are lots that don't conform,
[2:54:53] but there are plenty of lots in the surrounding vicinity that
[2:54:56] are greater than 6000ft, ranging all the way up to 12,000ft.
[2:55:00] And also, that the existing structure
[2:55:05] virtually any expansion would be non-compliant with the city's
[2:55:11] current zoning standards.
[2:55:12] That is just a quick high level summary
[2:55:14] of what is provided in the findings.
[2:55:16] >> When we say physical hardship,
[2:55:18] we are talking about the actual physical construction?
[2:55:23] >> Either the physical construction or the environment
[2:55:26] at the site the physical constraints that make it more
[2:55:30] difficult, that provides some necessary deviation from
[2:55:33] our standards.
[2:55:36] >> Site conditions that are resulting in unnecessary
[2:55:38] physical hardship in terms of the construction and in terms
[2:55:41] of construction we are talking about means and methods.
[2:55:44] That the means and methods -- >> I would agree with that.
[2:55:52] >> Okay.
[2:55:53] Thank you.
[2:55:55] >> I can kind of speak to living in a house that is
[2:55:57] nonconforming.
[2:55:58] My house was built in Omaha Nebraska in 1914.
[2:56:02] I was on, I believe it was a 50 by 50 lot.
[2:56:06] It was on a very steep hill.
[2:56:10] On one side of my house I was a story and a half
[2:56:13] and on the other side of the house
[2:56:15] it was two and a half stories.
[2:56:18] The back of my house was three feet from the property line
[2:56:21] and on the east side it was five feet.
[2:56:26] Older houses were not built according to zoning,
[2:56:30] as we know it today.
[2:56:32] At -- that is the construction since World War Two.
[2:56:37] This house clearly needs that same aid.
[2:56:39] It must have probably been built in 19 tens I am guessing.
[2:56:42] This is a similar lot to what I lived on.
[2:56:48] On a sloping hill.
[2:56:51] It is a historic home.
[2:56:53] It is a historic building.
[2:56:55] It doesn't necessarily -- it really can't fit our current
[2:56:59] concept of zoning.
[2:57:00] It kind of has to have a lot of exceptions.
[2:57:05] Especially when you are trying To make it into a house that
[2:57:08] a 21st century family would live in.
[2:57:13] I think everything that I have heard and listened to today,
[2:57:19] I think any kind of exceptions that have been granted
[2:57:22] makes sense to me.
[2:57:24] Because it is a unique, historically old building
[2:57:29] in a historically older part of town,
[2:57:31] that is not a suburban part of town that was built in the 1970s
[2:57:36] or after World War Two.
[2:57:38] >> One of the things that I often bring up,
[2:57:41] as far life and safety.
[2:57:44] That did get brought up today.
[2:57:46] They turn space for a fire truck.
[2:57:49] Has there been any discussion at all.
[2:57:52] Any plans that there has been a need
[2:57:55] to widen the street in that area?
[2:58:00] >> As far as we know, no.
[2:58:02] There has not been any plan.
[2:58:04] >> Do we know for a fact that there is not enough area there,
[2:58:09] on that corner, for a fire truck to turn around.
[2:58:12] Is that something that has been assessed ?
[2:58:19] >> We also sent this project to fire for review and they did not
[2:58:21] have any comments about access or maneuverability into that
[2:58:27] area with the fire truck.
[2:58:29] We didn't receive any comments from fire in regards to that.
[2:58:36] >> I think what is also important to add,
[2:58:38] as part of the project, the applicant is proposing
[2:58:41] to address an existing non-conforming situation
[2:58:44] by providing room for vehicles to be parked on site,
[2:58:48] rather than off site.
[2:58:50] Which in turn, one could argue, assuming
[2:58:53] the garage is used for that intended purpose,
[2:58:56] it could be reducing potential conflicts
[2:58:59] with emergency vehicles on the street.
[2:59:07] >> It is clear that in its present condition it is a fire
[2:59:10] hazard.
[2:59:10] Everyone does agree with that.
[2:59:12] To be honest with you, that is a big concern of mine.
[2:59:16] I have a background in development
[2:59:18] and seeing that is a concern of mine.
[2:59:21] As we continue on with this committee fire hazard
[2:59:23] isn't mitigated.
[2:59:25] It stays.
[2:59:26] However long this goes on until the home is addressed,
[2:59:30] you do have the continuing condition of a fire hazard.
[2:59:34] Folks mentioned squatters in the area.
[2:59:37] Wildlife, Et-cetera.
[2:59:38] All of that stays into the present condition,
[2:59:43] unfortunately.
[2:59:44] That is an issue for all of you particularly.
[2:59:47] I don't think that the fire chief not commenting,
[2:59:54] I don't think that it means it was necessarily assessed.
[2:59:59] I don't take silence -- yeah.
[3:00:05] That is a concern that I have.
[3:00:11] >> A question for staff.
[3:00:12] How our existing setbacks for historical homes
[3:00:15] traditionally treated in Martinez when they do not
[3:00:18] comply with the >> Consistently with this one,
[3:00:25] that if there is any addition to a non-conforming
[3:00:28] it would have to require either a variance
[3:00:31] or some other exception.
[3:00:33] We wouldn't just allow it to.
[3:00:35] Would have to comply again with the existing regulations.
[3:00:39] >> And to clarify, it is not just additions,
[3:00:41] but it is any modifications to the portion that is
[3:00:45] non-conforming.
[3:00:46] So if there was changes to windows or volume,
[3:00:50] or things of that nature, would also
[3:00:52] need to go through that exception or variance process.
[3:00:56] >> I have a question for staff also.
[3:00:58] Is this second story that is ten feet,
[3:01:00] is that part of the existing building that is non-conforming,
[3:01:03] that is being modified in that sense?
[3:01:10] >> Correct.
[3:01:11] >> Okay.
[3:01:12] This is a tough project.
[3:01:13] It is a corner lot.
[3:01:15] People that have corner lots do get penalized slightly
[3:01:17] from setbacks.
[3:01:18] It is a hard thing to consider.
[3:01:21] The lot is non-conforming.
[3:01:24] Is adding a two car garage, which
[3:01:26] if you were to make him take out the garage,
[3:01:28] then you pose a possible problem with any kind
[3:01:31] of obstruction on the street.
[3:01:33] I commend them for doing the job of what
[3:01:36] he tried to do on this house to try to make it comply
[3:01:39] with the neighborhood.
[3:01:40] And also to give some historical memory,
[3:01:42] I call it, of the neighborhood as well.
[3:01:45] They've done a great job Trying to bury it
[3:01:49] into the hill on the backside.
[3:01:50] Especially on the street adjacent to it where he only
[3:01:56] has one story viewed on that.
[3:01:58] I see that staff had done as far as the zoning administrator,
[3:02:03] I can support it.
[3:02:05] It is a difficult situation.
[3:02:06] I don't believe that the height will be a major issue overall.
[3:02:10] I think that the setbacks I can see
[3:02:14] because of the considerations of what is going on.
[3:02:30] >> The concern that I have was around safety.
[3:02:32] And what I was curious of when you asked the question,
[3:02:38] what I was curious about whether there had been any precedent,
[3:02:41] or if our staff had any experience with emergency
[3:02:46] vehicles, police, and or fire being able to access at Bayview
[3:02:52] and Escobar .
[3:02:57] >> Not that planning staff is aware of.
[3:02:58] I do think it is important to note that there is not
[3:03:04] a change in use.
[3:03:05] The use is a single family home and it is
[3:03:08] remaining a single family home.
[3:03:09] It is adding an accessory dwelling unit,
[3:03:12] but the accessory dwelling unit is a ministerial action.
[3:03:22] >> And I hear Chair Evans position that silence
[3:03:24] doesn't mean consent.
[3:03:25] I wonder if we can specifically ask that of the fire Department.
[3:03:32] >> I received a written letter in response.
[3:03:34] It wasn't that they didn't comment.
[3:03:36] I can send you guys --
[3:03:40] I can send everyone what they sent to me.
[3:03:43] But they reviewed it and they provided the standard comments
[3:03:48] that once it goes through a building permit,
[3:03:51] they are also going to examine it that way.
[3:03:53] But there wasn't anything from their referral agency project
[3:03:58] review.
[3:03:59] They had a certain timeline to review that.
[3:04:05] They didn't give me any additional comments
[3:04:08] and said everything was okay for them.
[3:04:11] I can send that information to you as well.
[3:04:15] >> And just to opine further.
[3:04:17] That was the fire department's first bite at the apple.
[3:04:20] It won't be their last.
[3:04:22] Before it goes for building permit,
[3:04:24] they will also need to get a permit from the fire department
[3:04:27] as well.
[3:04:28] It will be reviewed more thoroughly again.
[3:04:37] >> I want to follow up on the story poles.
[3:04:38] There was one story pole.
[3:04:40] Why is it not sufficient.
[3:04:43] Do we need two story poles.
[3:04:45] I don't know.
[3:04:47] >> I don't necessarily want to speak for the appellants
[3:04:50] or other commenters.
[3:04:51] My understanding is that there was a story pole installed,
[3:04:56] but it could not be put over the exact ridge
[3:05:00] line of where the highest point of the structure will be,
[3:05:03] because of the existing dilapidated roof, that it
[3:05:07] would be unsafe to try to manage to get a story pull up there.
[3:05:10] A singular story pole was installed somewhere else
[3:05:14] respective of the site, to kind of demonstrate
[3:05:17] where the ridge line would be.
[3:05:20] >> There is no way around it.
[3:05:22] It seems like.
[3:05:27] >> That might be a question for the applicant.
[3:05:29] >> I think that is why the applicant provided
[3:05:31] an alternative means to demonstrate height by having
[3:05:34] the lasers and photos showing when viewed from neighbors.
[3:05:42] >> Can that be done with the laser so you get a better
[3:05:48] perspective.
[3:05:50] >> I believe they have already done that.
[3:05:51] They provided that in their presentation.
[3:05:56] And the visual simulation of showing the ridge line.
[3:06:00] Where the red line was.
[3:06:02] That is the approximate location of where the new ridge
[3:06:06] line would be.
[3:06:08] But that was, again, only from one vantage point.
[3:06:11] That was from a neighbor that was uphill and likely to be
[3:06:14] most affected.
[3:06:16] >> I truly appreciate retrofitting.
[3:06:19] Retrofitting is always harder than just building new.
[3:06:24] I understand the difficulties that you have.
[3:06:27] I am also concerned about the safety.
[3:06:32] It is hard to believe.
[3:06:35] >> Would staff like to make a recommendation
[3:06:37] for the Commissioner's consideration.
[3:06:40] Given the issue with the second story side
[3:06:42] yard setback requirement of ten feet,
[3:06:44] because that portion of the existing nonconforming
[3:06:47] is being modified as part of the project.
[3:06:49] We would need to re notice that portion before you would
[3:06:53] take action on the project.
[3:06:55] Staff would recommend that the notice of the application
[3:06:59] and bring it back to the Commission October 13th meeting.
[3:07:03] Prior to that meeting, staff can specifically
[3:07:07] reach out to the Fire department to follow up beyond the comments
[3:07:12] that we already received, as part of the typical referral
[3:07:15] process, to confirm that there are no larger safety
[3:07:20] concerns associated with the proposed project.
[3:07:24] >> I would like to say one thing to staff.
[3:07:27] There are two power poles right there.
[3:07:29] One is on the corner and one is sort of
[3:07:32] in the middle of the property, in the back.
[3:07:35] Widening the statement, if they were going to widen the street
[3:07:38] they would have to redo the power poles, wouldn't you?
[3:07:40] They are right on the corner, as I recall.
[3:07:44] >> They would need relocated or underground.
[3:07:47] >> On the proposed site, it would not be the only one
[3:07:50] affected by a street >> I think it is also important to note
[3:07:57] from a fire safety standpoint, this was alluded to earlier
[3:08:00] today.
[3:08:00] The applicant did remove a significant amount of brush
[3:08:04] and vegetation adjacent to the power pole,
[3:08:07] decreasing a potential fire safety issue.
[3:08:16] >> I wanted to add that it is nice to see some revisions that
[3:08:19] have been included in the presentation such as the roof
[3:08:23] pitch, and things like that to accommodate some
[3:08:25] of the requests.
[3:08:26] It is worth noting that the team here
[3:08:30] has attempted to make some changes to appease
[3:08:34] these requests.
[3:08:41] >> I appreciate the comments and the direction from staff
[3:08:44] because we do.
[3:08:45] We are going to have to readdress the rear setback.
[3:08:50] Based upon the suggestions made by staff,
[3:08:55] can I get a motion to shelve this until October 30th meeting,
[3:09:03] and for staff to have the opportunity to conduct
[3:09:06] the items.
[3:09:08] >> October 13th.
[3:09:10] >> What did you say?
[3:09:12] >> I said -- you said the 30th.
[3:09:21] >> October 13th for everyone.
[3:09:29] >> It is because it is 10:00, everyone.
[3:09:31] I get it.
[3:09:32] >> I make a motion that this item be tabled until October
[3:09:35] 13th in accordance with the language that staff has used.
[3:09:40] >> Second.
[3:09:43] >> Call the vote.
[3:09:51] >>
[3:09:52] [Members Voting]
[3:09:53] [Members Voting]
[3:10:02] >> The motion passes.
[3:10:05] >> Thank you all very much for attending.
[3:10:07] We really appreciate it.
[3:10:08] We understand how everyone feels about this item.
[3:10:12] I know everyone wants it to come to a conclusion.
[3:10:16] Again, as I mentioned before, we are all neighbors.
[3:10:20] It is very important for all of us
[3:10:22] that love this city that we can figure out
[3:10:24] to come to some sort of solution that works for everyone.
[3:10:27] But I get it.
[3:10:28] I hope you all understand we are all trying
[3:10:31] to do what we can for the city.
[3:10:33] No one is going to be completely happy.
[3:10:36] But I do think it is very important that everyone
[3:10:39] remembers that you are neighbors.
[3:10:41] We've got to be able to get along.
[3:10:44] This isn't a company, a commercial entity
[3:10:46] that is trying to move in.
[3:10:48] I assume you are going to live in the dwelling.
[3:10:50] It is another family.
[3:10:52] We all should do what we can.
[3:10:55] Thank you.
[3:11:02] >> We will now move on to the presentation that we had tabled
[3:11:06] from earlier in the meeting.
[3:11:07] Staff will have their presentation for us.
[3:11:20] >> Thank you chair Evans and members of the Planning
[3:11:22] Commission.
[3:11:23] I am senior planner Brandon Northcott.
[3:11:25] My presentation was going to be an hour
[3:11:27] but I will shorten it to 45 minutes for you guys.
[3:11:35] >> Funny guy.
[3:11:35] >> Bear with me.
[3:11:36] I here really just to present a new update to the city's
[3:11:39] interactive zoning map.
[3:11:40] Just a little context.
[3:11:42] We have an existing interactive zoning map --
[3:11:47] I'm trying to get this to move out of my way.
[3:11:49] We do have an existing zoning map
[3:11:54] that people from the community can access.
[3:11:56] It is called the Community Viewer.
[3:11:58] Unfortunately, it is a little quirky.
[3:12:00] It is the word I will use.
[3:12:03] I'm sure people are familiar with it.
[3:12:04] As you can see, sometimes it takes a couple of times for it
[3:12:07] to load.
[3:12:08] Sometimes it doesn't load at all.
[3:12:10] I won't go too much into the details.
[3:12:12] I have a lot to say about that.
[3:12:14] Long story short, this platform is no longer being supported
[3:12:17] and it is actually through a third party vendor.
[3:12:19] We don't really have a lot of control over it.
[3:12:22] It is kind of a pain in the Butt to try
[3:12:23] to update it and everything.
[3:12:25] Staff has taken it upon ourselves
[3:12:27] to update this map on our own and create a new one.
[3:12:31] I would just like to point everyone in that direction.
[3:12:35] To find the map, it is pretty easy.
[3:12:37] You can search City of Martinez zoning map.
[3:12:41] You will find it here on the map room.
[3:12:42] You can also find it by navigating to the city website
[3:12:44] and going to the map Room via the Planning Division website.
[3:12:48] What I really like about this is coming out
[3:12:51] it is actually embedded in the city's website.
[3:12:53] As you can see here, there is no need to follow any other links.
[3:12:58] You can also access the link through other ways.
[3:13:01] Some of the great things about this map.
[3:13:03] One is that it has this nice splash
[3:13:06] screen that says this is how you use the map and a disclaimer.
[3:13:09] Consult with a professional before you
[3:13:11] use this to make any really important financial decisions.
[3:13:15] Moving forward, here is the map.
[3:13:18] It shows a bunch of different things off of the top.
[3:13:22] A couple of overlays.
[3:13:24] Our housing element sites as you Zoom in you
[3:13:26] can start seeing the specific parcels.
[3:13:29] It has the search function where you
[3:13:31] can search for specific address and it will auto populate then
[3:13:35] you can Zoom straight to that parcel.
[3:13:37] You click it and then you are going
[3:13:39] to get this really nifty pop up that basically says,
[3:13:42] you clicked on 525 Henrietta Street
[3:13:44] where we are at right now.
[3:13:45] It tells you the a p n.
[3:13:47] It tells you the appropriate size of the parcel, the zoning,
[3:13:50] the general plan and the thing that I really
[3:13:52] like about this one is it actually
[3:13:54] Shows you any applicable overlays that are at the site.
[3:13:56] One of the biggest sources of pain and confusion for residents
[3:14:00] is they think I have an r-6 zone property.
[3:14:04] That is great.
[3:14:05] But you are really in the specific plan and this and that.
[3:14:08] It is actually not that simple.
[3:14:10] This provides that additional context.
[3:14:12] Also, if you are a housing element site,
[3:14:14] it will tell you which one that you
[3:14:16] are so you might be able to reference that and see
[3:14:18] what you are envision what your housing density is.
[3:14:22] Also -- tell you what city council district you fall in.
[3:14:26] There is a nice note that says do not necessarily
[3:14:28] rely on this information contact the planner
[3:14:30] if you want to follow up.
[3:14:32] This is, I would say, phase one.
[3:14:35] There are some few edits I would like to make in the future.
[3:14:38] But just some other fun things you can do.
[3:14:40] You can turn off and on layers.
[3:14:42] If you just want to say, I want to see where the zoning is
[3:14:46] in the general vicinity.
[3:14:48] I can turn that on.
[3:14:49] I can also turn on general plan designations as well
[3:14:53] and then, finally, some fun stuff.
[3:14:56] You can change the base map.
[3:14:57] If you want to see an aerial, you can change that to.
[3:15:01] And another fun one is, if I am looking at this parcel, what
[3:15:05] is my front setback right now.
[3:15:07] You can use this measurement Tool and it will help guide you.
[3:15:11] That is really it again, phase one,
[3:15:14] there are additional edits that I need to make.
[3:15:16] But I really just wanted to share with the commission
[3:15:18] and members of the public who might be interested, that we
[3:15:22] have this excellent tool.
[3:15:23] This will probably resolve 50% of our inquiries
[3:15:26] if people use it.
[3:15:28] Please use it.
[3:15:29] With that, I am Happy to answer any questions, if you
[3:15:32] have any, or suggestions.
[3:15:34] That is all.
[3:15:37] >> Thank you.
[3:15:37] That is actually a really fantastic.
[3:15:40] >> Can you go around the whole county and have them change
[3:15:43] theirs.
[3:15:45] >> If they want to pay me off of --
[3:15:51] outside of the city boundaries, that is okay.
[3:15:54] >> That is what I like to see.
[3:15:55] Martinez is setting the standard.
[3:15:57] Let everybody else try to keep up.
[3:16:00] >> How are you informing the public of the tool?
[3:16:04] >> We are doing this presentation.
[3:16:06] There will probably be other updates
[3:16:09] through our city newsletter that we will utilize primarily, as
[3:16:14] well as informing people at the counter
[3:16:17] that this is a resource available to them.
[3:16:22] >> It looks very accessible to the public and very easy
[3:16:25] to find.
[3:16:26] I think that is a huge improvement.
[3:16:28] Just to comment.
[3:16:31] >> I wonder, in addition to that,
[3:16:35] to consider pushing it out in the social media for people who
[3:16:40] do follow city of Martinez on social media.
[3:16:43] That there is this great thing that you did, right?
[3:16:47] We want to celebrate that.
[3:16:49] It could be that the person that sees it on social media
[3:16:53] isn't the person that wants it, but they
[3:16:55] can tell the person who is looking for it.
[3:16:57] It is really hard.
[3:16:58] No.
[3:16:59] There is a new thing.
[3:17:00] That might be something else to consider.
[3:17:03] >> We can definitely work with the city social media manager
[3:17:07] to get that pushed out.
[3:17:09] >> Thank you.
[3:17:11] >> Excellent.
[3:17:12] Thank you very much.
[3:17:15] >> We will move on.
[3:17:17] Are there any commissioning items ?
[3:17:22] None.
[3:17:23] Okay, great.
[3:17:24] Acting Director updates.
[3:17:27] >> I have a few.
[3:17:28] I will be quick compared to what I normally do.
[3:17:30] I have all around some good news.
[3:17:33] But before getting into the good news,
[3:17:35] I want to just share with the commission members
[3:17:38] and the public, tomorrow meaning --
[3:17:41] the executive team is hosting a candidate forum for City council
[3:17:44] candidates to get information about the city.
[3:17:47] The meeting is public.
[3:17:48] It is a good way to hear about high level, how
[3:17:51] the city operates, functions and main initiatives that
[3:17:54] are underway.
[3:17:54] It is at 6:00 tomorrow evening.
[3:17:58] At the last meeting, I made or provided
[3:18:02] a number of updates in regards to some grant
[3:18:05] funding applications.
[3:18:06] We did get word on Friday that our application with UC Berkeley
[3:18:13] to the Air District is one of the recommended grant
[3:18:16] applications for deployment of air monitors.
[3:18:20] It still has to go through a process,
[3:18:22] but it is looking very positive, like we will be
[3:18:26] one of the selected recipients.
[3:18:28] Secondly, we got word that as part of the budgetary process.
[3:18:34] At the state, the city is being allocated $950,000
[3:18:39] for implementation of the Lower Alhambra Creek Watershed
[3:18:43] project.
[3:18:44] That will be a great enhancement to our downtown area.
[3:18:49] Next, as part of our sustainability division,
[3:18:53] we did cement an award application
[3:18:57] to the Institute of Local Government.
[3:19:00] They have a beacon program.
[3:19:02] There are five categories and sustainable actions
[3:19:05] that can be taken.
[3:19:07] We did get word that this year we
[3:19:09] are a recipient of a Platinum Spotlight Award for natural gas
[3:19:14] Reduction.
[3:19:14] We have reduced our natural gas reliance as a public agency.
[3:19:19] Not as a community.
[3:19:20] But as a public agency by 22%.
[3:19:24] Pretty significant.
[3:19:25] And then, finally, since the last meeting,
[3:19:31] our city council did approve our entertainment zone designation
[3:19:36] for the downtown.
[3:19:38] Staff is working with downtown Martinez
[3:19:39] and the chamber on potential deployment later this year.
[3:19:43] More news to be shared in the near future.
[3:19:50] >> Good.
[3:19:53] >> And that is it.
[3:19:54] >> Any communications ?
[3:19:58] No.
[3:19:58] If there are no further communications, or discussions,
[3:20:02] then we will adjourn to our next regularly scheduled planning
[3:20:06] commission on September 22nd.
[3:20:11] >> Yes, but note that the meeting will be canceled.
[3:20:15] >> The current time is ten:18 September 20th --
[3:20:18] September 8th, 2026.