Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. The normal chair is out of town. So as the vice chair, I'm taking over the role for this evening. I think I need to have a roll call of call to order and then a roll call. That's correct. Oh, I'll make the call. OK. So Commissioner Roche, here. Commissioner Havel, here. Commissioner Grinke, here. And Commissioner Tiernan's here. Excellent. We have quorum. So I need a motion to approve our final agenda. So moved. Second. Second. Go ahead. Okay, and I'll make a roll call. In favor, Commissioner Roach? Aye. Commissioner Ebel? Aye. Commissioner Grinke? Aye. And Tiernan's an aye. At this stage, we have public comment. So if there's something other than what's on our agenda for this evening, I would welcome your comments. So the next item before us is our consent calendar. It is the extension of the Wood Hollow residence. Unless a commissioner wants to question it or have any kind of further discussion, consent calendar is typically a motion.

Yeah, I'd move that we approve the extension or the consent item agenda extension or a second second okay all right so commissioner roach is an eye commissioner havell aye commissioner grinky aye and tiernan's an eye as well that would be a four zero with three missing

At this stage, there's no unfinished or other business, but before us are some amendments for the public hearing tonight. Consideration of amendments to the chapter 19 zoning ordinance of our municipal code. Land use categories, implementing programs, and the six cycle housing element. The staff for this is. The floor is yours.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Vivek Dalmadaran, Senior Planner with the Planning Division, and tonight I'm joined by my colleague Brett Walker, Senior Planner as well, and we will be presenting the Zoning Ordinance Amendment item. Tonight, the Planning Commission will be considering adoption of a resolution recommending the City Council amend Chapter 19 of the Nevada Municipal Code to modify several zoning ordinance divisions and sections and to establish division 19.29 and section 19.34.028 and finding the amendments are not subject to further environmental review pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA guidelines section 15162, 15183, and 15061B3. Staff would like to highlight some of the notable amendments that are being presented tonight. These include changes to the zoning district descriptions to reflect updated definitions and development intensities in Novato General Plan 2035. Land use table formatting changes and internal zoning ordinance consistency corrections. Changes to the zoning district's development standards tables to reflect the updated general plan definitions and development intensities. A new zoning ordinance section to provide consistent permit processing requirements and procedures for housing development projects in accordance with state laws. An alternate option to the master plan and precise development plan process for housing development projects. And finally, a new zoning ordinance section to allow for the transfer of development rights to further protect listed historic and environmental resources. The proposed amendments will modify descriptions and development standards for all zoning districts to reflect the updated definitions and development intensities specified in Votto General Plan 2035. These modifications are necessary to maintain internal consistency between the general plan and the zoning ordinance. The table on the slide shows the new building density and intensity modifications in each of the affected zoning districts. Additionally, the current zoning ordinance format was developed for print versions of the ordinance. As such, we are proposing to consolidate and reformat several tables, including the land use and development standards tables for clarity and ease of use across various mediums, including the online version of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendments include a new zoning ordinance section that would apply to all housing development projects. The term housing development projects includes any development project that contains two or more residential units. This section is aimed at providing permit requirements and a process that will be uniformly applied to all housing development projects. This ordinance will establish two tiers of review authority based on the proposed unit count in a housing development project. The community development director would be the review authority for projects of 150 or fewer units, and the planning commission would be the review authority for projects with greater than 150 units. This distinction between review authorities is based on the overall review timeframes that is prescribed by state law for housing development projects. And California's Housing Accountability Act also requires that a local agency determine whether a complete project application is consistent with objective standards within 30 days for projects with 150 or fewer units. within 60 days for projects with greater than 150 units. Additionally, considering these prescriptive time frames and the limits on the type of review for housing development projects, the review authority's decision on a housing development project is not appealable. The proposed amendments for our master plan and precise development process includes modifications to the requirements for our planned development zoning districts. Currently, the zoning ordinance requires for the adoption of site-specific master plan and precise development plans. This amendment would then provide developers with an alternate option to instead propose a housing development project subject to the standards of a zoning district implementing the general plan land use designation applicable to that parcel. Now I'm gonna hand it off to Brett Walker for our transfer development rights.

Good evening. So as part of the housing element, there was a program identified as program to a which directs the city to adopt a transfer of development rights ordinance with the goal of increasing affordable housing opportunities. So the draft ordinance includes eligibility criteria for both donor and receiving properties. Regarding donor properties, there are two eligibility criteria. One for sites with state or federally listed or registered historic buildings. And the second is for sites that are vacant and have environmental resources. such as sites subject to the city's wetlands, waterways, hillside, or woodland preservation ordinance, sites that are located in the Baylands or flood hazard overlay district, or those sites located in the agricultural or conservation zoning district areas. Receiving areas need to be located in the downtown or North Redwood general plan focus area not have an historic or environmental resource on site and have a land use that allows residential uses. The draft ordinance also does include some limitations and allowances. One is that the receiving property can obtain units up to 25% above the receiving site maximum density per the general plan land use designation assigned to the receiving site. An example of that was if you had a receiving site that, based on its land use designation, could accommodate 100 units with this 25% provision, they could get an additional 25 units through the TDR process. Regarding program implementation, this means that a donor property would need to partner with four different receiving sites to maximize that density unit count credit. And from staff's perspective, we foresee that initially one donor and one receiving property developer would apply for a TDR, and if that were approved, The donor property would be required to record a conservation easement, which eliminates remaining development potential from their site. The donor site would still retain 75 percent of that density and dwelling unit credits to potentially partner with other development developers in the receiving area a future use permit or amendment to the first use permit would be required for any subsequent transfer to a receiving property The ordinance also includes a provision that the receiving site would not be subject, the receiving site units would not be subject to the city's affordable housing ordinance. And this is created in there to incentivize the program. So as I mentioned earlier, use permit approval is required. This is a discretionary approval. So a TDR application is not guaranteed to be approved. Additionally, receiving units. would not be part of the base density for calculating density bonus. So that base density would be based on the general plan land use designation for the receiving site, not including those extra units that they might garner through the TDR process. To implement this new ordinance, we've got four new definitions. Three are specific to the TDR program, and a fourth, which is not currently in our zoning ordinance, is a definition for a vacant lot. This next slide shows the map of our general plan focus area. So as proposed, the downtown area and the North Redwood corridor are the potential receiving sites. The map also shows the Northwest Quad, but that is not part of the program as proposed. This next slide just gives you some hypothetical scenarios for a receiving site. We've got two scenarios with the mixed-use land use designation that has 20 units max per acre and two with the downtown core that has 23 units per max acre. And you can see on a smaller site of about 7,500 square feet, that's the 0.17 acres, Base density would be 3.4 units. Add in 25% of that 3.4, you get .85. Add those together, you get four and a quarter units. And what we have written into these ordinances is that instead of rounding down, which our zoning code requires for many of the calculations, this would actually allow you to round up an additional small incentive for this. half acre site with base density you could get to about 10.3 units with tdr at the maximum 25 another two and a half units that gets you to just under 13 units rounding up you get to 13. Then I also have an example there for a five acre site and then about a 36,000 square foot site using the downtown core 23 units per acre max. So with that, page six of the staff report does include a section regarding the planning commission considerations. For the TDR ordinance, staff did identify the 25% limitation for receiving areas and then also that exemption from the city's affordable housing requirement ordinance. So these are two areas that we just wanted to bring your attention to that the Planning Commission may want to comment on. We came to the 25% increase as a means to sort of try to control the potential additional development compared to what might be possible either with, on adjacent sites, either with existing development or potential development if a site were to not use the TDR program. And as I mentioned earlier, the exclusion from those units being part of the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, Affordable Housing Requirements Ordinance, we felt that it would be best to not require these units to be part of that calculation as another incentive for the program. So with that, that does conclude staff presentation and Rebecca and I can answer any questions you may have.

I appreciate that. Thank you. So let me first quiz the commission to see if they have questions of staff before we move on. So do we have any questions regarding the text or this transfer of development rights? I have a couple questions.

Fire away. So first, just as the procedural posture, am I correct in understanding that a lot of the changes that were already that we're being asked to consider have already been adopted by council as part of the general plan that we're just being asked to codify?

Yes. So Planning Commission reviewed it, and then City Council adopted the general plan back in October of 2020. And so it's just taken staff some time with getting these amendments before the Planning Commission. But on some of these, we've essentially been implementing them already when new housing development projects have been coming in because we do have the general plan as sort of the guiding document to make those decisions.

So we're primarily focused on the two items that you flagged for us as things that you want our particular feedback and the rest is all kind of more or less what the council has directed staff to do.

Yeah, I would say the amendments that Vivek described are largely based on bringing consistency between the zoning code and the general plan. The TDR ordinance is in the housing element as a program to implement. But with that, there's not, I would say, a little bit more leeway in what the actual regulations are that are eventually adopted.

Perfect. And now, kind of changing gears to the TDR proposal, I just want to clarify, just for my own sake, that you mentioned that the TDR would not then be subject to the density bonus. So am I correct in assuming that they're both being applied to the base rate as opposed to like, so if we start out with 100 units and they had a 20% density bonus, and then a 25% TDR bonus, they would get 155 units as opposed to 25% of the base rate. you know, 120 and get a higher number or 145 units as opposed to 150. So I can't do math at this late hour.

Yeah, that's a correct calculation. You said 20% with density bonus. That'd be 20 units, 25% through TDR, 25 units. So you had 120 and 25, 145.

Perfect. Yeah, I just wanted to make sure I had it correct. And then finally, moving to the review threshold, does it differentiate at all the 150 units between, say, a brownfield infill development versus a sprawling subdivision or anything like that? It's just the total units?

Yeah, and Vivek can step up if he can clarify. But yeah, it's basically just written into state law into these housing laws that the threshold is 150 units. And it's not specific to location, whether it's infill or greenfield development.

It's just a number. There is no additional modifiers.

OK. I guess that's something we have Sacramento to thank for then. My thinking is just that I would hate for there to be a scenario where we have a Nevada prides itself on our open space. I would hate for there to be a subdivision that comes down the line that is going to bulldoze a huge tract of land that we couldn't have an input on. But it sounds like Sacramento is once again tying our hands on whether we protect that space. Just trying to think if there's any wiggle room that there could be for us to potentially have an input on greenfield sites within the time frame that Sacramento had set for us. I think it might be worth revisiting that after questions. Sorry.

Yeah, those were good questions, actually. Thank you for asking them. And to build off of your kind of last question scenario, I don't think any land use planner who's good at what they do thinks that the amount of development that's being proposed or contemplated or pushed by Sacramento is a good idea because it starts straining all of our resources. And I'm not looking at this from a not in my backyard perspective. What I'm talking about is actual real constraints that we have in the state of California. If I put on my NIMBY hat for a second, there's also that part of me that's kind of like, and I think my neighbors and other people I've talked to in town, they're like, why is somebody else telling us, forcing this on us? So my question is this. How do we... How do we push back? Is there a way to push back? Can we tell Sacramento to, you know, when do we become the Republic of Nevada and tell them, hey, you know what? We're good. We're, you guys, you're, you know, we don't have unlimited water like you think. We don't have unlimited land like you, like, I feel like there's a lot of assumptions being made about what we are, what we have. And at some point, local control is necessary to preserve those resources. I mean, is that something, does staff talk about that?

How do we? Well, I think the one thing that we do definitely make sure we do a good job on as staff is that when these housing development applications do get submitted, some of them do have citing criteria, AB 2011, SB 35. Some of these state housing laws do have very specific criteria that they have to meet. So we, as staff, try to do our best to make sure that they are actually compliant. Outside of that, at the local level, it's real difficult because these really are state mandates that are coming down to us from those state laws. So all I could say is maybe contact your state representatives.

Right. I guess, I mean, we can do that. I can write a letter and get a nice little form letter back from their intern or whoever's, you know, writing their responses for them. So I don't, I mean, yes, you're correct. That is the way to proceed. I'm wondering if the city is interested in making a larger statement. And I realized that would be something to talk to my elected officials in Novato about and sort of go that route with it. Because I write a letter. Yeah, whatever. They might look at it. Again, this is I realize you're we're talking about these changes. I you know, I think Commissioner Gregg these questions were good We're not here to This is pretty straightforward If just I wish Commissioner Derby was here because he he provides that developer view on a lot of this stuff I would argue that I think some of the sentiment I don't know if the sentiments maybe from Sacramento is like trying to address the pain and suffering of contractors across the state who think that there's just too much red tape, which, you know, sure, there might be some credence to that, but I think The pendulum swung so far in the other direction. I keep on asking myself, when do we as a town push back and say, you know, we're not going to keep on going with this. Anyways, thank you for listening. I'm done. Thanks.

There's more on the floor.

So a couple of questions. I had the specific about 150 and above and 150 below what you were talking about there, so thank you. I also wanted to clarify on the TDR item 3, and this is not subject to the city's affordable housing requirement and that that is an incentivizer. It's an incentivizer because why?

So in our typical affordable housing requirements ordinance, once you get to a project of 20 units or more, 20% of those units have to be deed restricted as affordable at the various affordability levels, depending on whether the project's a rental project or a for sale project.

And that the number was 20? 20% yeah But relative to the larger unit of how many but when does that threshold get crossed for the 20%?

20 units or more 20% and then 20 again. Yeah, and so If a developer were looking to use this TDR ordinance and Say they were able to get say it's a hundred unit project. They could get 25 extra units and Well, if this ordinance were, these units were subject to the affordable requirements, that means their burden of the number of affordable units based on 20% would go from 20 units I think, 25 units, which is an additional cost burden on the developer. There is discretion for the Planning Commission and the City Council on that. That's how staff wrote it, but that's certainly a discretionary thing that can be a decision ultimately of the City Council to change that, amend that language so those units would be subject to the city's affordable housing requirements.

And as you mentioned, these are already basically in play. We're simply trying to codify these amendments into the general plan.

So the housing element had this program for us to adopt this TDR program, but it didn't have the specifics of what the TDR program should be. So this is very much what I would say the ability for the planning commission to provide input and ultimately the city council to have this TDR program unique to how the city really wants it.

With that said, could we go back on the TDR and take a look at item three? I could just use some clarity on that, please, if you don't mind, on the screen, if at all possible. It was item one, actually. Item 1 and 3, I had questions on, but item 1 would be great. Thank you.

Was this the slide?

I think that might be. Yes, let's take a look. So there it is. OK, receiving site units not subject to the city affordable housing. That's item three. Item one, receiving property can obtain units up to 25% above receiving site maximum density per general requirements land use designation. I look at that sentence. It's a little bit of a word salad to me to understand what the intent of that sentence means.

Yes, so the example of if you have a receiving site and the density is set that the total units allowed would be 100 units. having an increase of 25% means that the general plan land use designation would allow 100 units. And through the TDR process. They get to 125. They can get to 125, correct. Got it. And the benefit of getting to that 125 is?

I think that would be a situation where a developer

had a target number of units that they could not achieve through the regular general plan land use density allowances possibly stacking that with some density bonus units and they just needed a few extra units to make the project financially feasible It's hard to scenario play of exactly how this was because so much of it is a developer driven and financial decision that you know staff isn't always privy to and it's very I would guess very unique to each developers project site and all of the financials that go into their process of putting together a development plan and so then

What we're talking about here is limited to a very specific area of the city, not the entire area of the city itself, but two areas that were mapped out earlier.

Correct. And that was, again, a staff decision to present to the Planning Commission and City Council. And we based that decision on what we felt were the parts of the cities that were most appropriate or acceptable for additional development above the general plan limitations.

And does this help, with the information here, does this help streamline

the general plan getting our ordinances up to speed and up to stop does it assist or is it more of a encumbrance uh i don't know if i would treat it either way i think it's just an additional tool that can potentially get additional units built that would go towards the city meeting its arena allocation got it thank you sure

So we'll stick on the TDR for a little while. I think the advantage is that they don't have to be affordable units, the units on the receiving end. So if they prefer to have market rate housing rather than provide the affordable, that in their perception would be a red ink, they get to have market rate. But what I see is that it's such a narrow area for receiving. It's just exclusively downtown. It goes up to Atherton, stops there. That would be the North Redwood corridor picking up that triangle, and then down Grant Avenue. What's a challenge for me is trying to actually, without a concrete example, and I recognize that these would come through formal public hearings so that we would see a concrete example. you know, to say how comfortable we are with that or if 25% is enough or not. What I'm envisioning is somebody owns a piece of property that's all ridgeline, perceived as all ridgeline, and their, you know, 30 units are essentially undevelopable under our current status, that they would... i'm assuming sell those 30 units to somebody that could use them in the downtown corridor area and at that point when the ridge line is cons is conserved right because they can't do anything else with that property the development rights are gone and those 30 units move downtown somewhere is that a fairly accurate picture

Yeah, I think so. You know, when staff was sort of doing some scenarios of what this might look like, we did think about those steeper hillside properties that would be very difficult to develop. And, you know, the city obviously in the early 2000s adopted the hillside ordinance with this idea that there was a push to preserve those hillsides. So we see this as sort of a carrot towards someone that might own property to actually conserve that property.

Okay. So would it be possible for that same property owner who, their property is zoned, it's hillside, it's zoned for 30, though, to say, well, I'm going to sell 15 to project A, but then we're going to sell, split off the other 15 and sell them to project B. Is that a likely scenario as well?

Yeah, yeah. I think because given that a receiving property isn't able to, assuming we keep a limitation of 25% or some other number, it's unlikely that a donor property and a receiving property would have an exact match of units the donor property can sell and a receiving property can receive. So that's why I talked about the scenario where it may take multiple receiving properties to fully realize the donor properties development credits that they hold.

Do we have anybody waiting in the lurches that's ready to jump on a transferred property?

Not that I'm aware of. And to be honest, you know, these TDRs, I don't think they're used. It's not a very common practice. You know, we've got the two options here, one for the historic properties and the other for the more environmentally friendly. environmentally constrained properties. I know San Francisco, they have a TDR program that focused specifically on the historic resources. I know it's been used. I don't know how much it's been used. And again, they have it in limited to very specific receiving areas. I think the downtown area and the south of Market area.

Any Marin County jurisdictions have

The county does have one. It's more tied to the agricultural resources. Their donor sites are all the ag properties. City of San Rafael has one. I'm not sure if it's ever been used, though.

So that kind of brings to mind, so because we have the county line fairly close in many parts of this town, could some development rights from the county be transferred into the city?

Not as the ordinance is currently written. I think that would have to be a larger, more thought-out program, probably some inter-jurisdictional agreements. Just sort of a what if.

OK, so I do have a couple of questions about the text. And my PC is not operating. So I have the pages that showed up in our staff report. I have some questions. Sure. So page six. It has under building standards something about the max density doesn't apply for open space. I'm just curious, why would even, it's open space, what density do we need there?

What paragraph?

So it was on page six, as part of the text changes, table two, three, under AG, where it shows open space, It has something about building standards in my notes here. And I don't get why we need building standards in open space. Unless it's like maybe a shed.

So the question is, if it's open space, why are there building standards?

I'm assuming it's just for a shed or for maintenance stuff, but if you could clarify.

Great question. There may be some land use types that do allow for the development of a structure that would have to meet those development standards. So like you had mentioned, like a shed, farm, something like that.

Okay, I mean, that's what I'm assuming, but I just want to verify that that is indeed the case. Yeah. Okay, so then on page 19, The residential unit uses CN for multifamily. As I recall, or as I, I don't have the grid in front of me, but it was something about how it needed a permit. So again, page 19. Residential land uses CN. Yes. multifamily, it says that it needs a permit.

Oh, so, okay, so this is a correction from the 2012 Ordinance Amendment where the multi, oh, sorry, excuse me. This is a response to a housing element policy where we have removed the use permit requirement for mixed use in a multifamily project. So this is required by or kind of dictated by the housing elements.

okay so so previously it was a it was a permitted use now it requires a permit somebody's got to actually apply for it it's actually the other way so previously a use permit was required now a use permit is no longer automatic okay that's that's fine um page 16. um the abbreviations you and i'm curious which one is Old Town versus New Town. You know, we've got a CDR and then we've got a CDB. And I'm assuming the business district is the West End. New Town, if you will. Yes. Okay. Okay.

Yeah, I think it's kind of intermingled. It's not a clean West. Right.

It would be nice, actually, in brackets if it said Old Town. Right. To make it a little bit clearer. Do we... So... Page 21, this is about the check cashing. So that was the question why it was. I think it's a permitted in the West End, in Newtown, but not in Oldtown. Is that accurate? Or did the city council take action on that? Because we had a little controversy about a business.

Yeah, and I believe that a new land use type was added. Or there's a note somewhere. There is a note number 16 here that's specific to check cashing. It says, state check cashing services may be offered as an accessory used to a travel agency or grocery store outlet, grocery store subject to the requirements of section 19.34.034. So yes, that would be a correction to include that reference. But the note is in text, but the note is not listed in the table. So we will have to...

Okay, so let me try that one more time. So Old Town, check cashing is now, as long as it's within a grocery store or some other service, is a permitted use. Yes. Okay, it doesn't require a huge permit.

Oh, business. travel agency. That's what it was. So the note that I had mentioned, that is a note that's listed under the travel agency land use type, and that is a permitted use in all of the commercial zoning districts.

Okay. Thank you. And then lastly, so there's a table for And it's regarding design review. And I'm just curious, did they have a chance to review that? Have they had that committee?

They have not. This is the first meeting for the zoning ordinance amendments. So they would not be reviewing that table. The changes to the design review table are largely formatting. The only, I think, new land use type, or sorry, the design review type would be the housing development projects that we discussed tonight.

balance of it that's so so assuming we make a recommendation to just go straight to the city council exactly okay okay um that's the extent of my questions at least for now around the text and the tdrs um does staff want to contribute anything else before i open the hearing Okay, so I'm gonna open up a public hearing in case members of the public wanna talk to us about these text changes or the transfer of development rights. It is kind of esoteric a little bit. I'd be curious from staff's perspective how much more work this may well develop being that now you'll be handling projects with 150 or less units. But that's just a retort. We'll get to that.

Yes, come on.

You know, your TDR page really confuses me. Maybe you're clear, but I don't quite understand. I thought one of the goals to have more affordable housing, but now you're actually saying that you are going to transfer the right from the donor property to some downtown property. They can build more, but they don't have to build affordable housing. I believe that's what comes down to it, right? And I guess the second part is how do you get a, maybe it doesn't make any difference because you say you don't have any property that you identify as such, but you're also saying on the first process you have donor property that's either of historical value or a property that has resources, environmental resource, what does that mean by environmental resource? And if you do have, I mean, we're talking about, because we have creek, we have other things, so you're saying, okay, I own this property that has one or the other, which I either have a hard time building because it's a historic site, So I have no idea how many units I can build on that. And I cannot build it. So now I'm just going to go and say, hey, I'm going to switch the right, give you the right. So you can build 25, 40 more units. So what do I get? I mean, how does this even work? I don't know.

We share some of your questions. Do you want her to clarify the question, or can you give her some? I know you explained already, but. We know you have the back and forth, but that's fine. Let's see if they can try and address that for you, Celia.

Yeah, I can respond. So there's two things. One is that, say, Dr. Insomniac. So that's a building that's listed, I believe, on the National Registry. So there may be some additional residential development potential that's not being utilized by the existing structure on the site. So that property could potentially be a donor site, and then they would presumably be approached by a developer that has a receiving site that can take additional units. And the two of them, presumably, would come to the city, apply for a use permit, And assuming the city approved that use permit, then the receiving site that the developer wants to develop could receive units from the Dr. Insomniac's site as a historic property that they will never develop. So it's basically you're taking units' development potential from one site and transferring it to another site.

I think I understand but I also wonder if what would the neighbors think a state and I got okay It's kind of like interesting idea.

Yeah, and I think that's why we have this as a discretionary process so there is the ability for public input and to make sure that the Receiving site is an appropriate site for that additional number of units and additional density above and beyond what the general plan would typically allow on that site.

Proof will be in the pudding if we ever see one of these projects. Anyway. Thank you. Thank you.

And just to, if you would like me to, she mentioned the sites with environmental resources. So as you mentioned, hillside sites, sites that have federal jurisdiction wetlands, We have our waterways ordinance that limits development within a certain distance of the top of bank to preserve creeks and rivers. So essentially, if you had a vacant site that meets one of those criteria, you could, similar situation, donor property matches up with the developer on a receiving site, they come to the city, ask for approval for this TDR program, then that donor site could transfer their development rights to the receiving property.

Did that help much? Because I thought your example was pretty decent, so let's just assume you own five acres, there's a creek running through it, essentially you should be entitled to 25 units, depending on the density, up to 50 on five acres. With the creek running through it, you couldn't probably build much of anything, but now you can sell what otherwise you could have developed to somebody downtown. Now, you used Dr. Insomniac as the example. So that would be your receiver that they can donate to?

That would be a donor because it's a federally recognized historic site.

OK. Because of that caveat? Yeah. OK. Uh-oh.

No, no.

I'm just saying that. So the whole concept is taking some imaginary unit and give it to somebody else so they can build more units. just creating more units by something that probably never be built or really hard to build.

Yes. I wouldn't say imaginary development because

Well, you have a federation.

Because it is a piece of land that has the right to develop. It's just maybe difficult to develop. And the city has enacted ordinance that puts more restrictions on development. So it's giving the ability of a property owner with vacant property, the ability to realize some monetary value to their property without actually having to develop the property.

So other than just out of goodness of your heart, you probably negotiate maybe monetary reward, because there's no restriction on what donor. How does donor decide they want to donate a unit? And I guess my other question is though, We're not building more affordable housing. We're actually building more units. That's all.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I think you asked great questions. Okay, so anybody else from the public want to speak to us? Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back. Okay, back to the commission. You've heard a little bit of discussion, further questions. Are we prepared for some actions? Commissioner Rook.

So what I'm wondering here is, I'm looking at the map. It's a small area. And are we thinking, if we want to get this into the general plan and clean up the amendments a little bit, is this kind of being used, what I'm thinking, as a template for something further down the road? Or is this simply to this very small area is kind of where my head's at right now. That's what I'm wondering because there's a whole lot of stuff and stuff that needs to be brought in to the general plan, I get that. But it's only specific to this area that we're talking about right now.

Yeah, I think what this ultimately means will be, you know, trades and some of their rights and we see the locations and the criteria are established I mean one of the things that I have felt comfortable with is trying to identify development infill closer to our services and that's precisely what this would be doing would be bringing if there are units available that are on the perimeter of town but can't be developed you know closer restaurants and services.

What I'm getting out of this, where my mind went, was air rights in Manhattan on a microcosm. But it's kind of the same concept.

I think that you're onto something there. It is very conceptual. But if you have questions, just ask the other evening.

That is it for me. I just wanted to get your feedback on that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I'm supported, but I'm hesitant about the process until I actually see the realities of it come around.

Just a quick comment. Once again, staff, I think you're doing a wonderful job at walking that tightrope and being innovative and sticking to your guns where you can, given the conditions that are existing. My rant earlier aside, I really do think that you're finding solutions to a lot of these issues. And I appreciate all your efforts. And the cleanup work looks great. And I don't have any issues with any of it.

Yeah, I think that the streamlining aspect is pretty apparent, trying to combine stuff and make it less to go through the process and find what can you use in which districts and what have you. So I believe that that will be accomplished with this vote. But the TDR thing is new turf. I'll support it.

And for the sake of moving everything along, I'd like to... put a motion on the floor that the Planning Commission, let me find the language here. Recommends? Recommends approval to the City Council. Recommends adoption to the City Council.

Okay, any discussion on the motion before us? Okay, I'll start with Commissioner Greenkey.

Well, I just wanted to, on the point of, just before we vote, I did also just want to discuss what role design review would play in the review, going back to the review process, the role design review would play. When it sounds like, given the time constraints, they would not have time to review the fewer than 150 units, but would if it were above 150, am I correct?

So for projects with 150 or fewer units, that would be a staff level review with the community development director action. The units, or sorry, the projects, housing development projects with greater than 150 units, that would just come straight to the planning commission as written.

It would not go to the design review commission beforehand. So once we adopt this, designer view basically has no role in reviewing future developments, period. Am I correct in that?

Only projects that fall under the housing development project's definition, so it's residential projects.

So I don't want to, but the design review established objective standards and that's supposedly their answer. You know, you fit into one of these boxes. It's okay with us. I mean, I don't want to put words in their mouth, but that's okay.

Yeah, that's true. Okay, yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, get a clarification on that. I guess we'll see as these projects enter the pipeline if that works, and I guess it can get revised later on. If it doesn't, Sacramento willing, of course. All right. With that, I'm ready to vote.

OK. OK. So how would you vote on the resolution to send this to the city council?

I'll vote aye.

Commissioner Havel? Aye. Commissioner Roach? Aye. Commissioner Tiernan's an aye as well. And I do want to commend staff. It looks like it was a lot of work, a lot of red ink to try and change stuff and make it more streamlined. And let's hope that that helps in the process. And to touch on what Commissioner Havel was talking about a little earlier, Yeah, I think that the regional numbers come down from some other entity, the Bay Area ABAC, excuse me. And so between them and I think our members of the Assembly or Senate, those are the people I think we have to try and twist arms. Except for a nice story building underway in San Rafael. I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of this yet, but You know, we'll see where we go. Okay, so that concludes that item on our agenda We have one other item before us and that would be the election of chair and vice chair and so The floor is open for nominate. Peter Tyrion is for the next chair of the Planning Commission. I would accept. OK. And then with that, I'll open up nominations for vice chair.

We have to hold an election to elect you first, Peter.

Well, OK. We'll get around to that. If there's no other nominees, then we don't. Any other nominations for chair? No. OK. For the position of vice chair, the floor is open for nominations.

I would like to nominate Mr. Allen.

I accept.

Any other nominations for vice chair? Nope. OK. With that, I will declare a white ballot for both positions. Congratulations. All right. That pretty much concludes our business from staff's perspective. Anything coming at us, something that we need to know? When's our next meeting?

Next meeting, currently unknown. We are working on some additional zoning text amendments related to the general plan and housing element. These ones I definitely know regarding parking requirements. That sounds fun. And there might be a couple other minor items that come through at the same time. You all probably are aware the state has come down with some revisions to when the city can require parking, especially when it's within a half mile of major transit stops like the smart stations.

Or the pedestrians.

So we're looking to bring our code into compliance with that. And then also adjust our parking requirements for multifamily residential buildings. And these are programs that are in the housing element AND I THINK ALSO THE GENERAL PLAN.

SO DEMOLITION IS STILL UNDERWAY AT FIREMEN'S FUND? IS THERE ANY MOVEMENT TOWARDS THAT HAVING MOVED FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS?

I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE SOME APPLICATIONS SUBMITTED. I BELIEVE THAT MIGHT BE AT THE TENTATIVE MAP LEVEL TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY.

I see. I see. And get it below 150 units.

We shall see.

We shall see. Unless there's anything else from the commissioners, I'll adjourn this meeting. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.