Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Oh gosh. So I need to do a roll call. So commissioner Crockett? Here. Commissioner Havel?

Here.

Commissioner Stuttenbrock?

Stuck and Broker.

Stuck and Broker. We're gonna get there someday. Here. And commissioner Tiernan is attending. So we're missing Derby?

Yes. We'll be missing commissioner Derby. And And had expected, commissioner Roche. Okay.

We'll see if he shows up. Okay. At this point, on our agenda, and it would be nice to lower the volume just a little bit. I sound like I'm screaming.

Better? How is that?

Okay. This is open time, for public comment. If there's something other than, what we're looking at on the agenda that members of the public wanna bring to our attention, this is the time.

Commissioner Terrier, we'll need a a motion for the final agenda and To move on to that. This evening, staff would ask that the commission continue item h one. We would wanna have all the commission here for that conversation. And so it's looking like perhaps in early or late August, we'll have the full commission back together, and we can bring the city attorney on board to make that to help with that discussion.

Oh, we have Hello.

Commissioner Roche joining us.

Excellent. So I'll entertain a motion to approve the final agenda, but putting aside h one for a future agenda.

So moved. Second.

Okay. I'll do another roll call. Commissioner Crockett. Aye. Commissioner Havel. Aye. Commissioner Studenbrock.

And Stuck and Broker.

Okay. Commissioner Roche.

Aye. Aye. Am here.

And and here as well. I appreciate that. Okay. Once again, we have some open time for the public. I see nobody. Nothing on our consent calendar nor unfinished business, so we'll move right to the public public hearing. The item before us has to do with the Nevada Unified School District and a general plan consistency report regarding some property disposal. So first, we'll let staff

talk to us. Yes. Good evening. Steve Marshall, deputy director of the Nevada Community Development Department. And as, chair vice chair Ternan mentioned, tonight, the commission's being asked to consider, making a report regarding a potential property disposal, that will be undertaken by the Nevada Unified School District.

So to start off, first and foremost, this report is required by state law. The commission may recall that there is a section of state law, that applies to public agencies where before an agency buys or sells a piece of property, leases or grants an easement, the local planning agency has to provide a report to the review authority. The commission usually does this for city actions where you're making a report to the planning or excuse me, to the city council. In this instance, there's a subsection of state law that requires other districts to come to the local planning agency to get that report. So in this instance, the Planning Commission serves as the Planning Agency and will make that report this evening.

The commission is to consider the location, purpose, and extent of the property disposal. And then just to be clear, the commission is not making a recommendation or expressing any support or opposition to a particular project that might occur in the future. This is really about land use and location as far as the report goes this evening. So for a little bit of background, the school district is working on an educational workforce housing initiative where the district is looking to leverage some of its properties to provide housing for its employees as an incentive to attract teachers and other staff as well as retain existing staff. And I should mention that we have Derek Nell with the school district here this evening to talk more about the school district's initiative.

If the commission has questions, Derek will have the best knowledge on that particular effort. What we know in this instance is the school district is looking at these sites potentially for future housing development, So the purpose for the count or the commission's evaluation is the purpose of, future residential development. And again, there's no specific project proposed at this time by the district. They're still working on their planning effort and what they will do in the future. And just a last note, disposal is a broad term used in the statute and it can mean it's it's appropriate for sale or for lease and I think those are certainly options that the district can consider moving forward.

So moving into the properties themselves, the property here is 5 San Andreas Drive. It's at the sort of in the middle of San Andreas Drive between San Carlos and San Marin. It's been a long vacant property. It's been owned by the school district. And I think at some point, there had been a plan for development as a school facility, but that need has not ever come to fruition.

The property is a little over 21 acres, and it's assigned the medium density detached residential, designation. That's a single family designation that carries a density of anywhere from 4.1 to seven dwelling units per acre. And as I mentioned, the site is undeveloped. So that's basically the summary on that parcel. The next one up here is 5520 And 5530 Nave Drive.

The district refers to this as the Meadow Annex. It's two and a half acres in size, and this land use designation's a little bit different and more, common for school facilities. It's known what we call it as community facilities, but it also covers public utilities and civic uses. So that's the broad land use categories. The density in this instance for a residential project is 10.1 to 20 dwelling units per acre.

And there's also a maximum FAR of point eight. So up to 80% of the lot area could be developed in square footage. And those two numbers work together. So a project has to meet both the density range and the maximum FAR. I'd also note that for housing to occur on a property designated CF, it has to be a mixed use project.

And what that means is there has to be community facility or some form of civic use or utility that accompanies that project. So for example, a school facility with a housing component. So and that's just the broad categories. There's a zoning classification that implements this particular land use classification that has a full list of acceptable uses in it. The site is currently used, and it has portable classrooms and storage containers. It's used by a nonprofit organization. I believe it's, correct me if I'm wrong, I believe it's Head Start of Marin. And so their facilities are on the site at this time.

So

moving on to the consistency analysis. Again, this is mostly a land use perspective at this point since there isn't an actual project proposed. So first and foremost with any sort of land transaction, for a general plan report, we start with the land use map. And this instance, both of the land use categories that apply to these parcels allow housing. So a housing development, conforming to the requirements of the zoning district and the balance of the general plan would be considered, consistent.

And then moving on, into housing element consistency, we have three, policies that stood out that would, support selling these properties or leasing them for housing. One is, policy 1.3, which speaks to a variety of housing choices, and that's talking about senior housing, housing for different family situations, so single family household or single head of household, multi family. And so I think from a staff perspective, teacher housing or educational workforce housing would fit into that particular policy. Moving on to policy 2.1, this talks about supplying affordable housing in various ranges from very low income to moderate income. And with any housing development on these properties, staff expects there to be some affordable housing component, whether it's through the city's inclusionary housing, ordinance, whether it's through another state law, or it's through the district's action on its own in specifying the affordable levels that it intends to provide to employees.

So here again, we think the disposal of properties for housing is again consistent with this particular policy. And then finally, a variety of housing types. This speaks to condo or townhomes, apartments, detached single family, duplex, so the different forms of housing. In this instance, we have one property on San Andreas that will support detached single family homes. And then over on the Meadow Annex parcel, have multifamily dwellings that could take the form of an apartment complex or townhome.

So keeping those things in mind, staff's perspective was that, again, the disposal of these properties would be consistent with that particular policy. Mhmm. So with that, staff has a draft resolution for the commission to consider this evening that would report that the, potential property disposals here are consistent with general plan 2035. And if the council feels excuse me. If the commission feels, the same, you can adopt that, resolution this evening. And with that, that'll conclude the presentation, and I'm available to answer questions about the general plan review. And, of course, Derek Nell of the school district is here to answer questions about the district's housing effort.

Thank you. That was an excellent report. Thank you. So do we have any questions of of the deputy director at this stage before we get to the applicant? Any questions of staff? Okay. With that, I'd like to hear from the applicant. Mister Nell?

Good evening. So so technically, I'm not an applicant yet. I'm basically a notificationer. That's not a real word. But I'm here to, as Steve's said, that we're we're we're going through a process of declaring property surplus. And what that means to us is it no longer has a school purpose. So one of the things we have to do through the State Board of Education is to go through a process with a community group. It's called the seven eleven Committee for various reasons. We go through a process of the enrollment projections. We look at the properties over the long term, and we make a determination that we are not going to need these properties for school purposes.

And therefore, we would like them declared as surplus with our state board of education. I did bring some handouts. I'm not sure if it's okay to hand these to guys for public record.

I

applied PDFs to Steve, and he could get them posted if they need to be. But these are available on our website. This is a this is an excerpt of the presentation that we gave to our community group, our seven eleven committee group that sort of went over the size and shape, how long we've had these properties, and a little some here's historical maps and photos of the difference the different sites. So just sort of thought would I would provide that as additional information. The Nevada Unified School District is working on an education workforce housing initiative, and the purpose of the initiative is to help us with our recruitment, what we refer to as attract and retain quality staff.

Public education in the state of California is finding it more and more difficult to find qualified staff to work in our positions. There's a lot of reasons for this. Primarily, it's a national demographic shift. There's baby boomers are are retiring out of the system. And and over the decades, fewer and fewer individuals have gone into education as a career.

So for example, in the seventies, we might have been pulling from a number as high as 20% of bachelor degrees, where people that went into education. As our reports ending in 2018, that number had dropped to less than 5% of individuals pursuing education. Bachelor degrees actually went into education as a profession. So our employment pool has gotten smaller and smaller, and the state is experiencing this issue in all school districts. Some school districts are having as much as 25% of their staff turnover in a single year.

Novato staff turned over 14% last year. And for comparison, ten years ago, our turnover rate was only 3%. There's another factor that has to do with the demographic shift and the the lack of of of staff, of a large staff pool for school districts, and that's the credentialing. And last year, the Nevada Unified School, this is just one example, Nevada Unified School District had to hire approximately 7% of its teachers. We're not necessarily properly qualified or had the credentials that they needed for the subject matter they were teaching.

That number does reach as high as 15% in some school districts on a statewide basis. But again, in Novato's case, if you went back ten years, that number was less than 10. Last year, it was 7%. And we see this trend continuing on on and on. And what we've learned through our recruitment processes is there's a lot of individuals that are interested in working in our schools, but they simply cannot afford to live here.

In the the medium average for a home in in this county, I can tell you, has reached $1,470,000. And just, for example, on a if you were to do a traditional mortgage on a on a 1.47, putting down 25% and qualifying to borrow the rest, you'd have to have household income of over $500,000 a year to qualify for something like that. So most of our most our recruits are are not in a position to to qualify for that. They simply it's very, very difficult for them to purchase or rent here in Marin County, and we're feeling that affects in the sense of the our final student outcomes. Essentially, this is having an impact with our students, and we wanna correct that issue.

And there are several examples statewide that show school districts that have built education workforce housing. They've essentially start their school year without any openings, and they're seeing higher morale levels and a consistency in their student outcomes as a as a direct result. It's also kind of important to point out that education workforce housing is not affordable housing. We're basically talking, in most cases, a broader range. We do need some one bedroom apartments, but we need one bedroom, two bedroom, three bedroom, right up to three bedroom townhouses with the garages and and yards for some of our staff.

And so most of the units that we're looking to build are gonna be much closer to market rate as far as size and quality. However, they can still qualify for very low and low affordable as we we designate them through the inclusionary process or our own actions as designating them, they would qualify for affordable housing to meet some of your arena numbers here in Nevada. And we wanna we definitely wanna be part of that solution as well. We also feel like what we can do with our properties is to help leverage housing growth in general. We think that from a statewide perspective, certainly, but even here locally, there's there's approximately 75,000 acres of suburban and urban infill prod properties that are owned by school districts in the state of California.

Essentially, if we were to get this initiative rolling and to start to to develop housing on our properties, we think we could do a great deal to help seed the labor force and seed the supply chain issues that which would help with competition and hopefully bring prices down as well. So public education is here to solve our particular problem, which is to attract and retain. But at the same time, we feel like we're in a position to help contribute economically to this to the state's housing shortage. So here to answer any questions.

Very good. I appreciate that. Any questions of mister Nell? Yeah. To mister Roche. Yeah. You got the floor.

Thank you. So when you say, who will own the property?

Yeah. One of the one of the slides that Steve had up there that had a kind of like a legal description about the property. The way the way things are kind of set up, it's assumed that these laws, when they were originally written, that school district would be disposing of their property. So we would either sell or do a long term ground lease. But with some of the changes in Sacramento to help develop housing, school districts now have a few bills through legislation that allows them to build and develop their own housing on their properties.

So it's too early for me to say exactly what combination of choices we'd we'd be in, but we're certainly the reason we're doing this process of declaring it a surplus is so we'll have the ability to sell long term lease or develop them, continue to own them and develop them ourselves.

Possibly a combination of the two. You would see retain some of the property for That They felt this plans out for building. And then also some of that property could be sold to the actual home owner.

That is a strong possibility. I just wanna be very careful to say that we have no plans at this point. We have a lot of ideas. And so while we're waiting, what we're in the process we're in is just declaring our properties as no longer needed for school purposes. There's basically three things we are doing.

One is here tonight with the the local planning division. We've also already notified the California Housing Development Department. They've already responded in the affirmative that they agree that these properties are no longer needed for school purposes and would be available for housing. And the third thing is we need approval from the State Board of Education, which is gonna be meeting in July. And we're fairly sure that they'll approve our waiver request.

And what the waiver request is, is allows us to forego something called the Naylor Act, which has us have to offer the properties up to other public entities first, followed by sort of an as is high bid auction that we would do. That's traditionally what the what surplus properties have been disposed of in the past. What's new about our request to do the waiver process will allow us to do what we're just gonna call an RFP process, or a request for proposal, which will give the school district the ability to control the future development on these sites. Because we think it's important that everyone in Nevada understand that we are your schools and your school districts, and we don't wanna see anything inappropriately built in in neighborhoods that that would be inappropriate, essentially. So what we wanna do is optimize the value with a focus on attract and retain, solving our problem in collaboration with the city and the community in general.

But by allowing us to proceed through the request through through proposal with these waivers, it'll give us the ability to say what we want built there and control what gets built there, and through the process through our own public engagement, etcetera, we will come up with the best solutions for these properties. And these are just two of the properties. We have additional properties that will be coming forward in the future. Primarily we were gifted some properties through the airbase closure at Hamilton that we'll be working with, and there's some other smaller lots and properties around that are also on our list under consideration. But tonight, these are the these are the two properties that we've run notifying you that we're having declared as surplus with intent to solve our workforce housing issue.

Thank you.

Any other questions

at this point?

I've got a few questions. You got the floor.

Thank you. What does the board, the NUSD board, think about all this? I mean, realize they brought you on board to find housing to try to where

can you

tell us a little about their thinking and what our just did, you know, resolution tonight, how that blends into their thinking or their moving forward?

It it blends in perfectly. Essentially, at this stage, the Nevada Unified School District has been trying to do something with its surplus properties actually going back to 2008 during the great recession when we were trying to figure out if we could find ways to convert our land assets into some way of solving those problems at the time. So my I'm here as sort of a direct result of some of some grant funding through the Chan initiative Chan Zuckerberg Initiative in conjunction with the California School Boards Association, which did some studies with Cal Berkeley and UCLA that's come up with some of the statistics I've been mentioning. Again, we're not we're not here to solve the affordable housing crisis in the state of California. We're here to to solve the attract and retain issue, but at the same time, we feel like we can help leverage this issue with all the properties that we have.

So without a doubt, the Nevada Unified School District is sort of a leader. We're one of four districts in a beta test mode. Essentially the things that we learn and the processes that we come up with, we're hoping to scale and to work with other school districts throughout the state so that they can do similar things.

In terms of retention, you'd mentioned percentage, I believe it was 14% of staff

That's a full turnover, correct.

In USD. Where do they go?

Sorry? Where do they go? They go to places where it's less expensive to live.

Do they go to places that pay more?

It's it's interesting. It is possible to that you could go to places that pay more. I don't wanna get too down in the weeds, but just our neighbors to the South Of Marin are what are called basic aid districts. It sounds the exact opposite of the case, but they essentially have such a high level of property taxes. They're allowed to keep all of their property taxes.

So they they have two to three times more funding per student than Novato does. We have what's called a local control funding formula system where our property taxes in Novato go to Sacramento, and then they're redistributed back to a majority of districts which are LCFF funded. But the answer to the question is difficult because you could take a school district in Modesto that has a high concentration of socially economic disadvantaged students, and they get something that's called unduplicated concentrated grant funding. So a district like that might receive an amount of money that's equivalent to the funding that a Southern Marin district might get. And so in addition to having lots of funding, and they can pay their teachers a little bit more than we can, they also have a very low cost of living area, which makes it very attractive to people trying to build careers in education.

So we're up against the entire state in the lower cost of living areas, and then because we're the district that's funded LCFF, we don't have the ability to pay teachers as much as they get paid in Southern Rent, for example.

And then one last question

if I may.

This is if this is getting too far ahead of the the horse, just say so. I realize that there's no proposal on the board tonight.

Correct.

I realize this is not a development proposal. There's no plans. There's no that all said, it's one could say it's a blank slate. I you know, when I talk to folks in the community, a lot of times, there's fundamental misunderstanding that the planning commission dictates to a property owner, here's what you're gonna build on your property, and that's not how it works. The property owner comes in and says, what's my zoning?

What can I do with this property? And then they come forward with a proposal, and we as a discretionary regulatory body will review a proposal and make a determination on that. So, to me, it seems like this is an excellent blank slate for the district, and you kind of alluded to this, the fact that this is beta and this is kind of cutting edge. It's the leading edge of what could be possible. So all that said, you talked about retaining staff.

Would that housing be reserved for NUSD staff? Or is that outside the and again, this might be way ahead of the conversation. If it is, just say so. But can that housing be retained in USD staff?

It'll depend. One of the issues that, I mentioned some legislation earlier that does give school districts sort of ministerial approval on this issue. However, as you mentioned, property owners' best interest. Well, because we're a school district, profit is not our primary motivation. We have to live here too, I like to tell people.

Our board has to live in town and shop. And so we wanna do what's appropriate and we're motivated to solve our problem, not necessarily get rich off the developing property. So I think that's a great advantage for all communities throughout the state to work with their school districts on these surplus properties. For example, if we hadn't gone through this waiver RFP process, we would be required to sell these properties to the highest bidder. And I can assure you, the highest bidder would be a high density, 100% affordable housing developer who would come in and want to build, I'm speculating, let's just say several story, several build, several apartment buildings on the San Andreas property, for example, which would be completely inappropriate.

And they would take advantage of other things that would motivate them to to to to both go for high density, no parking, and small units, and all the types of things that we just don't think will appeal to our employees or will be acceptable in the community. So this is a really good opportunity for all of us to work together to solve our issues around housing, at the same time improve the quality and the consistency of our public education.

Thank you.

You okay? No. You got the floor.

To kind of continue on that line of thinking and I knowing that this is cutting edge and all the other terms that have been used, is it conceivable, is it legal that the ultimate development deal you'll do with someone would actually net an ongoing source of revenue to the district?

Yes. Which is another reason why we see the issue from a statewide perspective as somewhat finite because it's limited to the 75,000 acres. And then over time as the cost of these developments is paid down, they'll become what we would consider as facility dollars to our budgets. But facility which would mean we wouldn't have to move money out of our general fund to sustain our facilities. We would have an independent income stream from that.

That's a possibility. It's something we're certainly thinking of, and I think members of the community might be interested in that long term advantage as well. I did wanna say that we probably would have a you mentioned, like, who can live who can live there. We sort of have a self imposed that 51% of it would be our employees. We would target that.

Commissioner, correct. So is the flow. You're okay?

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry? Sure. Thank you. Fire on.

One, that kind of gets to the rub a little bit. It's how do you solve something that is so weirdly esoteric? Because the idea is how do you ensure that the employee is gonna stay there? Capacity

do you have,

say they sublet it?

Well, I'm glad you asked that because I do wanna be clear that as much as we would like to participate in some way and support purchase of these properties, that is not the case. They're likely to be the properties that we control will be for rent. And in order to rent them, a condition of employment would be there. So essentially if you did not work for us, you'd have to get out. As far as any market right housing that we might control for rent, those revenues would be used to cover the cost of the maintenance and the taxes and the insurance that traditional market rate has, and then over time we would hope that there would be some positive revenue to that.

As far as any properties that are actually turned over to, let's say, are actually built homes for sale, then those would be just market rate homes that were sold to people who bought them, and then they would be the owners and pay property taxes, and hopefully school parcel taxes as well.

The whole idea, the perception is that, alright, everyone comes over, the teachers start out at NUSD, two years later they're transferred down to Redwood School, over and over. We all know that.

Well they would lose their subsidy. It's based on a condition of employment. Those are the models that have successful, and we would follow that as well.

Well, I don't know if it was eight years ago or so, NUSB came up to battle a little bit. Does this differ very much relative to that time?

What you're you're saying? Yes. In 2018 was our last

Is that what what's the our last we we had

a fairly decent effort going

in Yes. '2

Yeah. But and it was in in conjunction with the city. We were working together on building housing for both of our employees, and that's not necessarily off the table at this time. Okay. We ran smack dab into the pandemic. Got it. So we had to stop. So we're back again trying to restart that up under some new laws and new economics, new economics, Thank you.

You're okay?

I'm okay.

Thank you much.

My pleasure. I'm sure Steve can get you my number or my contact information. I'm happy to meet with anyone who has any questions, and that goes for the public as well, help them understand what our goals are and what we're trying to accomplish.

That's great. Thank you. So with that, I'm gonna open the public hearing and hear if there's any information that the public wants to share with us. It doesn't appear to be the case. With that, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the commission. Discussion, and then presumably action. Anything you wanna talk about this? Are we ready to take action then?

You know, I'll throw a comment out just for fun. I have several dear friends that work for in USD. And as staff, they are frustrated by exactly what you were alluding to, commissioner. NUSD proves as the

kind of the breeding ground.

You come here, you cut your teeth, and then you move down to that peachy job in South Marin. Still live in Amado. Maybe you moved down south, but you know, it's a magnet. That money, appearance, I mean, yep, you do it for the love, but ultimately, that money is hard to say no to, especially when you consider that salary is tens of thousands of dollars greater in Southern Marin. So I think something like this that's on the table is brilliant.

I think it's a great way to move forward. You know, It does dovetail with, I think, the findings that staff made regarding the county web or excuse me, general plan consistency. Spot on. So there's I mean, to me, this is a no brainer slam dunk. Mhmm.

Yeah. I mean, we're really early on in the process. Yes. This is very preliminary, almost administrative what we're doing. Yes. So any other comments?

The only comment that I would add is just that as has already been said, but absent the detail and there's gonna be a lot of detail that needs to be resolved here, it's a very positive win win kind of proposal. And very supportive of the concept and very eager to see the realization of it. So

I'm gonna ask mister Nell just a question. If you could come to the microphone again. Sorry about that. In very general terms, timelines, let's assume that you get authorization from the city of Nevada where we agree that it's consistent with our general plan and you go to Sacramento. Within six months, within two years, when do you

Well, to be fair to because we don't it's very difficult right now considering some of the economic obstacles. But essentially, if we do if we are following a kind of a laid out stage of the plans, and the development stage is one to three years. We are in the other two stages that take two years apiece. We did each one of those stages in one year, and depending on the city and how it goes, hopefully we'll have a development plan within a year or so, and we can start talking about getting out of the ground.

If all goes well before two Right. Thousand and Something like that.

Yeah, think that's would like to do it as quick as possible. It's just that it's in this environment, I just wanna make sure what I say is speculative. So I just have to give you a one year to three year for the development entitlements phase, three years is max for just the entitlement phase, but we hope to do it in a year.

Right. No. I wasn't trying to pin you down. It's just sort of context, geography for the rest of us. So thank

you. If it's okay, just wanted to kinda we do lose our experienced teachers to more expensive districts, but we also lose a lot of our younger teachers to lower cost of living areas. I mentioned Valley, Manteca, Sonoma, and North. So that's it really hits us in both ways. It hits our experienced teachers as well as the ones that we spent three three years training. So appreciate that.

Thanks. Thank you. So before us is a draft resolution to disposal property disposal per general plan. Consistency.

I will move that we adopt the resolution reporting NUSD's disposal of 5 San Andreas Drive And 5220 And 5530 Nave Drive for residential development as being consistent with the general plan 2035.

That's a nice long motion. Can I get a second?

I'll second.

Second. Excellent. Do you wanna comment on your motion, or are we ready to move?

I would just like to say good luck to mister Nell and the school district, and I hope there's ways for us to demonstrate our support for this in the future.

Seeing no more comments, I will take a vote on the issue. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Havell? Aye. Commissioner Stuckenbrucker. Stuckenbrucker. Stuckenbrucker. Stuckenbrucker. Aye. Three times.

Right? Yeah.

Commissioner Rausch? Aye. And commissioner Tiernan is an aye as well. The other item that was on our agenda was to get a presentation regarding housing accountability. And were any idea when that might resurface?

I think we're looking towards August, where we'll have the commission back in full. Mhmm. In in between then, have commissioners on vacation, so summertime.

As it will. I had responded to your email earlier. I think before the last meeting, you wanted to talk about start times for the commission. Is that Yes.

So I sent out an email polling the commission regarding whether they wanted to consider an earlier start time. I have the poll, emails, but I have not tallied the responses. It's just an item I haven't gotten back to. So it was it was a mix of I think everybody's sort of leaning towards 06:30, not not so early at six. So I'll go back through and contact the commission and then do the do the thing where we may be changing the time, or we can add it for future discussion.

Mhmm. Did you wanna comment on that?

Make make a motion to continue that item.

We did when we well, do we need a

Moved further it with the final agenda. Okay. Alright.

Yeah. Put it off. Okay. So to the commissioners, anything else you wanna talk to staff about or get some reports on before we call this meeting over? Nope. Anything you'd like to contribute?

I'll just say that the regularly scheduled meeting is July 14. We're working on an item that may make that agenda, but I'm not a 100% sure. But we'll let the commission know in advance in either either case.

And and what might be?

It could be the 501 Davidson self storage facility. Oh, okay.

And are we getting very many lot splits or any more of those?

We have quite a few of the urban lot splits, so that's the Senate Bill nine ordinance that the commission recently considered. That ordinance is heading up to the council on July 8, so we'll have new standards to address those particular proposals. Still in the works.

Okay. Unless I see something else, I'll adjourn this meeting. Meeting's adjourned. Thank you. Nice magic.