Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright. Let's run through it real quick. Commissioner Derby? Aye. Commissioner Ternan? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Stuck and Broker? Aye. And commissioner Cockett? Aye. Alright. Next up is public comments. So this is the portion of tonight's meeting where if someone would like to come forward and speak, they may. They have three minutes, and it has to be something that is unrelated to agendized topics. And I have somebody approaching.

Good evening. Hi. Thanks for being here. My name my name is Derek Nellen. I'm the director of staff housing for the Nevada Unified School District.

And I'm here to introduce myself to the commission. I know a few of you as we have been at the development of education workforce housing on our surplus properties for about eighteen months now. And we are currently in the process of applying for a waiver through the State Board of Education that will allow us to develop the properties through what we call a request for proposal process. And we will be notifying the Planning Commission of this declaration of surplus property officially, hopefully at our next Planning Commission meeting. So I just wanted to introduce myself to the new commissioners and say hi and let you know who I was and I hope to see a lot of you in the coming months.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Is there anybody else for public comment? Seeing none, now we'll move on to the next item. Next up, we have consent items, none of which nothing is listed under that topic on the agenda. Same with the next item of unfinished and other business, which brings us to public hearings. And tonight, we're gonna be staff's gonna be telling us about some amendments to the zoning ordinance related to land divisions and senate bill nine and kind of sounds like housecleaning matters. So I will give it to

staff to take it away. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Vivek Damodaran, senior planner with the city's planning division. Tonight, the planning commission will be considering adoption of a resolution resolution recommending to the city council approval of the repeal of ordinance number sixteen seventy eight, which is an urgency ordinance that established the regulations for senate bill nine or s b nine dwelling units and urban lot splits, and amendments to the Nevada Municipal Code to establish section 19.34 o two nine, which specifies standards for s b nine dwelling units, and to establish section nine dash eight, which specifies standards for urban lot splits, and also to modify existing and add new text to clarify various provisions applicable to s b nine dwelling units and urban lot splits. These amendments are required to comply with the with state legislative sections regulating housing development projects and urban lot splits as contained in California government code section six five eight five two point two one and six six four one one point seven.

In 2021, the governor signed senate bill nine, which is which is referred to as California's HOME Act, into law. This bill eliminates single family residential zoning by mandating local jurisdictions ministerially approve the creation of up to two dwelling units on an existing parcel located within a single family zoning district, and to also approve the land division of single family, residentially zoned parcels into two parcels on which two dwelling units may be constructed on each resultant parcel. SB nine took effect on 01/01/2022 and is codified in California government code sections six five eight five two point two one and six six four one one point seven. In 2024, the governor signed senate bill four fifty, which took effect on 01/01/2025, and builds on s b nine to further reduce restrictions on the construction of s b nine dwelling units and urban lot splits. Similar to accessory dwelling units, state law has become more directive in its language with respect to what an agency must accept with regards to s b nine dwelling units and urban lot splits.

Staff's recommended revisions represent the minimums and maximums stipulated in state law. Following the introduction of s b nine into state law, in 2022, the city adopted this an urgency ordinance to implement regulations specific to the forms of development mandated by s b nine. Staff has since received several s b nine and urban law split applications and has continuously processed these requests in accordance with state law, including the most the more recent legislative changes brought forward by s b four fifty. S b four fifty builds on senate s b nine and has made the following notable changes. With objective standards, state law now prohibits local agencies from imposing objective zoning standards, objective subdivision standards, and objective design standards that do not apply uniformly to development within an underlining zoning district.

SB nine dwelling units can now only be required to comply with the development standards applied applicable to a single family home proposed within the same zoning district. For the denial of housing development applications, state law now restricts the local agency's building official to denying a housing development project only if the project would have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety. Additionally, if an application is denied, a local agency must provide a full set of comments to the applicant with a list of items that are defective or deficient, description of how the application may be remedied by the applicant. As far as the decision time frame, state law state law now includes a shot clock that requires a local agency to approve or deny a housing development project within sixty days of receiving a completed application. Listed here are the proposed development standards contained in the draft resolution tonight on page eight.

As mentioned before, these development standards represent the minimums and maximums stipulated in state law. Many of the listed development standards defer to the underlying zoning district where the s b nine development is proposed. State law does, however, prescribe a four foot side and a four foot rear setback for new construction, and removes setback requirements for conversion type s b nine developments. S b nine developments and urban lot split projects are subject to first receiving a planning approval and then a building permit. This two step process is intended to first address compliance with basic eligibility criteria and applicable development standards using design level plans before an applicant proceeds with preparing construction level detail drawings for the building permit review process.

Staff's request tonight also involves the amendment of chapter nine to establish section nine eight, which provides a complete list of standards applicable to urban lot splits. Similar to SB nine development, staff is proposing the minimum and maximum stipulated in state law. Some of the notable requirements we have listed here are that urban lot splits may may only occur within single family residential zoning districts. Within Nevada, these zoning districts include the rural residential, very low density residential, and medium density detached residential zoning districts. Urban lot splits may also occur within plan development areas, so PD zoning districts, where the overarching general plan land use designation is rural residential, very low residential, low density residential, and medium density detached residential.

State law requires that an urban lot split create no more than two parcels of approximately equal lot area, and that one parcel shall not be smaller than 40% of the original parcel's lot area, and also must not be less than 1,200 square feet in

lot area.

Local agencies may adopt smaller minimum lot size requirements subject to ministerial approval only. State law requires that the property owner of an urban lot split also occupy either a proposed or existing housing unit on-site as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of approval of the parcel map for the urban lot split. And then finally, state law limits the number of dwelling units to two for any resultant parcels created through an urban lot split process. SB nine developments do count towards Novato's assigned RINA, or regional housing needs allocation, and the proposed amendments will further policy 1.3 of the city's six cycle housing element. Additionally, the proposed amendments ensure continued compliance with state law.

Tonight's staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt the attached resolution recommending that city council approve the proposed municipal code amendments and fine said amendments to be exempt from CEQA. Staff are available for any questions commissioners may have. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. That was very informative. So the way we'll proceed here is we'll bring it to the commission for questions, then we'll open it up for public comment for folks who might wanna share their thoughts on this item. And then we'll close the public comments, bring it back to the commission for any final comments, questions, but really kind of, you know, look into the my commission fellow commissioners for input on their thoughts on it if if they wanna share. And then we'll hopefully make a motion and take some action. So with that said, colleagues, any questions for staff?

I'm gonna start over here and go down one. Yeah.

Alright. Great.

Commissioner, can take it away.

When I was when I was reading through this, I kinda felt like I could bounce in between really talking about ADUs here or are we talking about the full lot split where you could eventually sell that parcel. Right? And I guess we're are we talking about both of them here in some degree? We are. Right?

Yeah. Exactly. So tonight, the ordinance that we are presenting includes two components, the Senate bill dwelling unit component and then the urban lot split component.

It. Okay. There was the setbacks, the four foot setbacks, but one thing was the front setback. And I was curious about access. So for instance, if it

was if we were

talking about splitting a lot, and you had some nice little pictures up there, but I'm just trying to imagine someone we'll call it rural residential. Maybe it's a larger lot. And you maybe that first I know it's a duplex, but let's just pretend that's a single house. And then the rear, they have a lot of they have a big backyard. Question is if they split that lot, how do they get access to the lot in the back? If I'm assuming that's a requirement without working in the front setbacks. How are you governing that? Is that a flag lot? Are we allowed to do that? What does that look like?

So there are a couple of different options. They can certainly go with a flag lot configuration, and they can achieve that by either creating clear parcel boundaries, creating that flag lot configuration, or you can do that through an easement process where you're recording a access easement over the front parcel for the benefit of the rear parcel.

Right. And I I feel like we saw a property that was doing something like this not long ago, and I remember there was flag lock configuration. And

I could've sworn we ran they ran

into some problems because the setbacks of that driveway, it was almost like that became a bigger issue than the actual setbacks of the home in the back. I was just curious if you contemplated that. Is that gonna be some way to stop someone from doing this?

Yeah. So I think you're referring to commission Derby as maybe a situation where an existing home is set in a position where if you were to create that flag lot or that easement, the easement or flag lot conflicts with the setback of the main home. Right. So under SB nine, you can have setbacks as as minimal as four feet. So what you end up with is probably an existing home with a four foot setback from that inside leg of the flag or the inside edge of the easement.

Right, okay, so you have four feet to the easement, And four then what, an eight foot driveway probably? That's probably some of minimum standing

views

we We typically look for a 12 foot paved width on the driveway.

Okay, so you got four feet, 12 feet, and then another four feet, I would imagine, to the property line. So I guess I guess what I'm saying is it doesn't seem very you we we you talk about medium density and some of this stuff in here and I'm kinda chuckling about well, a lot of it's not really applicable. In fact, I think there was something about 40% and they couldn't go smaller than 1,200 square feet. 40%, you know, that's a 3,000 square foot lot with 40% of 1,200. It just seems silly because that's a very small lot.

You're not gonna get all that space on there. And most homes in Novato will probably utilize a five to maybe 10 foot setbacks on either side of those homes. So I guess what I'm saying is the flag lot configuration is really only gonna be possible in rural residential. And maybe that's the goal of this. I'm not sure. Guess I'm trying to problem solve in advance because I feel like what we're setting up here I know we're trying to comply with the state law, but I I sometimes I often wonder, are we really facilitating anything here?

Yeah. Think the the question becomes is how well utilized will this be given the potential for difficulty with access Right. Utilities. And I think it's we're gonna take this on an individual parcel by parcel basis. It it may not be uniformly possible in a what I'll call more of a a medium density single family neighborhood where the lots are already fairly small.

There's also the issue of and correct me if I'm wrong here, Vivek. The city's obligated to allow a dwelling of a certain size, and I believe we're also obligated to allow subdivisions. So what that means is the city may have to give up on some of its objective standards to allow Like 12 foot. So unless there's a health and safety issue that's identified by the chief building official, there's the likelihood that the city would have to let go of certain standards.

Got it. Do they have to have a driveway, for example? Could they not?

I think that's an excellent question. We haven't faced that yet. The law I think only says access. It doesn't define what type So of we haven't tested that one yet.

Right. And this is really open to lot split. Obviously an ADU would work in that situation. Problem. You

brought up

my other question about health and safety. I've seen health and safety used a lot of different ways. And as a developer, I can tell you it's not always used in ways that you'd really think of health and safety. Can be very loosely interpreted and I just I'd hate to see well, given that that combined with no appeal was kind of where I was my head was going with like, hey, someone comes in and the current administration at the time just doesn't like this idea. They don't see it that way. They kind of interpret this. You know, hey, this this might not work. I I feel like and maybe I'd jump away from health and safety as I know that you probably can't answer how everyone's gonna interpret that. But the no appeal, is that something that the state suggested we do?

Nothing in state, but the issue here is the time frame within which we have to make a decision. You have sixty days to approve or deny. And if you're going through a completeness review and then checking for objective standards, you're probably working well into that time frame. And then if you couple notice period and then actually getting to the hearing, it's highly unlikely we could deliver an appeal to the planning commission or the city council. If and

Oh, so the appeal would have to fit within the sixties. It has

to fit within the sixties.

So if you denied me, if I came forward and we just didn't see eye to eye for instance, I felt like there's some objective standards here that were really keeping me from doing what I wanted to do here and I said, Hey, technically you need to do something. You gotta help me out here per the state law. And maybe you just disagree, right? And you guys don't see it that way and that's fine, but I'd love the chance to appeal that and I would assume that in that sixty days, hey, it doesn't work, would I not be able to appeal it and refile?

You would not be able to to appeal it. You could file a legal action to address your issue. And that also works on the on the other side of the coin here where you may have a resident who has a grievance about an s b nine proposal. They would also have to use the court system to address Got it. This issue. Now, in practical terms, oftentimes there are legal actions filed and then there are settlements. So it doesn't necessarily mean it always ends up in front of a judge. Sure. It's

still going through the whole legal

The dilemma here is it puts somebody in a situation where, okay, I'm either going to file a legal challenge or I'm gonna adjust my project and come back with a new application.

Wait, they do have that option? They

can adjust

their Oh, certainly after you deny it, they can adjust the project. Absolutely. Or even if they don't adjust it and say, hey, what if they just wanted to come back and meet with the planning commission? What if someone really felt strongly that they were right and wanted to go through a typical process that you would for the planning commission? Would they still be able to do that?

That's an interesting question. Would have to probably talk to our city attorney about that because that would essentially be an applicant waiving their rights to ministerial review.

That's what I mean. If they said no, could you say, hey, I'll waive my rights, but I would like to present to

city I councilor's think there's the possibility, but I'm concerned that state law may frown upon that in terms of how an agency is now processing applications even though an applicant is voluntarily waiving that right?

Isn't the state gonna frown on you guys saying no and then they have no ability to appeal?

Possibly. I would say, given where state law is now, it is fraught with peril for an agency from a legal perspective. So we are very judicious when we make decisions. And some of the key terminology in state law that the commission may be familiar with is the state adds in the legislature adds in a provision that says this law shall be considered liberally to the side of supporting the maximum amount of housing. And that's not an exact quote, but that's generally what it's saying is you defer essentially to providing housing versus not providing housing.

Do you feel strongly that we need that no appeal?

I think we do because if the expectation is an appeal, we're probably not going to be able to make that happen within a sixty day time frame. See. That's the major

state's gonna look at that in a sixty day even though you gave your decision and said no. They're gonna say, well the sixty days is still going if they appeal like somehow it's not.

It doesn't stay the the time frame.

I see. Okay. Well that's a challenge. Anyhow, hope you guys think about that. Also, the so let's say I also split a lot. Now I owe full development impact fees for that

believe development impact fees would apply when a home is proposed on the property. Those would be paid at the time of occupancy.

Right, which is probably why someone's splitting their lot, so it'll be that much. I mean, I'm just gonna point that's and would you owe to the school district as well I assume?

I think that's the same case for the school taxes that they would be when the units actually contract.

Yeah, mean $85,000.90000 dollars so it's substantial I guess, unless there's of course a different set of fees that you look at for the single unit versus the subdivisions we're used to seeing.

Yeah, so we're actually working on development impact fee analysis. I don't know that it's kicked off by our finance division yet, but I think there's gonna be a look at a per square foot cost instead of per door. So that could be different if you It

certainly helps for the smaller homes. Right? That's good. But, yeah, again, it's just another impediment for someone to do this. Now that doesn't apply to the ADU, I assume.

No. So so what we're talking about when we when we brought up ADUs in this instance is when you propose an SB nine dwelling unit, if there's two units, you've now qualified as multi family. So then there's a section of ADU law that says when you have a multi family dwelling, you're entitled to different things. So one of which is you can have up to two detached accessory dwelling units. So what we have seen is a property owner will come in, propose two SB nine units, and then they will bookend that with two ADUs that are proposed under state ADU law.

So we have this mix of two different ministerial dwelling types and two different sets of standards, and they're combined to get to a maximum of four units on a single property.

Okay. And we

don't want that. Is that what you're saying?

That's the Oh, no. Same It's allowed by state law. It's mandated.

Got it. Okay. But again, going

back to if you did an ADU, you don't own the same fees, right?

No, it would follow ADU law for the ADUs, so if you're under a certain size, there's no development impact fees. And then finally, I

know there's been some we've had some instances in the past where obviously you're gonna need to put all your utilities there. There's been spots that I recall maybe, I mean, recent is where we couldn't get additional water meters and there was some moratoriums and things like that. Is that gonna become an issue if that ever happens again, which totally could?

So I think you're speaking to when a street's repaved and a moratorium is issued on new construction. What I understand is they will use a different method to get utilities to the property, so instead of trenching it may be a directional bore, so it's actually drilled under the roadway. I'd have to defer to Public Works on how they address My thought is, since we haven't had this issue come up, state law is probably not gonna let a street moratorium preclude housing So I think what I've heard is there's a different method of delivering those utilities.

Got it. Okay. I mean, yeah. I'd I'd say when when all this analysis was done, I'm sure maybe it's more of a state thing, looking at the cost of someone doing this is fairly prohibitive, I'll be honest. So I'm not sure we're gonna have a lot of people rushing. I'm sure the ADUs will continue along, but the lot splits seem rather expensive, so it's probably only gonna be done in the rural areas where someone has a large enough lot to really create another nice home.

We're seeing them on larger lots where they can accommodate a flag arrangement, and you can run the utilities up in the easement along the driveway or under the driveway in some instances.

Okay. Alright. No more questions for me.

Thank you.

Alright. Commissioner Crockett.

Really you've answered or addressed the questions I have, so thank you. Nothing more from me.

Commissioner Rush, any questions?

Yes. A couple of questions. Some of this is basically to the city and the interpretation. RR, RVL, R one, R four, and PD. Got it. For lack of where's R two and R three, to tell you the truth, is what I'm wondering.

So these zoning districts that we have listed here, these are the zoning the single family residential zoning Understood.

But it's always caught me off guard for the city here.

Mhmm.

Historically speaking, I've always seen r one, r two, r three, r four. But Did this place ever have R two and R three here? What is going on?

I've been here twenty six years and I don't remember an R two and R three. Okay. And I can't tell you why it doesn't roll in sequence. I would like to say there was something related to lot size at some point, but we've actually used the same so these are what I'll call the prefix. Yes. And then you have a modifier to indicate lot size. I can't tell you why there isn't an r two or r three. It's a good question.

Yeah. It's always caused me some confusion, so I was hoping to get it clarified, but still a mystery. A couple of things. So what I was wondering about was the 1,200 square feet, 40% of the original parcel. This is what you were talking about.

So in the big picture of this, say we have someone that lives on a cul de sac, and they want to do an ADU. That ADU is going to have to be four foot from the fence, four foot from the back of the home, off street parking. Utilities coming in from the street, even if they had new curb and gutter, that will still have to happen. Right. It's pretty basic. Right? Yeah.

So I think there's two questions going on here. So for the ADU component, the ADU is a unit type that's independent of the parcel requirements identified here. So that unit would be subject to the accessory dwelling unit ordinance development center. So, yes, in that ordinance, for example, for detached accessory dwelling units, do have a four foot side and a four foot rear yard setback. Some ADUs are allowed to go within the front yard area of a property.

And we do have two variations of accessory dwelling units. We have the limited standard accessory dwelling unit types. Those are units that are subject to prescribed development standards that come directly from the state, from state law. And then the other option would be our traditional accessory dwelling unit options, so that would include attached units, larger sized detached units. So I think that's probably where that hopefully addresses your question about the ADUs.

It does. And then the minimum lot size requirement here in the urban lot split ordinance, that is a combination of two standards. So we have a 1,200 square foot minimum, so that is the smallest lot size that we can go with an urban lot split, and the parcel must also be approximately 40% of the, you know, the the original lot size.

The end result of the split would be 1,200 square feet is what we're saying. Correct? Oh, got it. Thank you. I think that pretty much nails quite a whole bit of it. The sixty day period, the completed application, it's a little wonky, but that's what we're here for. What do we consider a completed application?

So for us to accept an application as complete, we will have a checklist of submittal requirements. That would be a administrative policy, a list of items that would be required for an application to be considered as complete. Typically, what we require are application materials that would help us determine whether a parcel's eligible for an urban lot split or whether or not an s b nine dwelling unit is consistent with the the requirements in the ordinance.

So if an individual or an entity submits an application, but there is clarification or addendums needed, does that sixty day period start once everything has been brought in or once the initial application is begun?

So we will Once we receive an application, we go through a thirty day completeness review. So we will determine whether or not the application is complete or incomplete within that first thirty days. So we will notify the applicant within the first thirty days independent of that sixty day review. The sixty day clock starts once the application has been deemed complete.

Okay. Thank you. And it's staff's recommendation to approve what has been put out here. Correct?

Correct.

Understood. Thank you.

Commissioner Steckenbroker, any questions?

No. They've all been answered.

Commissioner Jernan? I have a couple.

Yeah. Yes. And I think it's been a pretty healthy discussion. The way, at least in in my neighborhood, almost all the homes are centered on the property. You know, it's a suburban lot, seven to the acre, so about 7,000 square feet per lot. So I did some sort of quick calculations to get that 1,200 square foot home. You need 2,000 feet of lot to then also to stay within that 40% coverage, something like that?

Sounds about right. Yeah.

It would seem to me that, at least

in my neighborhood, most of homes have

to be demolished in order to be able to put them into a configuration that makes sense. Are you seeing that? You've you've had a couple applications come through.

So there are some qualifiers eligible for an urban lot split. Mhmm. I I don't have the exact language in front of me right now, but I believe it does prevent the demolishing of an existing dwelling unit. So I think we would need to look at alternate configurations that would avoid that situation.

Okay. Okay.

So it may be that parcels in your neighborhood may not be eligible for an urban lot split. We would have to look at it at a case by case basis.

Okay. So I I was just gonna add, so I think when we're talking about minimum 1,200 square feet, what that's telling you is that there is a that there's a minimum starting parcel size

Mhmm.

Where that 1,200 square feet will represent 40% of the larger lot. And I didn't I didn't do the math. I used your, 7,000 square foot, lot examples. So sixty forty split, what you end up with is a 4,200 square foot larger lot a and 2,800 square foot smaller lot representing the sixtyforty split. So that automatically qualifies there.

I don't think there can be any lot under this scenario that could get down to 1,200 square feet. Those are your two numbers. That's your sixty forty split. So I don't know that we're I mean, you have to start with a pretty small lot to get down to 1,200 square feet. And most of the lots that we have in this community, I would say outside of places like Hamilton, we're probably looking at anywhere from 5,000 to the most common lot being around 7,500 square feet.

Fifth of an acre?

About that. That's exactly.

So I'll just sort of take it off on a tangent though. So it would make sense to me in communities that like in Southern California that have been cleaned to do their lot splits before they start rebuilding. You know, because because they're basically gonna take out those foundations anyhow.

They they could certainly consider using SB nine as a streamlined way to subdivide. Mhmm. That's definitely an option. Think what what comes down to a lot of this is homeowner preference, and and same thing we're seeing with ADUs. Do I want somebody living in my backyard?

Do I have a need for a child or a parent to live here? We're doing more ADUs. We're also seeing an uptick in urban lot splits. So I think there are properties out there that are situated in a way that are large enough where new development can be accommodated, but I think we're gonna see probably a very selective use of SB 9 and the urban lot split. And I think Commissioner Derby touched on the more rural properties. So we've seen applications out on Simmons Lane, some of the older, larger properties there out on the North End of Novato Boulevard, that's where we're starting to see some of activity.

And again, they're like flags or cherry stands?

They're flag lots. We've seen one SB 9 application where it wasn't an urban lot split, but it was adding three additional units to the property. So it was adding, there was an existing home, and then another SB nine unit was proposed, and then that made the property eligible for two ADUs,

so that went through. Near Slote?

That one was over in the Clausing Court neighborhood.

Oh, okay. So that did materialize? Did.

That was approved. I don't believe permits have been pulled for construction yet.

So one of the elements is that if you do the lot split, that you're supposed to live, the property owner at that time is supposed to live in one of the units for up to three years. Who's gonna monitor that?

It's a great question. We take an affidavit where the property owner attests to living on the property. And as I understand it, if somebody were to back out on that commitment, there's a possibility that they're pursued for perjury. Now Okay. Somebody could be pursued for perjury. And I think that's the same reaction staff had which is is that practical? I won't rule it out, but I think it's what did the legislature actually intend in terms of enforcement.

Okay, so then similarly, and I think it was in the guidebook rather than in the regs, the idea that you couldn't have a single property owner having multiple lots doing multiple multiple splits that that creating, you know, having three units turn into six and and have

Yeah. You couldn't continue

Who's tracking that? I mean, is that part of your due diligence when it shows up to who really is owning these?

Certainly. That's part of our review. We ask for our parcel mass to be clearly labeled with the state statute that they were subdivided under.

I see.

Under the subject of perjury. A planner, as of course of reviewing projects, should check to see what the original subdivision was produced under, and if there's a reference back to SB nine or SB four fifty, I forget the statute number here, 66,411.7, if we see that on a map, we're gonna know this was subdivided via SB nine.

Okay. Okay. And I'm sure people will get really clever and creative around all that.

Can I ask one question based on that? Would you put anything on title? For instance, we record anything against title so when somebody looks, can't or for instance, can they not sell the house?

It's a good question. The issue of deed restrictions, we call it a deed restriction, but it's more or less a note notice. I don't know that HCD has been looking very favorably on that. From the perspective, I think that they believe that may be less of an incentive for somebody to come forward with a project if they're going to be encumbering their property with some restriction. We've had conversations internally that where there is a limitation on land use or subdivision, it probably would be smart to have a notification to a future property owner that if they buy something, they may be constrained.

But I think that it's still unclear in in state law as to what we can and can't do in that respect.

Mhmm.

During the thirty day review of the application that is submitted, do we do site visits to determine, you know, if there's slopes or parking constraints or anything like that, or do we just take the applicants?

Most of that's irrelevant. So Okay. We just look at

a piece of paper and

go at the plan and you have a survey, so if it's an urban lot square, you have a surveyor that's signing and attesting to its accuracy for a recordable map, and so we would look at it from that perspective. And then it's simply an objective standards review. Does it meet, the minimum lot size that's required by SB nine? Does it meet, the access requirement with SB nine? When we actually get into the units themselves, that's where the city's standards actually have more of influence as far as lot coverage, building height.

But, again, if there's a situation where the homeowner is going to be constrained from getting the state's minimum dwelling size, then the city probably has to give up on some of those standards.

Okay. But that's part of the checklist then. So that the assumption is they come in before the sixty days. Mhmm. Notice. Is there any notice to the neighbors?

Yes. There will be a a ten day courtesy noticing process.

Okay. That's so they can review the project, not

so much that there's a hearing or Correct. It would just be to inform them of either a unit or a land division in their neighborhood, and it will provide general information about the project.

Okay. That pretty much exhausts the questions. The other members did quite well.

Chair Hovall, if I may add in a a note. So with a with a lot of these housing laws, there is some uncertainty and and clarity, and one of the ways that we end up getting direction is when HCD provides technical guidance, and the way that happens is typically there's a conflict between an applicant and an agency, and somebody, either the agency or the applicant reach out to HCD, and then HCD staff decides whether this is an issue of importance, and then if it is, they will issue a technical guidance document that agencies can use to apply the law. Otherwise, it's a it's a court decision that ends up guiding it. So it's it's an interesting time to be a a planner, a planning commissioner, an agency, and trying to navigate the housing laws at this moment.

But I could also see

that pushing the timeline all out of place. I mean, assuming that that there's a number of these coming forward and the different communities are hitting up HCD that could really be a drag.

Yeah. I think HCD, like any agency, probably has limited resources and they can only handle so many technical assistance requests. We hope we're not on the end of one of those, that we're Last one. Following the laws as we best understand it, but you never know.

Okay. Thank you.

Mister Rush, I

have I I have a follow-up. You had mentioned going out on Nevada Boulevard. So I don't know if you can speak to this or not, but if I'm hearing that correctly, that's going out on Nevada Boulevard just before Sutro on the left side. If you're headed yes, looks like an old apple orchard in that situation. So what would so I can get my head around this. What we're talking about there, they could fall under the urban lot split for that area. And then after the urban lot split, then you would have the ADU come in into play.

So that particular property is actually proposed for more lots than what SB nine would allow, so they're following a traditional subdivision process. Different example would be, take a smaller lot, I'm trying to find one that's vacant, just assume a 10,000 square foot vacant lot, somebody comes in and says, well I'm gonna do a sixtyforty split here, so 6,000, 4,000 square foot between the two lots, they propose a duplex unit on Lot 1, then they can propose a duplex on Lot 2. They can't use the ADU law to get more units because they use the subdivision law, they use the urban lot split law. Take the same parcel at 10,000 square feet, and the owner comes in and says, I'm gonna build a duplex on it. They submit their duplex application for SB 9, and they include two ADUs on that application.

So now they can create four units there. They could come back later and theoretically subdivide the property so that there is two units on one lot and two units on the other. So, any way you cut it, you're not getting any more than four units total.

Got it.

Before the ADUs. If you're using ADUs, and you know it's I I I'm we've been working with this law, so we've had a lot of conversations at staff level, and it's, well, how many ways can you move this and that to get this many? And once again, it

was an

HCD technical opinion on the ADU situation that finally settled the issue of can you use ADUs in that manner.

Thank you.

Alright. I just wanna clarify. It's kind of a captain obvious thing, but ministerial process, therefore no CEQA. Or it's exempt from statutorily exempt from CEQA.

Exactly. Yes. Okay.

Alright. Hence, the adherence to those strict timelines. Got it. Okay. Now it's time for public comment if there is any. I will open up the public hearing portion of this item.

And I

see nobody approaching the podium, so I will close the public hearing, and I'll bring it back to the commission for any final comments or a motion.

I'll just make one comment. Please. Motion. I the only thing I'm concerned I I love what's been put together here. I think I actually think it's a great law. I don't think all the cities I work in, I don't hear about it being used quite as prolifically or that there was originally some fear mongering around it that everyone's gonna split all their lots but the cost of tearing down a home and building two is still pretty cost prohibitive right now at least in California and I don't think we're seeing it with the exception of bigger rural properties. But I think it's a great law. I think it'll be great in Nevada if we could see some of those rural properties create more housing. Anyhow, I do feel strongly that at least I would encourage staff to look at other ways people can get around this appeal process just if they don't agree with what's been stated. It'd be nice that they don't have to sue.

It'd be much better if they could just come to Planning Commission or appeal it to the Design Review Commission or something like that. Again, you may be constrained here, but just wanted to point that out and make sure it's in the record. Thanks.

On that point. Can we alter this resolution in any way to add some kind of an appeal system?

You could. You could recommend to the city council modifying ordinance to allow appeals. Do you wanna pursue that?

The only reason I was apprehensive of doing that was because Steve said or sorry. Mister Marshall said that if you did that, it would somehow ruin the whole sixty day thing and the state would be displeased about it or we couldn't do it. Is there really there's no way to do that?

I don't think so. I'll describe current appeal process for a tentative map, a normal traditional subdivision. So that appeal process, if it's a for law land division, it's an action that the director can take, and that director decision can be appealed to the city council directly. So it doesn't stop here at the Planning Commission. If it's a subdivision of five or more lots, that subdivision action is taken by the Planning Commission, and the appeal goes directly to the city council.

With SB nine, there's gonna be a timeline, or there's a deadline, and that sixty days runs straight from application onward. And so if we have to agendize an appeal, we end up having to have a ten day hearing notice. We have to then have a staff report, typically seventy two hours before published seventy two hours before the hearing, which means staff's been writing that for the last two weeks, writing it and putting it through our city attorney's office. So ten days, two weeks, the original review, we start to get concerned. Are we gonna meet our sixty day deadline?

And correct me if I'm wrong, Vivek, if we miss the sixty day deadline, it is a default approval. Correct.

Yeah. So in other words you would have to now back into it being appealed no matter what to fit within the

That 60 would

be the

that's what

you got. Because even if you reject it within the sixty days and they appeal, it doesn't you're saying well it's still it's still going so it's a no but I guess what I was saying is the only I was I wanted you guys to explore Staff to explore if there is something and maybe we need to take it to counsel just make sure just wanted to be stated that we were concerned about this being the finality of it if there's a disagreement. And I know we're very pro housing right now, but we may not be forever in the stands for a long

I'll try to so I I understand the the interest in an appeal if there's a difference of opinion. Building permit some some projects only require a building permit, and there is no appeal process for the issuance of a building permit. So technically speaking, an s b nine action could be deferred to simply a building permit. There there is no requirement that you have a a planning permit for an SB nine dwelling. The reason we're recommending having a a planning permit is because there's a bunch of eligibility criteria, and we'd hate to see somebody go out, produce a full set of construction detailed drawings, and submit for building permit for us to only tell them, hey, you missed on this eligibility classification.

That's terribly expensive. So we thought, okay, two part process here, although taking a little bit of time and separating construction from design, it's better. At least that was our perspective. So having an so there are processes here that we go through that don't have appeals, I guess is where I'm going with that comment.

Chair Havel, do you have any opinion? I know you've I mean, were planning forever. I'm just curious if you had a thought on this.

I appreciate you asking. You know, I I it's a it's a double bladed sword, you know. Like, you it can cut both ways and I I understand where staff's coming from. I like I like the fact that they brought up the building permit process because you can't appeal that. In response to your question and concerns, I think that what how it will play out is somewhere in the state of California, somebody's gonna be upset, and they're gonna sue, and it's gonna be a total Hatfield McCoy situation. It's just two neighbors that hate one another. And somebody wants to appeal it, and it's gonna rise up to, you know, the state level for for some sort of a determination.

And it

the question of, you know, will that particular instance have merit merit enough to warrant the state saying, oh, yeah. We should have an appeal clause.

You know what's funny is I was just speaking about appeals as if it was rejected and it was the applicant that was appealing it. You're making a point of if it's open to appeal, then the neighbors. That's alright. As soon as I'm hearing that, if that's still the same thing, then, yeah, I would have a concern that it's better to not have appeals. Otherwise, most neighbors are going to appeal that.

I mean, I was in if I put myself in staff's shoes, if I'm looking at it from that perspective, really what I see staff doing is they're providing a service at the planning department, trying to help people avoid pitfalls, get to success, you know, figure out how to make the project work.

Mhmm.

And that's, you know, as I'm understanding it, that's what this whole thing is about. You know, the what the reason they're recommending the way they're recommending it.

Mhmm.

And really at the staff level, where you see more appeals is between neighbors.

Right. Okay. I would

Good point.

Good point.

Right. I would argue if you, you know, took staff from any jurisdiction out for a cold beverage and said, hey, who who usually appeals? It's gonna be, well, I got some bad blood between neighbors and they're just they're just looking for a reason

They appeal approvals, not as much the appeal, the denial. Yeah.

Yeah. Well well, I would suggest the caveat that only the applicant would have the the right for appeal.

Is it

that Are you

allowed to do that?

Well, why not? I mean, we could make that determination, I would imagine.

Well, I think it's something that knowing what the commission's discussing, if there is a motion and a vote tonight to include a recommendation for an appeal provision, I would certainly ask the commission to specify whether that is an appeal only limited to the applicant challenging a staff decision, or it's allowing two parties of interest, either a resident or an applicant. And then what we can do is send that to our city attorney and ask them, okay, we have this recommendation. What are the limitations here? What are the concerns? Uh-huh. And then we advise the council of that.

Well, and and and the second caveat that I would suggest as well is that the applicant would then have to waive that sixty day deadline in order to to so those would be the two pieces of it that I think could address

Yeah. So we would we would explore that with the city attorney.

That was where this all came from. It was more just find out what's legally allowed. It would be great to give someone that opportunity and its concern.

And this is certainly something that could assuming we heard a legal decision that made sense, we could put it on an agenda and alter or send a resolution referring back

to

the city council. We think this should be amended in such a phase. Some

I don't know. I mean, so commissioner Gerbi, you're you're coming at this from a developer standpoint of if I don't like the decision I get from the city

Right.

Can I appeal that? Yeah. Yeah. So what happens in a building permit? Right.

Yeah. We we would in theory, it should just be it's very objective. Right?

Right.

So in technically, they can't really deny it unless they're we're objectively not meeting that.

And and again, I would look at staff the way I see it the way staff would come at it is they're not denying a building permit. There's usually some clear, oh, you didn't hit this standard, I have to And deny your I think that would be the

same case here, is it's not

it's objective. And staff would be providing guidance like that.

Health and safety sometimes I've seen it used a little bit.

And so that point that you brought up actually absolutely has merit because health and safety, right? There's a neighbor that doesn't like it

Yeah.

Health and safety. Oh you're building a house above

that You're remotely close to I've been through

the steep and you're gonna drainage.

Yep. Or I've just dealt with one where we're remotely close to a golf course. So unless I build a top golf net, someone could get killed in my property. Yeah. And it

I mean, right now, I think those issues come up in building permits and ministerial situations all across the board. And staff again kinda falls back on, well, these people are adhering to these objective standards, therefore, we don't have the authority to deny it.

Anyway, this this is a good discussion. I I Yeah.

I I don't. Do we wanna pursue it? And it would be a you know, I think a recommendation to staff to to put something, I guess, before counsel, you know, legal counsel. Is is there viability in in going down this road?

I guess all I would ask is that it's discussed with the council and discussed most importantly with the city attorney. And I feel like the council could make a decision if there's some if you could lay out at that time some negatives like mister Havel was putting out and some positives of, hey, could there just be a disagreement between the applicant and the city with the health and safety or something like that. And again, I know right now I'm not worried about this staff, this current council, this planning commission. I feel like everything we do these days is very in favor of housing. I just know things change. That's all.

So so hearing the discussion, if if the commission wants to make a motion to recommend adoption of the ordinance, but with the potential revision of adding an appeal process, you can do that this evening. We would record that in the meeting minutes, and then we would immediately tap our city attorney to help us address that in advance of the council and take that take that forward.

Can we start appealing building permits now?

That's a good question.

Yeah. Are we starting the

I just here's where I'm struggling

with it.

But isn't there some committee I think at the county level, there is an appeal board for building permits.

So for chief building official, they cities have to have what's called a housing or building codes appeals board, and if I'm understanding that process correctly, it's for disagreements over the interpretation or the decision relative to the building code, not necessarily land use decisions or what I'll call planning permit level decisions. Again, that invoke a process, that would take time get a hearing before the board and so forth.

And my understanding, they meet really infrequently, that it's very rare actually.

It is rare for them to meet here. So, I think one way to think about this, just to step back and think about what the legislature's intent was for putting such a tight deadline on these particular on SB nine projects, and also think about ministerial decisions and objective standards. So the idea here is you have clearly objective standards. Your setback is four feet, your building height is 10, and that staff or whoever the review authority is would look at a plan and say, that is clearly four feet, that is clearly 10 feet high, must approve. And I don't think what the legislature ultimately wanted was appeals going up.

So it it is, I I heard double edged sword used as the analogy here, so there's sort of this thing happening in in state law, which is, okay, agency, you need to be objective in your review and your standards, and developer, you need to be accurate in designing a project that meets those standards. And if those two don't pair up, then the agency can deny your application. If the agency denies your project in error, then you can go seek relief through court. And as I've mentioned before, oftentimes, there's a threat of a lawsuit, and then there's discussions between the attorneys, and there's different guidance given, and maybe there's a revision in decision, or maybe there isn't. So I think where we are with this is traditional approaches to land use entitlements don't necessarily apply to the streamlined laws, or they've been set up so that it's difficult to do that.

Yeah. That's good.

But I still think it's worthy of the question if the commission wants us to take this back to the council, both councils, legal council and city council, for them to think about. And I would assume that the city council would be concerned perhaps about the same thing. Where is the opportunity for the public on this?

Mhmm. Mhmm. Mhmm. Yeah. I mean, getting ten days notice and

Well, given that we don't have a read or input from the council or or city attorney, Is it in the city's best interest for us to continue to this point and and voice some interest in getting some further consideration that way or should we? What what you know? Because we I don't think we can craft a very precise proposed revision at this point.

I'll be honest. I can just speak for myself. Maybe everyone has some different opinions on this now. I didn't mean to open a Pandora's box here but I I think chair Habib brought up some good examples and as did mister Marshall. I I think I'm a little less personally, I'm a little less concerned than I was before.

I think we just talked through all these different scenarios. You know, there's gonna be I I don't love the double edged sword part's what I'm most concerned about and I and I do like the idea of, oh, well what if the applicant can appeal? But I understand what the state law is trying to do. And I and you also made a comment and I'm thinking about my day job where we go, I completely don't I want my building permits and they're arguing over an objective standard and there's a lot of that and we do send in our attorneys and we talk to the city attorney and they usually work it out without a big lawsuit and then everything gets kind of figured out that way. So perhaps there are some other ways around this but I guess if there's some way to figure out any sort of dispute and again it's really coming back to the health and safety and that's the trigger word, trigger phrase for me, forgive me, but I've seen it used yeah, in different ways.

Yeah. You know, as you mentioned earlier, trying to channel what an individual chief building official may consider to be public health and safety grounds for denying an application. It could could be different based on context. Something that comes to mind is we're building a structure over a fault line, things of that nature, which are very serious, I think are probably within the vein of a bonafide health and safety threat, where denying a project appropriate, but then there are gonna be outliers. And I think that's where the HCD guidance, sometimes the attorney general writes opinions, you know, so I think before I think before a chief building official makes a decision to deny an application on health and safety grounds, they're going to look at the resource materials, probably actually consult with their city attorney, and there'll be a decision there.

Let me give the floor Commissioner Rush because I think he had some questions, comments.

Couple of questions. I I read through the documents a couple times, and it is staff's position that we should approve this tonight without revision. Is that correct?

That is the recommendation.

Got it. Thank you. This has been reviewed by the city attorney and discussed with the city attorney already. Correct?

That is correct.

Got it. Good. And there's default is building permit default, that we can default to the building permit. That's correct. It's a green light or a red light. That's correct.

You could you could set up your s b nine review process for s b nine dwellings dwellings to only require building permit. So they'd be treated the same way as an ADU. So ADUs don't require planning permit. They go straight to building permit.

So I'm all for I am I'm all for closing the Pandora's box as quickly as possible, possible, just to let you know, and to streamline this effectively and to demonstrate to the citizens of this city that we can go faster than we are right now.

Okay.

I think we should.

No. I'm in favor

There of

is that Navado slow.

Well,

let's make it go faster.

Let's do it the right I think don't we're talking about speed here. And again, I think I'm very supportive of everything that's put in front of us. I don't think we should delay it in any way. We should approve this.

I do too. Concern is the revisions

that might get into I would say is please or I'm sorry. I'll just speak for myself and others can weigh in, but I just wanna make sure just on record that maybe this is discussed a little bit with the city attorney and the council and just laid out, hey, please help make a decision on the best way for an applicant to if they disagree, how they deal with it.

And I think what staff is suggesting is that that needs to be an amendment so that they get direction because otherwise it'll show up in the minutes, but it dead

your comments. Do do we have to make an amendment then?

I don't

think you need to amend the ordinance this evening.

No. I mean, I would amend the resolution to add. Let's do some research.

Yes. You could certainly make the motion this evening to state that as a commission, you would like to have potentially have an appeal provision added into the ordinance, and again specify how you want that appeal to be considered, whether it's applicant only or resident and applicant, and then what we would do with that is we would make that part of your resolution, so when we get down into the, the vote section, it would be, now therefore be it resolved, the Planning Commission recommended. And we'd add in a statement saying the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the ordinance with consideration of an amendment to allow an appeal provision.

Yeah. And my only point was that that, you know, commissioner Derby had said, well, I'll make sure my comments were in the minutes, and I don't think that that's totally sufficient to get her over the hump. Either way.

If the commission's more

comfortable I've than a reso I've seen or and again, sorry, I know we're all back going back and forth like a little unusual for us, but I've seen times before where we've made comments and they've come to council and said, hey, commission brought this up it's a topic that the council could discuss and then they can come up with an amendment if they feel strongly about it. Personally, I don't feel strong enough for an amendment because

I don't know enough.

I don't know enough about what and it may be that the city attorney's like, yeah, you're totally hosed. There's an appeal period. You're backing into now. This is a twenty day turnaround and that makes no sense. And this may be a very slim chance of this even happening where there's a someone is in a disagreement with what are mostly objective standards.

So, hearing that mister chair, I would move the resolution as presented. Seconded. Seconded.

Alright. It's called depression. Commissioner Derby? Aye. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Steckenbacher? Aye. And Commissioner Tierney? Aye. And Commissioner Havel is an aye as well.

Alright. So, we're clear on that. And when you see the council staff report, you'll probably see three three or four paragraphs dealing with appeals.

Just a little. Thank

you. Well, I guess some discussion of it would be great.

Yes. Great. Next up on the agenda is general business. This evening we have the tradition of election chair and vice Mhmm.

Disappoints Is the floor open for nominations?

We're we're looking for nominations.

Yeah. I would I would nominate commissioner Crockett to be chair.

I will respectfully decline but nominate commissioner Derby as chair.

And accept nomination. Okay.

Okay. Let's call it a question.

It It

does. Can we get a second on

this? Do need

a second. Second on this.

No, second this. And

do we want would we like to discuss Commissioner Derby before we call it

to question?

Have the Evil video. Yeah.

I'm not gonna open it up to public hearing since that's

you don't wanna I haven't done it in ten years, so that's that's my in ten years, did it once. So thanks for letting me step in the shoes.

Commissioner okay. So I'm calling going through your roll call real quick. Commissioner Tierney? Aye. Commissioner Steckenbroker? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. And I as well. And commissioner Derby? Aye. So you have vote too. Aye. Okay. We're all on unanimous approval. Welcome to the chairship, Commissioner Derby.

Thank you.

Alright. Bet you're you're not gonna start until next meeting.

I know. That's quite quite

a I'm gonna I'm gonna I'm gonna close

out this everyone's names.

Yeah. And then we'll pass

You still lead a vice chair, Right?

Yes. Do. That was next up. So, do we have nominations for vice chair?

I will nominate Commissioner

Tiburn. Tiburn?

I think that's close. Kiernan. Kiernan?

I accept. Alright.

Seconded. Very well. We'll go through quick roll call or a quick, vote here. Commissioner Derby? Aye. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Stueckenbrucker? Aye. And Commissioner Ternan? Aye.

Alright.

Thank you. Vice chair Ternan, welcome aboard again. Great. Alright. So with that, we'll move on to the last couple items on tonight's agenda. Are there any liaison reports or committee reports?

Yes. So just note that our next meeting is scheduled for June 23, and we have one item that we'll be bringing, which is a general plan consistency report for the Nevada Unified School District workforce housing sites. So Mhmm. Staff will be meeting with mister Nell to discuss that, and then we'll be putting together a staff report package for the commission's consideration.

Fantastic. Anything new at Fireman's Fund?

Fireman's Fund is working on its demolition

package and

hopefully moving that through. I know a planning division's done looking at that, so it's on to the building division. And from there, it really rests in the developer's hands as far as whether they have found a buyer for parts of the project that they don't intend to build or whether they move on with the parts that they plan to construct.

Wasn't there something fell through a few weeks ago? Correct? Someone didn't take it? Received some kind of odd information that someone wasn't going through

with the I can I can speak to that? There's there's been a number of homebuilders that have gone in an after contract and most we'll see what happens. But

yeah. Okay.

I think most importantly there's a there is they're trying to get a permit to demo the building. Did the city determine the best route on that? Did they determine because you know it's technically a demolition permit is over the counter, right, but I don't know that the city had one for a whole a large commercial.

They're going through the the building division. Okay. So there's no public review. It's it's a essentially demolition permit, building permit for the property.

Got it. Okay.

Do we see it happening this year?

I'd have to defer to the building division and the developer as to timing.

Last question. There was another project that got approved that moved through very quickly. It was right adjacent to the Fireman's Fund. My understanding was they filed a builder's remedy. I don't know. Did I miss was there a hearing that I missed here? Did they they didn't have to go in front of us and they got approval of this full subdivision map?

That's correct. So, builder's remedy is a state law, state housing law, and it doesn't prescribe a particular entitlement review process, and so it ended up going directly to the city council.

And and what the what do you graph I'm curious what

parcel we're

It's talking 100 Wood Hollow. So it's the office building on

the The hotel?

Oh no. Gerardo's.

Crest below Gerardo's property.

Would staff do us a kindness in the next hearing and talk a little bit about that, what the project ended up looking like? It's just it's a little odd. I've been asked by about 10 people, hey, what's this project I heard about got approved and I didn't know about it? We have a we have a website

for the

project that

contains all the construction drawings, the approvals, and there is a pretty extensive city council staff report.

Okay. They have to take down the existing building in order oh.

That's correct.

So, I just I'd have to ask, why wouldn't why wouldn't every developer go forward and use the building? Because I've seen the Buildings Remedy used in a whole host of cities and I've yet to see one that actually had a successful outcome quite like this. I was curious why you know, what would stop a fireman's pond or one of those other groups from taking forward a Builders' Remedy?

Builders' Remedy applies when a city does not have a substantially compliant housing element, and the city has a housing element that was certified by HCD as being substantially compliant. So that gives an agency with that certification standing in court that HCD has stood behind that housing element. So I don't know that a developer would want to challenge that because it would be on them to convince a court that the city's housing element is not adequate, not substantially compliant.

And why does it scare me? And again, even if it was, I don't want to call it ministerial, maybe it is ministerial with the I was just curious why it wouldn't still at least go was there a clock that you had to fit within that they couldn't at least come to Planning Commission and say, hey.

You gotta approve this. I I think given the fact that there is no prescribed process for a Builders' Remedy application, at least as we understood the law and the high potential for litigation, the decision was to go directly to the council on that matter.

Certainly not challenging the decision. I'd love more housing, I'm just curious because it was did hit me off guard. But, yeah, I will certainly look at the website.

Is that the only Builders Remedy project?

We have one other. Ouch.

Okay. Are

you allowed to speak about those?

Can. It's not agendized. I can tell you it's known as Bahia Riverview. There is a website for that as well. K. It's a land division proposing eight proper or eight parcels on the on Bahia Drive. Would you be

able to agendize at the next hearing just a quick little presentation of of anything that's gotten to Builders' Remedy? Just keep us in loop.

And I think it may be an opportune time to invite the city attorney to attend.

Yeah. No. That's great. Because we have a lot of questions. Yeah. And I wasn't beating you up here. I was more fascinated by

it. Wow.

Yeah. I think the staff report would be really informative on the perspective since it was written by by staff, but with the assistance of the city attorney. So, it's

it's a fairly

good primer on Builders Remedy and sort of the thought process there.

Four units. That's good. Need to need to get an arena number.

Okay. Good to go. I think so. I'd I'd like to it's my last action as chair. I I wanna share a quick story. About thirty five years ago, my brother pulled me aside and told me he was gay. And he came out to me, and it was he was 17 at the time, and it took an amazing amount of bravery for him to come out at that age in the area that we were raised. It was fairly conservative down there. It's a good way to get your butt kicked if you come out and say you're gay back then. But he did, and I admire him for that. And I just wanna say happy pride, and it's been a pleasure serving this chair. We'll see you next meeting.

Thank you. Thank you for

your service.

Yes. Excellent.