Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Of The United States Of America

and to the republic for which it

stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Roll call. Commissioner Havelt? Here. Commissioner Tiernan? Here. Commissioner Crockett? Here. Commissioner Roche? Here. And Commissioner Derby is here. We are missing Commissioner Grigge, and we'll see he might come in at some point if he's a little late.

That's okay, right? Yes, and we're also missing Commissioner Stuckerman.

And forgive me, yes. Okay. Well, we have a quorum, so that should be fine. Approval of final agenda.

So moved. Second.

Commissioner Hampel? Aye. Commissioner Tiernan? Aye. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. And Commissioner Derby's an aye. Public comment. I will open public comment for any items that are not on the agenda. It's open and seeing no movement. It is closed. All right, wonderful. Consent items, there are none tonight. Unfinished in other business, there is none tonight. So we'll start with the first hearing, which Valley Oak.

All right. Good evening. Steve Marshall, deputy director of the Community Development Department. Tonight, I'd like to introduce Julia Dauberstein. She's a planner too with our department. And she'll be making her first presentation to the Planning Commission this evening on the Valley Oaks matter. So I'll hand it over to Julia.

Good evening commissioners. My name is Julia Doberstein and I am a planner two with the city's planning division. Tonight the planning commission is being asked to consider and possibly adopt a resolution approving a three year time extension for the vesting tentative map that was granted to the Valley Oaks housing project. Please note that the applicant has decided to withdraw their request for a waiver of park and lieu fees, also known as quimby fees, for eight low income houses within the project. The Valley Oaks Project site is located at Pinkston Road off of Redwood Boulevard.

The development entitlements for the project were approved by the city council on 01/23/2024, and the vesting tentative map was set to expire on 01/23/2026. The project includes 61 single family residential lots, four multifamily residential lots to accommodate 20 airspace condominium units, and 18 common ownership parcels on an approximately 38 acre site. 49 of the single family homes will include junior accessory dwelling units. The project is listed in the city's sixth cycle housing element as pipeline project and was acknowledged to contribute to meeting city or to meeting Novato's regional housing need allocation. The project is required to provide 12.2 affordable dwellings in Valley Oaks North with six dwellings reserved for sale to low income households and six dwellings reserved for sale to moderate income households, as well as four affordable dwellings in Valley Oaks South with two dwellings reserved for sale to low income households and two units reserved for sale to moderate income households.

The applicant is requesting an extension of the vesting tentative map due to delays in obtaining required permits from outside agencies for wetland fill and replacement at the project site. These permits were anticipated during the city's environmental review but were delayed following the discovery of potential tribal resources reported and recorded in 2016 at the Northwest Information Center. The discovery of these records required a new cultural resources survey in consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria. The previously reported potential tribal resources were ultimately determined to have been incorrectly identified and records at the Northwest Information Center were corrected. Once the information was corrected, the outside agencies issued the required permits for wetland fill and replacement.

The applicant has been actively seeking a builder to purchase the project who would then record the final map and obtain building permits to construct the project. The applicant is now asking the city to extend the expiration date of the vesting tentative map because of these unforeseen delays. Staff considers the applicant to have proceeded in good faith and exercised reasonable due diligence to advance the project, including compliance with the conditions of approval applicable to the vesting tentative map. In staff's experience, the resource permits required for the wetland fill and replacement involve preparing complex technical studies and design documents to address the differing yet similar permit criteria of three resource agencies. As a result, obtaining resource agency permits can extend well into initial two year time limit applied to the tentative subdivision maps.

Additionally, as typically the case that a residential builder will not purchase an entitled project until these types of permits have been obtained by the original developer. Therefore staff supports the vesting tentative map extension request. Staff are available for any questions the commissioners may have. Thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you very much. Great job. Thank you. Let the writers show Commissioner O'Grighi has joined us. Okay, let's jump into some questions. I'll start with Commissioner Havel.

That was a thorough staff report. Answered any questions I had. Thank you. I'm good. Great. Commissioner Tiernan?

No questions.

Commissioner Crockett? No questions. Commissioner Roche? No questions. Commissioner Grigge?

No questions.

And Commissioner Derby has no questions. I many of us were on the commission when this project originally came to Actually,

Commissioner Drew, me ask for a clarification. Okay. Question for clarification. Go for it. So the request for the waiver of quimby fees is off the table, correct?

At this time, correct. It's off the table.

Got it. Then I guess I'll ask one more question. Was there anything else that the developer looked obviously not the quimbi but was there anything else that the developer was looking for modifications this time around?

No not at this time just the three year extension And

all the resource agencies are in hand now?

Yes, those permits have been obtained.

Including wetland permits and all that? Great, awesome. Okay, I guess we could bring it around for discussion or someone could make a Oh forgive me, sorry the public. Ah yes, the important part. Alright. Well I haven't seen any cards so I forgot about you guys. I apologize. Well I'll open it up regardless. But if anyone would like to speak please come approach the diocese and then Does the applicant want to speak? I'm sorry, didn't make a comment that the applicant wants to speak. One second sir. Would the applicant like to speak? I know that that was, okay. Yeah, you are welcome to speak.

But very happy to answer any questions. Think Julia did a great job with the staff report. As she said we're pulling the fee waiver application for the time being. If you've got any questions about the vesting tentative map, happy to answer them. Wonderful, thank you sir.

Would there be any questions from anyone on the commission before I open the public comment? All right, thanks for catching me Commissioner Tiernan. You're slipping there. Appreciate your time. Alright. I will open the public hearing. Anyone would like to speak, please come forward. Hello sir. Good evening.

My name is also Robert Atkinson. I'm a member of the president of the HOA. And I appreciate the applicant's withdrawal of the park fee waiver request. Our neighborhood is we don't have a pocket park. We don't have a park.

We have nice open space full of ticks. We don't have a place for moms to push strollers. And I've been in contact with Bay West. I've been talking to the county, talking to folks on the council. And one of my not my son's Eagle project, but maybe my Eagle project would be to see if we can carve a pocket park out of the neighborhood for some of the young families that are starting to we're having turnover in the Age Jones neighborhood.

We're seeing a lot of young kids. And I've been asked about the park by new residents. There's some land available. And I hope to see the planning commission again, if I can get a little momentum behind carving something out. So the collection of the fees would be very helpful in terms of trying to seed a project like that. So thank you.

Wonderful. Thank you, Sarah. And if you wouldn't mind filling out a card just so we can have

your information. Thank you. Absolutely.

Would anyone else like to speak from the public on this item? Oh, there we

go. There

we go. It's all right. Everyone's getting excited. Get my energy going.

Hi. I'm Emily Larson. I'm on the Parks and Rec Commission, but I'm speaking tonight as a Nevada resident. I got here a couple minutes late, it sounds like the Quimby fees were removed, which makes me very happy because I was gonna come and speak for the importance of the Quimby fees for a city like Novato. The infrastructure that's going to be built there is very needed and it's going to be really wonderful. And the Quimby fees really do help offset the parks that we have and the parks that we're going to continue to build for our Nevada residents. We're going to have people of all ages to come to this place. So I'm very happy the applicant pulled that. Thank you. And that's it. Thanks so much.

Thank you. And please fill that card. Would anyone else now we're getting the popcorn. Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission. Does anyone have any comments they'd like to make, or would anyone like to make a motion?

If you'll entertain a motion, I'll move the resolution to the time and extent.

I would entertain that if someone has a second. I'll second. Wonderful. So I will start over with you. Commissioner Havel. Aye. Commissioner Tiernan. Aye. Commissioner Crockett. Aye. Commissioner Roche.

Aye.

Commissioner Grigey. Aye. And Commissioner Derby's an aye. There was just one thing we needed to vote on since the other one I think was the Park And Lou.

That's correct. There was a separate fee resolution there, but it's not necessary to address this evening.

The done with this hearing then? If everything passes? Okay, wonderful. Thank you very much. We will be moving on to the next hearing item, which is McPhail's Commercial Commercial Offices. And thank you very much for everyone.

Okay, thank you. I'm Caitlin Zatelli, senior planner. And this item tonight is a requested amendment to the existing McPhails Commercial Office Development Plan, excuse me, Development Master Plan to expand the permitted and conditionally permitted land uses to be those of the Light Industrial Office or LIO zoning district within the Master Plan area. So the master plan area is at 5400 Hanna Ranch Road. It's comprised of three buildings between Hanna Ranch Road, Highway 101, and it's located just south of the Vintage Oaks Shopping Center.

The existing master plan was last amended in 2018 and it currently contains a somewhat shorter list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses which has limited the types of uses and the tenants that are permitted to locate at the site. The proposed amendment would take all the uses from the LIO Zoning district as seen in the zoning ordinance, meaning we would just copy over those LIO land uses to the master plan. Anything that requires a use permit would also require a use permit in the master plan. Anything that's not permitted would not be permitted at the McPhail site. And this request is made recognizing that the general plan land use designation of 5400 Hanna Ranch is also LAL.

So tonight, the Planning Commission is asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on this amendment request, and that recommendation will be considered by the city council at a future public hearing. I'm available to answer any questions. And then I'd also like to introduce Casey Clement. She's on the applicants team and she also has a presentation which I'm gonna try to pull

up here. I was

Good evening. My name is Casey Baxter and I'm here on behalf of the applicant tonight. Staff has done a great job of explaining, giving a general overview of our application and I'd just like to give you some context to help you understand why we're bringing forth this application at this time. So I'd like to start by giving you just a very brief site history. Historically the site was used as concrete batching plant for many years, though it sat vacant for decades.

In 2017, the applicant worked closely with the city to process a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from business professional office to light industrial office. When the city originally processed the zoning change, office vacancy rates were at 37.5 while industrial industrial vacancy vacancy rates rates were were at at just 3.9%. As a result, the proposal to amend the land use designation enjoyed unanimous support from city staff, the planning commission, and the city council as it was clear there was a dire need for more LAO space in Novato. Consequently, in 2021, the applicant completed the first Class A light industrial office space to be built in Novato in twenty years. In addition to the general plan amendment, a master plan was adopted which limited the allowed uses at the site and those are listed here.

Given this pared down list of allowed uses, the applicant has attempted to fill the buildings with appropriate tenants though it has proven challenging given this very restrictive list. Currently Building A is owner occupied by Thompson Builders, a locally owned general contracting company that builds large scale commercial projects across the Bay Area. Building B has been subdivided into six commercial units and is mostly currently vacant, though we have several prospective tenants in the pipeline. And Building C is fully occupied by a media company. Now I'd like to focus in on Building B, which has been subdivided into six spaces.

The Marin County Fire Department is slated to occupy four of these units. They intend to use the space as equipment storage with supportive admin space. Prado's landscaping, a well established local business, is planned to occupy one of the units. And finally, the reason we're here this evening, Snake Craft, a local artisan millwork and cabinet maker is interested in occupying one of the units. However, the current master plan restrictions prevent this otherwise permitted use.

The owner and operator, Mr. Jake Ward, is here with us this evening along with his wife Liz. Snake Craft is a custom fabrication and millwork team currently based in San Rafael. They've been in business for nine years and specialize in crafting custom original woodwork such as furniture, stair work, and millwork with an emphasis on locally sourced sustainable products. Snake Craft currently has seven total employees, typically three skilled workers in the shop and four installers in the field.

City staff has confirmed that Snake Craft is considered a cabinet maker as defined by city zoning code. While cabinet makers are an allowed use in the LIO land use designation, the master plan for this site currently prevents them from locating here. Snakecraft represents exactly the type manufacturing that creates quality jobs and serves the community without generating heavy traffic or industrial impacts. Jake Ward and his team want to relocate to this new home in Novato specifically because it's a high end Class A light industrial office building, something that's very difficult to come by in Marin County. As I mentioned previously, the LIO vacancy rates in 2017 were very low and they have not improved since then.

According to Cushman and Wakefield's fourth quarter twenty twenty five North Bay Market report, the overall vacancy rate for LIO space in Nevada is just 3.6%. While vacancy remains very low, the site cannot fully capture that demand now or in the future due to the existing master plan restrictions. We respectfully request that the Planning Commission vote to amend the master plan for this site to allow all uses permitted in the LIO Zoning district. This would bring the master plan into alignment with the city's LIO zoning code while maintaining the high quality character of the development. Thank you so much for your time.

I'm here if you have any questions. We also have our commercial broker, Steve Leonard is here and the owners of Snake Crafter here as well. Thanks guys.

Thank you so much. Okay bringing you back to the commission. Commissioner Hamill, any questions?

No. Thank you.

Great. Commissioner Tiernan? No. No questions. Commissioner Crockett? No questions. Wonderful. Commissioner Roche? I have a question.

Please. Basically we're looking at bringing the master plan into alignment. How often is the master plan revised? And does this type of change in iteration of the master plan, does that happen on occasion? Here? I'm unfamiliar with the context of it.

Yes, it can happen on occasion. I'd say we have some master plans that have never been revised, and we have others that have maybe gone through several revisions, such as this one. It just kind of depends on the circumstances of the site, and the owner and the applicant's needs and wants.

So, it's adaptable is kind of what's going on here?

Okay.

That's really the primary question that I had.

You. Questioner Grigey.

Kind of in a similar vein, just as the newbie here, I'm trying to think if there are other additional uses that kind of fall into this gap beyond what the Apple Pay has in mind that are not coming to my mind at the moment. Just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything.

Well there might be other uses beyond like the examples that she brought up, future uses later for the site. It would be any uses in the LAO zoning district, just simply copied over. So if there's a use that's permitted there now, it would be permitted for the master plan if this was approved.

Right, I'm just trying to think if there are other particular, the idea of woodworking, cast iron making, it's a very discrete use. I'm just trying

to think

if there are other things that are

I believe attachment A would be Thank the you.

My apologies.

I

have no further questions.

Thank you.

If it matters I can also offer that oftentimes you will have a use that comes in that may not fit squarely as cabinet maker, maker, but the activity can fall into a different category. So when we get a use proposal, go through and look at that particular use, what does it involve and does it fit within some other category even though it may not be known as one of our land use titles but in effect we can fit it into one.

So yeah my question would be how long did this process take from when they came forward, perhaps when Mr. Leonard found these tenants? How long does this process take?

So the actual, this application I think was submitted in November, if I'm not mistaken, but how it kind of came about was through a building permit review. So Snake Craft had submitted, or the owner may have submitted it on their behalf, I don't recall, submitted a building permit, planning reviewed it, determined the use was not allowed and that was kind of the impetus for this process. I don't recall when that building permit was submitted though.

Yeah, I fear that our master plan process is just forcing us to jump through additional hoops. Personally am a fan of anything that allows a lot more flexibility. So a tenant can come to a landlord and be able to occupy space and then have to go through all this. I mean I keep thinking about your time, their time, all the time and money that's going into this. It feels very wasteful when there's a cabinet maker that just wants to use the space. Sorry to get on the soapbox there but I will ask this. Is there anything else that can be done here that will allow more flexibility for their buildings in future? I mean, we have more vacancies there. I mean, it's all a good thing. I I understand there's a number of uses where people would be concerned about.

Right? And that's why the master plan exists. But we require use permits for, like, marijuana or whatever what what would go in there that might cause some concern. But cabinet making, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other uses that may fall outside of it. Is there anything we can do to create, to make a decision here that allows maybe more than is even asked right now? Is there any way to get more flexibility? I like that you said you tried to fit things in, but it sounds like it's still pretty restrictive and prescriptive.

Nothing comes to mind. Yeah.

So what you have in the list that's providing Exhibit A is equivalent to what's listed in the zoning code for the traditional zoning district that would implement the light industrial office land use designation. So basically where you have a site now that had let's say that 12 uses and the zoning code allowed 24, this site is now competitive and on par with other sites that have standard zoning that would have those 24 uses. So I think what you have now, you have the greatest amount of flexibility beyond what was already provided in that master plan. So that master plan was very, very limited. Now you get the full breadth of the zoning code uses that could potentially occur at this property.

I think the only way to create more flexibility in this instance is to change the permit requirements that would be tied to the different uses in this master plan. What

I

mean by that is the exhibit a in your packet tonight mirrors the zoning code. So if a use in the zoning code requires a use permit, it requires a use permit in this exhibit. Since this is a master plan, could change that. You could say that that use that requires a use permit is principally permitted. I don't think staff would recommend that though.

When we look at how uses play together there are some uses that have activities that may disturb other tenants and so you want the control of a use permit to maybe place some limitations on it. Hours of operation, you may have some requirements around the number of employees or the intensity of the activity. So I think what we have in our code is good for this site and it's probably good to leave it there. Then again there's always the flexibility to come back and ask for something different through this master plan amendment process and that's really property owner or applicant driven. When you change a zoning code that's usually something directed either by a council or commission or even maybe initiated by staff.

So it's a little bit slower process to turn. So there's pluses and minuses to this master planning approach, but I understand what you're saying.

The pluses being what?

So this property, if you look at its configuration, the master planning process allows a site design a site design and that's actually custom. So you can do setbacks that are different than your zoning code or a building height that's different. So there is flexibility in that process. And what we have here is a situation when these buildings are custom designed to the site. And if you were to take the site over to a light industrial zoning, the buildings become non conforming.

So I think this was sort of the blend of both worlds here that you add extra flexibility by introducing the land uses of the zoning code but not necessarily all of the development standards that come with a zoning district.

Rather than just looking at getting variances from a typical zoning. So rather than hey we're in the LIO but we've got some variances so we don't have to come back every time something.

Variances are much tougher to support. It usually has to be a physical defect in the property that robs the property owner of rights or opportunities that another property

owner So you'd rather do a master plan, the staff would rather do a master plan than just do variances or even maybe look at zoning and maybe make that a little more flexible, I don't know.

Obviously both master planning and the variance are discretionary. I think the findings to support a variance are much more onerous than the findings for a master plan.

Yes, the only issue is in the last eleven years we've been sitting up here we continue to kind of come back and amend master plans. It just feels like it's an extra and by the way this has nothing to do with this project I think so maybe I'll get off the soapbox a little bit but you know I have an issue with what we're doing is I just feel like it takes up a lot of our applicants' time, it takes up your time, it takes up a lot of time when again something as simple as a cabinet maker coming in and trying to align with what is good zoning at the beginning. Anyhow, alright, I'm done, sorry. Is there anything else anyone would like to say or discuss? Public again.

Yes, I keep forgetting. Okay, I'm going to open up public hearing. Would anyone like to speak? Not seeing anyone. Going once, going twice. All right, we will close it.

Okay, back to commission. All right. Commissioner Havel. So in following up on your comments I think Yes, please. This project, my recollection when this came to the commission sometime back was that there was a lot of hand wringing and public interest in its location, traffic, circulation, congestion, access, emergencies, and I think that is probably what resulted resulted in in a master plan that was restrictive to prevent something from happening in the future that would open up the flood gates so to speak.

So what I think we, is incumbent upon us as planning commissioners, is to recognize that when a project comes through the door, it's hard to try it, and there's a lot of public interest in it. What we know that the average Joe walking down the street might not is that yes, there's a master plan being adopted, and yes, we can incorporate things like this into it that requires some sort of discretionary entitlement for projects that maybe need a little bit of extra attention. And we know that that process is thorough and thoughtful and that staff doesn't mess around with it and that they do a good job processing it and considering all the different factors. I think it's up to us to make sure that we recognize and put trust in staff because they're the technicians that are working with this code day in, day out. They know it very well.

They're professionals. And I think that it's, again, it's incumbent on us as planning commissioners someday in a project where it's controversial or people are very interested to kinda make that point. Yes, we might be adopting this master plan or development plan or whatnot, but help folks understand their concerns will be addressed through subsequent land use entitlements when the time comes if somebody's seeking. Because I think that's what's happening or to your point I think that's what happens. In this particular instance, yeah, I'm fully in favor of staff's recommendation and support amending the master plan.

Thank you, was well said. Mr. Tiernan?

Yeah, this is a very challenging site. I'm gonna support the applicant. Because it was a batch plan and the thing was blighted, for lack of a better word, I think it's an excellent use to try and make this property more viable. So, I'm in support of giving them that permission.

Thank you. Commissioner Crockett. I appreciate the discussion. I think some good points are raised, but bottom line is I'm in support of the application. Wonderful. Mr. Roche?

I'm supporting the

application. Wonderful. Commissioner Griggy?

Likewise. I think that, well, a lot of the master plan issues seem to have emerged long before I am on here, but I am interested in learning more, and hopefully we can advance something forward on that issue. But in the meantime, I'll be supporting the applicant.

Wonderful. And I'm, of course, very supportive of the project. Thank you for all you've done out here. All right, so does anyone want to entertain a motion? We'll have a new Do we need to go through every one of these, I assume?

I recommend going through a vote on each resolution. Okay.

I would move the draft sequel resolution. Second.

Alright. Commissioner Havel. Aye. Commissioner Tiernan. Aye. Commissioner Crockett. Aye. Commissioner Roche. Aye. Commissioner Grigey. Aye. And Commissioner Derby is an aye. Next up.

Commissioner Terren? So I'll move the draft Master Plan Amendment Resolution.

Seconded. All right. Commissioner Havel? Aye. Commissioner Ternan? Aye. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Grigey? Aye. And Commissioner Derby's an aye. Next up.

I would move to approve or to recommend to the City Council the McPhail Master Plan site plan.

Wonderful. You don't need to, with the second resolution, you recommended all of the land uses. The site plan was included in the packet simply for reference.

Okay, any other further action we need to take then?

No, believe it's

part of the two resos.

Okay, thank you. Excellent. Okay, well that does it for that item. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you. All right, on to general business. Anything we'd like to touch on? Marshall?

No, just a brief liaison report. So for the next Planning Commission meeting on February 23, we're looking to have our annual housing report prepared. So that's the report we file with the state each year to address our progress in working on our housing element. So we'll be reporting out housing production numbers from the perspective of building permits issued. And we'll also have a section of that table addressing our progress on implementing various policies and programs over the last year.

So we'll bring a presentation to the Planning Commission on that. You won't be asked to make any decision. Just receive the report, and then it gets moved on to the council for their review, and then it gets filed with the state. So we have an April deadline on that, and we're trying to advance things here so that we make that deadline and leave a little bit of a buffer if folks want to have a further conversation about that report.

How are our numbers doing for our housing element?

Now it's slow. I think this year we're probably going to be reporting mostly ADU production. We have a lot of projects that are entitled. We are looking at projects coming in for additional entitlement reviews, so things like the Fireman's Fund campus. So I think going forward we have a very strong pipeline of projects to meet our regional housing needs allocation, but you only get to take credit when building permits are issued. So that's where the market controls, not where the city has control.

What are all the cities doing right now? Because that's got to be an issue everywhere.

I think it starts to bear out in your annual housing reports and I think cities are hoping that the development industry catches up and that we start to see a push with all these entitlements hitting the market. We read about these all the time in other jurisdictions that the industry will start getting ready to put shovels in the ground and we'll be able to take credit for that. Okay. So it's a watch and What's

the next step? Are we gonna see anything from has a tentative map been put forward on the fireman's fund yet?

Not yet. I think that's the next application to come in and perhaps even the final designs or the objective designs of the different subdivisions and product in that project. Wonderful. What about the one right adjacent to it? Sorry I'll catch you in a second. The one that

you guys it's a quick it didn't come before the planning commission.

Yeah so that one I believe they'll be filing for a final map here. So they've done their improvement plans?

I think they're working on them. Okay, yeah. How long are our improvement plans taking?

So they go out for outside plan check review. Hopefully that's fairly quick. Probably a couple rounds of back and forth. You know, six months, a year. You know, it gets to the final math, the recording.

I'd love for planning to keep an eye on that. That tends to lag in a lot of cities and it can easily turn into eighteen months and no offense to any city engineers. But in some jurisdictions they can get very heavy handed and it's almost like planning needs to kind of keep an eye on it, make sure it's

still moving forward. And I would also mention there's objective standards at play. So there's also post entitlement review periods. So there's a very tight envelope for cities to operate. And then there's also the dynamic of the applicant's engineer and how quickly they can react and change things. So it is not a short process by any means.

It's difficult. Long way

of saying that.

No, it's difficult but it is something that can change a lot. Okay, sorry.

I had a question just offhand. Was there any discussion

On the near the fireman's fund site?

Correct. Immediately north of it.

Immediately north of it. Oh, yeah. There is a So at the corner of San Marin and Redwood? So I don't know that there's really no infrastructure improvements planned with the Fireman's Fence project. They stay within the Loop Road and San Marin and based on review of that project, the carrying capacity of that infrastructure is acceptable for that change to housing.

Now if you're talking about the office building on the corner of San Marin and Redwood, That was actually purchased by Community Action Marin, so it's now their headquarters. For the foreseeable future that will be staying office. So that's the 100 Woodhall Building I think you're referring to. So that one is slated to be demolished and redeveloped with I believe 60 single family homes. Will that be part of the incorporation of the overall?

No, it's a separate developer, separately owned property so it would be different.

And that was the one I was asking about but it sounds like it's pretty far along.

It's a single building. It has two wings to it, but it looks like two.

Commissioner Aturion?

So first I want to make a comment. I like getting those monthly reports about activity going on in the planning department. I see that San Marin Drive, I think it's San Andreas, there was gonna be a meeting with the neighborhood. Did that go off? Is that something we're gonna see?

Yes, it did go for a neighborhood meeting and it would likely return, come to the Planning Commission for recommendation to counsel. So obviously it's not agendaised so we can't talk too much about it. But essentially what it is, is it is a rezoning proposal under a state law known as Senate Bill 10. So that's coming forward at some point. So right now it's in the hands of the developer to consider the neighborhood input. And then they'll likely reconnect with staff and then we'll decide which way we're gonna go in terms of design review to look at it.

So although the applicant at the earlier hearing withdrew their request to have fees waived, I'm pretty sure that we had put in the general plan that by way of trying to get more affordable housing, that we were gonna be looking to try and get fee reductions, because at $90,000 a unit, it's pretty insane what it costs fee wise. Have we made any progress, Are those all such special agencies that it's out of

So there's what the city can control and then there's the outside districts that have their own protection rates. So you're certainly correct the housing element has a very broad policy and program addressing fees and other costs associated with producing housing. And I think we're going to be looking here pretty soon at a development impact fee study. So that would be spearheaded by our finance department, public works, and parks and recreation to take a look at facilities demands, costs, and then look at what our development impact fee structure looks like. And that conversation will happen in context of the housing element.

That will be We also have other items where we're looking at the fees we charge for processing. So we're constantly looking at that. I think you'll actually see in our annual report this year, we'll have statements statements on how we're advancing those particular items.

Interesting, interesting. Okay, because it does seem fairly unfair as the newer residents come to Nevada. The taxes they pay, whether it's property or otherwise, are so extraordinary compared to the existing residents. I'm not sure that equity is the right word, but there needs to be some kind of leveling of the playing field.

That's what the development impact fee study does, it lays out what is new development's proportionate share versus what existing residents' proportionate share is. So I'll call it the city share and the developer share. Okay.

So we should see that on the twenty third?

You won't see specifically. What you'd see on the twenty third is our annual housing report. And there may be statements in that report, and I'll have to check with Brett Walker, our senior planner working on it, acknowledging that we are working towards updating our development impact fees.

Okay. And I know it's touchy.

Oh yeah. Okay, thank you.

That's great. Anything else from, yeah?

Just to reconfirm, but the bottom line of that policy report, unless permanent is full, it doesn't matter.

Correct. So for the city to take credit towards regional housing needs allocation, a building permit has to be issued. Alright.

Nothing else, so I will open it up for everyone to Movie adjourned. There we go. Seconded. There we go. Okay. I don't think we need to vote on that. Alright. Thank you. Just helping you out. Yeah. No. I appreciate it. Thanks for all that.