Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello, everyone. Welcome to the special meeting, the Planning Commission meeting of November 17. Thank you all for being here. If you would, please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of The United States Of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, everyone. I may start with a roll call. Commissioner Crockett? Here. Commissioner Griggy?

Here. Commissioner Tieran?

Here. Commissioner Havel? Present. Commissioner Roche? Present. Commissioner Stuckenbroker? Not here. Commissioner Derby is here. Wonderful. Okay.

Let's start with public comment. If anyone would like to speak regarding something that is not on the agenda tonight.

You do vote on the agenda first.

Oh, I'm sorry. Forgive me. It's been a little while. Okay. May have a vote on the agenda for tonight?

I would move to approve the final agenda.

Second.

Wonderful. Take a vote. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Grigey? Aye. Commissioner Tiernan? Aye. Commissioner Havel? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. And commissioner Derby is an aye. Forgive me there. Going out of order. Okay. Now may I open the public comment for anyone who would like to speak on an item that's not on the agenda? Seeing no one moving in the audience, I will close the public comment hearing. Let's get into the consent items. Does anyone have a motion or have any questions?

No questions.

Absent the eleventh, but I would move the other three minutes as presented. Second.

Wonderful. I will so may I do I have to go through each of these individually or may I just do No.

You can

do a single motion and vote even if commissioner Tarrant was not present for one of them.

Okay. We second.

Commissioner okay. Great. Commissioner Crockett. Aye. Commissioner Grigey. Aye. Commissioner Tiernan. Aye. Commissioner Havel. Aye. Commissioner Roche. Aye. Commissioner Derby's an aye. Okay. Moving through this. All right. No other unfinished business from last week. Great. Public hearings. I'll let you guys kick it off with the amending the safety element.

Good evening. So tonight, have a presentation and a hearing regarding the city's proposed amendment to its general plan safety element to add goals, policies, and programs regarding climate change and adaptation and resiliency, and also to identify residential developments that have less than two evacuation routes. This project was presented to the Planning Commission in August at a public workshop and now is being presented at a public hearing. The Planning Commission is tasked with holding a public hearing and consider making a recommendation to the city council to amend the general plan safety element and to adopt a CEQA addendum to the certified EIR for general plan 2035. So unless you have any immediate questions for me, I'd like to turn the presentation over to Jacqueline Prozman Rohr with PlaceWorks.

And then she'll go ahead and make a presentation. And then at the conclusion of her presentation, I'll turn back over to staff. And then we'll conclude our presentation.

And before I before I get started, is is everyone able to see my shared screen with the PowerPoint?

Yes. Yes, we can see it.

Great, thank you. So thank you, Brett, and good evening, Planning Commissioners. So this presentation will provide an overview of the safety element update and the climate vulnerability assessment, provide a summary of the community outreach and what we heard from the community and stakeholders, go over the proposed changes to the safety element related to adaptation, resilience, and evacuation, and then provide an opportunity for questions and discussion. So now for the safety element overview. To start off with, a bit of a refresher, what is the safety element?

It is one of the mandatory elements of a general plan focusing on natural and human caused hazards within and surrounding Novato. The Novato safety element lives within the A City That Works section of the general plan with the goal of this element to protect the city and help increase resilience to natural disasters for residents, businesses, infrastructure, and the environment. These hazards include flooding, wild fire, emergency evacuations, and hazards that may worsen due to climate change, such as sea level rise, extreme heat, and drought. The safety element is just one part of Novato's overall approach to protecting the community against hazards and is required to be updated after adoption of a housing element or a local hazard mitigation plan. The safety element is a high level broad document that discusses the city's comprehensive public safety and climate adaptation approach.

There's the climate action plan, which is a comprehensive plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase resilience to the city. And then as mentioned, there's the hazard mitigation plan, which is a more detailed short term action plan. And then the emergency operations plan, which is the city's internal plan for emergency response and recovery. So the safety element includes information from these plans and integrates climate vulnerability and adaptation to comply with current requirements to help create a cohesive safety approach. Other benefits of updating the safety element are to ensure consistency with other general plan elements and city plans, incorporate the Marin County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Novato Annex into the element, and improve eligibility for grant funding to implement resiliency and hazard mitigation projects.

Since the previous update to the general plan, several new laws related to the safety element have come into effect. There's a focus on climate climate change adaptation and resilience through SB three seventy nine, which was the focus of this project, requiring safety elements to prepare a climate change vulnerability assessment, and then develop a comprehensive set of goals, policies, and actions to build resilience in the community. AB 2,140 allows for the incorporation of the hazard mitigation plan, which makes the city potentially eligible for increased disaster relief funds. And SB 99 requires the identification of evacuation constrained areas throughout the city, which are those neighborhoods and parcels that have less than two ingress and egress routes. And this update also include included the integration of the Marin wildfire prevention authority's AB seven forty seven study and builds off the evacuation and wildfire policies and actions already in the general plan.

Now a quick overview of the climate change vulnerability assessment. The vulnerability assessment was the main analysis conducted as part of the safety element update. It evaluated how people and key community assets, such as buildings, infrastructure, and economic systems may be affected by climate change hazards and also the degree to which they're vulnerable. The study followed the four step process outlined in the California adaptation planning guide, including identifying exposure to hazards, analyzing sensitivity of populations and assets and the potential impacts of hazards, evaluating adaptive capacity, and then bringing all of those components together to assess vulnerability and prioritize vulnerability. The vulnerability assessment evaluated how 10 different climate change hazards, including drought, emergent groundwater, extreme heat, human health hazards, inland flooding, landslides, sea level rise, severe weather, shoreline flooding, and wildfire may affect 58 different population groups and community assets.

So the vulnerability assessment identified priority vulnerabilities, which reflects the severity of climate change impacts and level of harm, while also considering other factors such as the size of the population, current and historic injustices, the role that an asset plays in maintaining community wide well-being, and the potential of the population or asset to be impacted by compounding or cascading effects of interacting hazards. So shoreline flooding and sea level rise, inland flooding, severe weather, and extreme heat hazards created the most priority vulnerabilities compared to other climate change hazards evaluated. And then for key findings, we found that the most vulnerable populations included low resource households due to limited financial resources to prepare and recover, people of color in immigrant communities due to historic housing patterns concentrated in hazard prone areas, evidential language barriers, unhoused individuals, and older adults who may have mobility and health challenges that may worsen during hazard events. For built systems, the vulnerability assessment identified energy and communication infrastructure as priorities due to transmission lines and fire hazard zones, transportation infrastructure, including Highway 101, State Route 37, bridges, and the SmartRail vulnerable to flooding, homes and residential structures due to mobile home communities at high risk of extreme heat, flooding, and severe weather, and then hillside neighborhoods at risk of wildfire and landslides, and then water and wastewater systems due to the risk of inundation from sea level rise by 2030.

For natural systems, the Hamilton Wetlands, marshlands, and riparian ecosystems were indicated as priority vulnerabilities due to permanent inundation from sea level rise and extreme flooding and drought cycles that can lead to potential contamination and increased sedimentation during flood events. So this next section provides a summary of the community outreach and engagement for the project. The first phase of outreach was conducted between December 2024 and June 2025 with a focus on collecting input on climate vulnerabilities and safety priorities. From December to March, we held six service provider meetings. And then once the vulnerability assessment report was posted on the city's website, a community survey was opened between May and June.

During the same period, a community workshop was held at City Hall. And then in the second phase of outreach, which was conducted from August 2025 to October, That included study sessions for the Sustainability Commission, Planning Commission, and City Council on policy concepts, followed by a thirty day public review period and community wide survey to provide community members the opportunity to comment on the draft safety element. City staff also created and updated frequently a separate safety element website throughout the project with product deliverables, community input reports, or opportunities, and community outreach summaries. So this slide summarizes what we heard from the community throughout the process. When asked what impacts of climate hazards community members experienced the most, we heard poor air quality, power outages, and increased insurance costs from wildfire, disruptions to daily activities and health concerns from extreme heat, loss of power for medical devices from public safety power shut off events.

When asked about priority vulnerabilities, community members stated persons with chronic illnesses and disabilities, older adults and low income households for populations, energy systems, major transit routes, and emergency services for critical infrastructure, and agriculture, outdoor recreation, and health care for economic drivers. When asked about the asked about a vision for Resilient Novato, community members said a socially connected, environmentally conscious, and strategically prepared city. And then during the public review period, we heard concerns about the long term financing for implementing proposed policies and programs, clarification needed for what is the city's responsibility versus other regional agencies and service providers, and that there is critical infrastructure and hazard areas that is in need of being upgraded and protected from hazards. All of this community input and feedback was then incorporated into the safety element update. Based on the new state laws mentioned, the findings from the vulnerability assessment, and outreach activities, the following changes are being proposed as part of the safety element update.

So this safety element update is proposing to add a new appendix to the general plan, appendix s, for the climate change vulnerability assessment report. We've updated the goals of the element to emphasize adaptation resilience. Policies have been revised for climate hazards and vulnerable populations and systems. And several policies also contain new implementation actions to address identified vulnerabilities. And Brett did mention the evacuation portion of the project.

So for evacuation, we prepared a map showing evacuation constrained residential parcels throughout Nevada in accordance with SB 99 requirements and incorporated the findings of the Marin Wildfire Prevention Authority's AB seven forty seven evacuation study into the safety element. For the evacuation constraint mapping, we've identified residential parcels with only a single ingress and egress route. We recognize that some of these neighborhoods may be cul de sacs, and therefore the map to the right highlights both single access parcels and parcels on cul de sacs of 10 parcels or more. The safety element update also includes policies and actions to address and alleviate identified constraints with a focus on areas that overlap with hazard zones such as fire, flood, and sea level rise. And the safety element also incorporates the MERN Wildfire Prevention Authority's evacuation risk assessment.

This assessment was conducted countywide, including incorporated and unincorporated areas and analyzed roadway difficulty, traffic patterns, and emergency scenarios in five different test areas, which did include Novato. The safety element update includes new policies for improved evacuation planning, supports fuel reduction along evacuation corridors, and enhanced emergency communications regionally. So for the policy and goal updates, the previous safety element only included one goal covering all hazards and policies for each of those hazards. And this update restructured that a little bit, elevating the policy level topics to goals, adding sea level rise, severe weather, and human health hazards as new goals or topics. We added or revised several policies under each of the goals and then included implementation programs for several of the policies.

Updated policies and programs include additional policies for sea level rise and inland flooding hazards, enhanced wildfire and evacuation, a stronger focus on equity and community resilience to address vulnerable populations, revisions to policies related to critical infrastructure to improve resilience to hazards, and additional resiliency resources for extreme heat. So the safety element update is considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and therefore was subject to review for environmental impacts. The project team prepared an addendum to the general plan EIR or environmental impact report. The addendum concluded that the proposed safety element does not create new significant impacts or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts in the general plan EIR. So as far as next steps, if the planning commission recommends adoption, staff will incorporate feedback and finalize the safety element for city council consideration.

And the safety element will be presented to city council during a public hearing on December 9. And staff's recommendation, as stated in the staff report as well, is to adopt the resolution recommending the city council adopt the CEQA addendum and the amendments as presented in exhibits a and b respectively, and modified text recommended for policy SH50. So with that, that concludes my presentation. And I'll turn it back over to Brett to highlight a few of the policy changes and field any questions.

MR. Hi. Yes. So the draft safety element has a number of new or revised policies and programs intended to comply with the requirements of legislation enacted over the past few years. The staff report did include a list of new or revised policies that will likely result in additional studies that developers of both public and private projects will need to complete as part of the development review process.

The studies would be required to assess the impacts of hazards such as sea level rise, emergent groundwater, and other climate related hazards. One policy that was not included in the staff report that may be of interest to the Planning Commission is policy SH-thirty three regarding defensible space. The current program in the existing safety element for defensible space is under SH-three gs. And that policy starts with the terminology of encourage all private property owners. And then it goes on to list some things that they should do to comply with defensible space requirements or best practices.

The proposed policy 33 that's in the draft safety element presented tonight, revises the language to state, require all property owners. I do want to point out, though, that although it does change from an encourage to a require, there are some qualifiers in how the policy is written. And so I'll read the entirety of the policy for you. So it says require all private property owners, particularly in wildland urban interface and or fire hazard severity zones, as applicable based on Nevada Fire Protection District regulations to maintain the vegetation on their property in a condition that will not contribute to the spread of fire. Requirements for property owners or managers within these areas include, and that lists a bunch of programs such as keeping vegetation down at certain distances from the house, the zero zone, the 30 foot zone, the 100 foot zone, and some other requirements.

So with that, it appears that it is a fairly drastic change from the current policy or program with the encourage property owners to the same require property owners. But in this case, we really do rely on the Nevada Fire Protection District to enforce the regulations regarding defensible space. And so we believe that the policy is written that it's really up to the fire protection district to implement their regulations. And the city wouldn't be forcing any additional regulations on private property owners, existing or proposed developments, that are more strict or enforceable than what the Nevada Fire Protection District would be doing in their day to day wildfire prevention authority role. The second item is regarding policy SH50.

And there was a little bit of a discussion in the staff report regarding SH50. And this is regarding evacuation requirements for new developments. The policy written in the draft safety element included a 10 unit threshold for a second evacuation route. This unit count is below the threshold listed in the California Fire Code, which is implemented by the Nevada Fire Protection District. Recently, I did speak with Lynn Osgood, fire marshal for the Nevada Fire Protection District.

And she did recommend revisions to this policy. And so based on the recommendations of the fire marshal, in the staff report, did include a revised policy SH50. And we are recommending the revised policy to be adopted. And essentially, that revised policy removes a specific unit count threshold. And it just more broadly refers to let me pull that up.

So it would be revised to say continue to collaborate with the Nevada Fire Protection District during the development review process to implement the California Fire Code or other applicable regulations to ensure adequate evacuation routes. So that is a recommendation that's written into the staff report that would be a change to the draft that was presented. And then one other item that's tied to this discussion is within the general plan safety element as presented, there's a map exhibit CW3. And that's the map exhibit that shows residential developments that are considered evacuation constrained, meaning they have less than two evacuation routes. So first I'll go to the safety element.

So this is figure CW3 in the safety element. And this map shows all dead end streets or otherwise evacuation constrained developments with the threshold of 10 units or more. So any cul de sac that has 10 units or any dead end street is shown in purple on this map. Now the fire district, they use a 30 unit threshold. And so we also had our consultant prepare this map that shows streets, dead end streets, or other constrained evacuation route streets based on the 30 unit threshold.

So one of the things that we need to consider between the Planning Commission and City Council for adoption is, is it recommended to have this 30 unit count threshold map in the safety element to correlate more closely with what the fire district reviews for new development? Okay. So moving past this policy. So I think some of you were here for the Planning Commission workshop. And also at the Sustainability Commission workshop, there were comments that much of the infrastructure in Nevada is not owned or maintained by the city.

As an example, Navado sanitary district owns all the sewer pipes and the wastewater treatment plant. And Northburn Water District owns all the water delivery service infrastructure. And so from standpoint, the city does not have control of a lot of these assets that the city benefits and its residents benefit from. So the city will really need to collaborate with these special districts regarding their infrastructure and the impacts of these climate related hazards on the infrastructure. Also, PG and E is always a big topic of discussion with hazards.

As many of you know, some of their infrastructure has caused fires in the past in this region and across the state. And the city doesn't have a lot of control over PG and E. They're regulated by the State Public Utility Commission. One thing that the PUC does require is they require that PG and E have a climate adaptation and vulnerability assessment regarding their infrastructure. And they did complete that document in 2024.

And then an additional thing required for PG and E is that they have a vegetation management plan around all their infrastructure. So with that, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the city council adopt the CEQA addendum and the amendments as presented with the modified text recommended for policy SH50. And then we're open to some discussion about figure CW3 map. So that does conclude staff's presentation. So please ask any questions or comments for us. And then we'll also want to open up a public hearing for public comment. Thank you.

Wonderful. Seeing as there's not that many folks in the audience, why don't I open the public comment period first, and then we'll bring it back around, and we can have our comments and questions. Okay. I'll open the public comment period. Come on up.

If you wouldn't mind at the end provide your Do we have comment cards? Oh we do, alright. Just make sure you hand Steve that. Thank you, go ahead.

Good evening. My name's Kay White, is it on? Are you leaving all here? Let My name's Laurie.

That was my bad.

We are here. Maybe move it back a little. I don't need to do that forward. I'm here just to put a face and people and neighborhood to the map that Brett Walker just put up there. If you'll look at the southern, southwestern most appendix down there in red, that's our neighborhood, Pacheco Valley.

I'm here with my colleague, Neil Peterson. We are part of the Firewise Committee for Pacheco Valley. We were the first neighborhood to get registered as Firewise. And I must say that this report is jam packed full of wonderful special information, which we are just here to make sure that it doesn't get put on the shelf somewhere. We've had, we were in touch with and working with Mark Milberg and lost him in October, which was a real shock.

So we just want to make sure that all of the information is carried forward. We are a WUI. We're a wildland urban interface. We have a compromised, very challenged evacuation route. We particularly listen closely when Brett Walker is talking about SB 99 and evacuations and how it's going to change or not.

We may be oh, and I must say that I think this report has been thrilling for us in our neighborhood. Because the old report didn't pay very much attention to things going on in the West Of Highway 101. It was, I think, written by some wonderful flood control people. And so everything was, or most everything was described in my reading anyway, as a, you know, concern floods. Well, that certainly is a concern and we all share that concern in 101.

And Mark Millberg certainly shared it for his district. We're in District 5. And his Hamilton Wetlands Project was closely presented by him at one of the council meetings that we had. I would just like to say that we may be in the wrong meeting. I know your goal and you are to look at new development.

We are an existing development. Then as you see in the map above, there are a lot of existing neighborhoods that need help in getting out. We have a one lane, it's called Alameda Del Prado. And we have almost 600 homes of almost 1,200 to 1,500 people who all will have to get out of a single lane, Alameda Del Prado. And that feeds into Highway 101.

It also involves Naave Drive and also down another block, Ignacio Boulevard. So we are not the only ones with this problem. But we are definitely concerned and interested in carrying this forward. And I would ask you all, how do we connect the findings? There's good new information in this report.

And how do we connect this to the development of the city's capital improvement plan? I know you're looking at new developments. What do we do with the existing ones that need help? And I want to thank you very much. I want to thank Brett Walker and Jacqueline from A Placeworks because they captured most, if not all, of our comments and concerns for fire wise and for the fire hazards in the city of Novato. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Would anyone else like to oh, there we go.

Good evening. Derek Nell, Nevada Unified School District. And just wanted to weigh in about tonight's recommendation to the Planning Commission. As you all know, we serve the similar population and have genuine same concerns. I did want to offer up more current enrollment projections.

If you felt it was necessary, the more current enrollment projections that we have since the that cites, since the number that was cited in this report, they're not as bad. We look to be maintaining an enrollment level similar to the one we have for several years out. And then just, you know, it's not related specifically to the land use issue, but just as a reminder, along the lines of how we serve a similar population, the Nevada Unified School District district office is a designated emergency center, and we have the large generator ready to go in case of massive power loss. And it's a centralized location for all the emergency facilities that come together should suit such a terrible thing happen based on what we're talking about tonight. So having said that, we've reviewed the reports and we support the recommendations.

We think you should adopt the CEQA addendum and amendments as presented. They don't propose internally, or they're internally consistent with the general plan, They're good for the public interest, health, safety of city. And the proposed amendments would go further to our goals, objectives, and policies. And we do also support the recommendation to go with the modified language with working with the fire department on policy S-eight 50. And looking forward to working with you on our future development projects as well.

And perhaps maybe while we're doing that, if we can come up with ways to come up with evacuation restraint solutions, etcetera, we'd be happy to do that. We look forward to working with the city on it in the future.

So thank you. Thank you very much. Not seeing anyone else, I'm going to close public comment period. Wonderful. Let's turn it back around. I'm going to ask perhaps Commissioner Crockett if you'd like to kick things off. We'll go down the line.

Thank you. Yeah, I have a couple of topics I'd appreciate some further discussion on from either staff and possibly the consultant as well. So in no particular order, but one of the things that the PlaceWorks presentation mentioned, that it makes sense. But I guess I'd like to understand the how of it. I think there was reference made that implementing these amendments and some of these changes that can improve our eligibility for grants.

And I would just, a a person who resides in Nevada, kind of understand a little bit more how that how that happens. I think I understand, but I appreciate some drilling into that a little bit deeper. The other thing I think that's near and dear to any of us that live here is just insurance implications. We were State Farm customers and then we moved. And we were told even though we're not in what's considered high risk, they wouldn't renew us. And we're in pretty good shape. At least we could get insurance.

But

I know it's been addressed. But to what extent, if any, can the city or can the community engage the insurance community constructively or something? Because it seems to be that areas get redlined. And those maps may or may not reference these maps, for example. So is there any synergy there or concern about that or lack of that coordination?

And the last comment, I think, came from some of the public comment that was just made is that when I look at these maps, I think in terms of the way the city is today. I used to live in Pacheco Valley, for example. I have a sense of what that place is like and wonderful. But that's what I see when I look at this map. But to what extent, if any, does this or these changes distinguish between status quo and conditions that are put on new development?

For example, the new housing that's planned for the fireman's fund site. If if there is a distinction that's made, maybe this is not the document for that. But I don't know that it reads and maps like this, for example. Maybe that's a little too literal. So those are my I think that's three or four topics. Thanks.

Sure. First, on your last point, to what extent do these changes mean for this existing development versus new development? So certainly for new development, any time we have new development, there's a thorough review process, including with the Nevada Fire District. And they're looking at things like unit count thresholds for when secondary access is required, all the different fire code requirements, the wildland urban interface requirements, that sort of thing. So new developments, it's a little bit easier to conform it to the current regulations and where we want to go.

I think with existing developments, that's where it gets a little bit harder because you've got sometimes areas where you might have public lands surrounding it or just other constraints. So we do have some policies written into the document. One, I'm looking at policy SH49, evacuation constraints. This one says, address evacuation constraints in identified residential areas as shown on Figure CW3 through improved emergency planning, enhanced community preparedness, early warning systems, and coordination with emergency services. I believe there's another policy to look at potential additional emergency evacuation routes.

So you are correct. Obviously, we've built for many years in these areas that we might build differently today. And I think it's more of a coming up with strategies where we can improve the situation. We can look towards that. But then again, there's a lot of constraints to doing that costs, property availability, that sort of thing.

I have an answer for you on the insurance implications. I'm not sure if there's anything the city can do to sway the insurance companies. That might be more on a state level with the regulatory environment. And then, yeah, I might turn it over to see if Jacqueline or Tammy have any response for the question regarding eligibility for grants with the past work they've done with other municipalities and counties, if they have any insight on the potential for that?

Yeah. I'm happy to share insight on the eligibility for grant funding. So the Governor's Office of Emergency Services, Cal OES, has the AV 2,140 requirement. And when a city has an adopted LHMP and updated safety element that and both of them are consistent, there is the potential if you were to go after grant funding that you would be eligible for you basically be more competitive for the grants that they provide for hazard mitigation and hazard preparedness projects. It's not guarantee of grant funding, but it does make the city potentially more eligible for that grant funding.

Thank you. I appreciate the information. And I know this is more conversational, perhaps. But it does strike me that long term, if the city has a plan and it keeps fine tuning that plan and it's actionable, And we've made steps to improve risk, reduce risk, mitigate risk or hazards of whatever kind that's possibly going to be listened to by insurance companies, for example. But that would be long term. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you, commissioner. Commissioner Grigey, any comments, questions?

I have a few questions. First, kind of going to the I'll start off actually with the public comment that we received. First, I noticed that there was a number of exchanges, or a number of emails that were received about Pacheco Valley. It looks like most of that input has been put into the map. Can you just speak to how city staff responded to those comments that were received?

Yeah, yeah. So we did receive one comment that actually turned out to be very helpful. When PlaceWorks GIS staff originally did the mapping down in the Pacheco Valley area, I think the GIS team that looked at that thought that maybe there was a secondary route that might have been a fire road or some other path. And so based on that comment, PlaceWorks GIS staff looked at it again and redrew the map regarding Pacheco Vals specific to that comment. So the maps that are presented tonight were revised based on that comment letter.

Excellent. I also wanted to, I guess, restate the question that Ms. White gave us during public comment, is, and this might be better directed to public works, I figured I would give you all the first crack at it, but I think I have it down as how do we connect the findings of this report to the development of the capital improvement program? I know that we'll have a say on that next year when it gets presented to us. I don't know. I'm still a first year commissioner, trying to get my bearings still.

Yeah, so with this type of general plan, it's considered a program level document. So it typically won't have specific implementation strategies, such as we're going to do this specific project. This document can be a good disclosure document that can help guide the city on future projects, including its CIP program. So yeah, your comments are certainly good comments. I think it's a little bit down the road from where this document lands, though.

And

then my other question I have a few more questions. Regarding the overall evacuation constrained maps, what is the implication for a, like what would be the effect of us designating more parcels as being evacuation constrained? What is the impact of getting identified as being evacuation constrained in terms of this program?

Well, I think a couple of comments on the difference between the 10 unit threshold and the 30 unit threshold. I think when PlaceWorks brought the 10 unit threshold to us, they had mentioned this works in some communities. I can think of a community that's maybe still being developed where it has flat lands and bigger possibility of more of a interconnected grid system. The 30 unit threshold, that is more aligned with different regulations throughout the state. I mentioned the California Fire Code and the 30 threshold unit for single family and two family neighborhoods.

There's Public Resources Code. I don't remember the exact number. But I think I have it here somewhere. Okay. Yeah, public resources code 4290.5.

I think that's more related to state responsibility areas. But they do have a 30 dwelling unit threshold. So I think that's part of the reason when we came to you tonight, and also based on the fire district's comments, that we're recommending getting rid of that 10 unit threshold and going to the 30 unit threshold for the map figure CW3 and then just eliminating that threshold within that policy, given every three years the fire code is updated. And so that's more of a regulation that can change over time. And we don't want the safety element to be outdated regarding that actual regulations and enforcement.

I'm not sure if that answered your question.

Yeah, that's very helpful. And then finally, I wanted to, I guess, flag, in a similar vein to Pacheco Valley, it looks like there might be a handful of parcels out in the Marin Valley Mobile Country Club that only have one egress point but are listed as having, that are not identified on the 30 parcel map. I'm looking at the areas beyond, along beyond Meadowview on the 10 parcel map. Most of it appears on the 10 unit map, but not on the 30. And by my count, there are more than 30 parcels there.

Okay. We can certainly look at that with PlaceWorks GIS staff before it gets to the planning commission, or to the city council.

Yeah. I just want to make sure that if we're dedicating resources to these areas that we make sure that Marin Valley gets their fair share as well. And with that, those are most of the comments that I have right now. But I do really appreciate PlaceWorks and city staff for preparing this for us tonight. And I look forward to the discussion with my fellow commissioners.

Mr. Tienan. MR.

Yeah. So I'll follow-up on this egress, the residential parcels with little access. It doesn't surprise me at all, I think that was probably the point of why the state wanted this study done, that then residents would be concerned about where do I go when the fire engine blocks the road? And how do I get out of here? And so I do believe that it's going to be up to those various neighborhoods to come up with some solutions, to come up with, gee, if we could just break through that park or whatever as a way to approach it.

I think it is a little bit of a mystery. At one time, the city actually had on their answering device a place to leave suggestions to go onto the CIP, the capital improvement. Where it went from there was always a mystery to me. It would show up then about six months later in a public hearing for us to endorse if it met the general plan standards or not, not whether it was better or worse or in between, just did it meet the standards. So we just had a rubber stamp to it.

So I would recommend that this is something for the city council, for public works, and finding out where that suggestion area is in order to do it. But I think what would be really constructive is if you actually had a solution or had possible solutions in order to try and accelerate that process. Because I agree, now that this map is out, you're not going to be the only neighborhood that is interested in trying to change that situation. But I have a question for the consultant. And this is regarding the wildfire section.

As I recall, over about the last decade, it seemed the majority of the fires that we've had in this state have been related to utilities failure. There wasn't a single mention of that in the document. And I and I recognize that staff said that PG and E does their own studies and all like that. But I'm a little concerned that we don't even acknowledge in this document that the potential hazard is still there, that we still do have issues unless those power lines are either underground or there's some other way of changing that. That's an ongoing challenge and should be recognized.

Regarding a lot of the conversation or the discussion around sea level rise and inundation, what really troubles me is that so far, we've given up on prevention. That looks like that ship has sailed. All we can do now is mitigate, because the problems are going to be here. They're going to come and get us. And so I find that to be a very sad reality that we cannot address it before it becomes a worse problem. I think it always gets worse when you can't address it upfront. So anyway, I'd like to hear from PlaceWorks about why PG and E wasn't included, first of all. And then I have a couple other comments.

So for your question related to PG and E in the wildfire section, I believe we did mention PG and E in the climate vulnerability assessment report. But in the fire hazard section, not all of that information was brought over into the main text of the document. However, the climate change vulnerability assessment would become appendix f of the general plan, so part of the general plan. The fire hazard section itself had more minor updates to the background text instead of full updates. So some of the text is the same as the previous version of the element.

We could work with staff to add in language if that was the Commission's recommendation.

I don't think it would hurt, even if it's just as a reference, as a footnote, that there's some other study that can be looked at to address that. So, one of the things that I do believe that we will be able to capture as a city, regardless of this study, we do something called a constraints analysis, or at least we used to. And, before a project could move forward, the property owner needed to identify the landslides, the earthquakes, the water the constraints analysis. And so it seems to me that although this study is great, we're already doing, to my knowledge, or at least we used to do, a constraints analysis before projects came forward to address all these things up front. So in some ways, this is not exactly new, but we still do constraints analysis.

And so will these new elements be captured in the constraints analysis?

Yeah. So through our existing development review process, depending on the site, we oftentimes do require things such as a geotechnical report for the geology to figure out if there's potential for landslides, that sort of thing. It's more towards the environmental side. We oftentimes require biological resources assessments. If it's a heavily sloped site, we require slope constraint analysis.

And that's tied to our hillside ordinance, where densities typically get reduced based on the average slopes that are over 10% and over 25%. So for most development projects today, depending on the site characteristics, we do get a form of a constraints analysis. And I do envision with these new policies and programs that were written into this document, some of the ones that were mentioned in the staff report, Those will require some additional studies from developers. And I would say both on the private side and the public side, if the public's putting in new infrastructure, we're going to want to know that it's going to last and it's not going to be impacted by one of those hazards. So yeah, I do see that.

Good. And I wish actually it had been acknowledged in this study that we already do look at projects under a constraint analysis vision. Because when you read this document, it's like, oh, nobody thought of these things before. Oh gee, this is

Yeah, and just one more point to that. I think when you look at the overall general plan, we're just looking at one chapter of the general plan. And so I think when you go to the great places chapter, where that's more focused on land use, there are some references to doing constraints analysis. So I think it's still there in the general plan, maybe not as specific in this portion of the general plan in the City That Works chapter.

Okay. So lastly, what I want to touch on, and staff had brought it up a little bit earlier, is the defensible space. So part of this approval process, we actually are amending our general plan. We're changing things that were just put in place a couple of years ago. And the defensible space. So much like Brett had said earlier, the current policy is to encourage private property owners to do a number of things with their property. This would change, assuming we approve what was gonna would approve it to be required. Now, that's great to say, oh, it's up to the fire district to enforce it. I don't believe that for a second. When you start requiring things, you require it.

So I just want everybody to envision if you were to cut back all fuels within five feet of your house, If you were to remove all the limbs hanging over your decks and roofs, cut back and remove all vegetation within a 100 feet of structures, 200 feet of the property line, what Pacheco Valley might look like if you stripped all the landscape in a way in order to do that. With we're, tonight, potentially recommending the city council that that be where we go forward. So unless the word encourage remains in that qualifier for this general plan, I can't support going forward with that change.

With that, I'll shut up.

Thank you. Mr. Havell.

You know what's great about this plan is it's putting all these things on the board and that enables us, you know the whole idea of a general plan is that it is a far reaching document. This enables staff and members of the public to someday put that on the CIP, put that on the capital improvements project list.

Prioritizes it.

I don't really have much other than it's a thorough plan. It brings up a lot of great issues and I think it goes deeper than what was before, which is great. And the one thing, yeah, I concur with commissioner Ternan, encourage is a better word than require. It's a general plan. It's not a code. That's got the potential of really screwing up staff somewhere in the future where they're arguing with the property owner, you're required to do this. Who's gonna make me? So it's problematic. Encourage is a better word. That's all I got. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Roche?

Hello, everyone. So I started reading this document, and I'm thinking, oh my gosh, what's going on here? We're going to have to put in a roadway in all of these cul de sacs. What are they asking us to do? What's the meaning of all this? The further I got into the reading, the more it became apparent that is met. But that was my original apprehension. What is this? You know? But right off the bat, there was one thing. We have to adopt SH 50. Heard that three or four times.

If we recall that adopted,

I have written down. I cannot quite remember what it was, but it came up a lot. So I guess we're supposed to adopt that. What I was wondering about as we look at this, and we're beginning to talk about, as I'm going through this, I'm thinking about ADUs in these backyards. How's all of this going to come into play?

And when we're talking about exits or evacuation routes, what do we and this is kind of an open ended question. I don't necessarily have an answer to it. What mode of transportation are we planning on talking about? So when we have an exit route, does that necessitate that it has to be an automobile? I I don't think so in this day and age.

Do we have bikes, believe it or not, for access that are in these neighborhoods in the event of something like 2017 happening again. I mean, it's been great for the past five years, and it really has been. I was hoping maybe the rates for insurance would go down again, or we might get more coverage where we don't, because it's been raining plenty. You know, again, I I don't have an answer to that, but it's worth looking at that. So NUSD, and in other areas, we have numerous access points into these open spaces in these neighborhoods.

There is a preponderance of it. We have these paths 20 feet wide going into these open spaces from these neighborhoods that are identified as having one exit. I guess what I'm trying to say in the larger picture of a comprehensive plan, if we have these open spaces, and these access points from these neighborhoods going into these open spaces off Center Road, off my street, and as NUSD may or may not someday put in development there, how do we incorporate that in? So these are the things we wanna get ourselves around when we're thinking about this. And I guess what what really I was questioning more than anything is, what mode of transportation are we talking about at this point in time?

Are we talking about Pacheco getting out on the road to 101? Really? And 10 One's gonna be a parking lot at that moment. What on earth are we doing? You know, it's just not a real viable solution at this point in time, unless we start thinking of alternative modes for evacuation.

That's really what I had. And in the bigger picture, it seems as though this isn't necessarily a particular area. But what we want to be able to do, we want to find the right overlap that will give the city greater opportunity for funding from the state for preparation and in the event of an incident. Is that correct?

JAMES Yeah. So a couple of things. Getting back to your question about evacuation and types of evacuation, one thing that we learned through some of our early conversations with the transit providers, SMART, Marin Transit, Golden Gate Transit, with their buses, they all, in our meetings with them, did mention that they have the potential capacity to assist using their buses and the trains in evacuation events. And so I think your thinking is correct that there's alternatives to each household being in a single vehicle, or one household being in two or three vehicles all trying to leave at the same time. So I think those are some good observations.

I'm not quite sure where that fits into the verbiage of it all. But if that can at least be a point of the discussion as this goes forward, think that's a working solution. It's a quick hit. Other than that, I really didn't have anything else. There was quite a bit of reading. And thank you. I'll leave it at that.

Thank you. Alright. I have a couple questions. And I'll try to focus more on new development. I did look I did wanna say I I looked through a lot of the maps. It's it it was almost as if the entire city was covered with some type of hazard. So I would guess that maybe you've looked at our housing element and seen what overlaps there. And if there was a portion of the reading, I might have missed that. Have you looked at all of the different projects and where they align?

No. We haven't gotten to that point to look at specific project sites with this. As part of this exercise with PlaceWorks creating these maps, we're going to obtain all of the GIS files. So we'll have the ability to, when we're looking at projects in the future, we'll have the GIS shapefiles layers here. And we'll be able to utilize those when we're looking at potential developments and where these hazard areas lie in relationship to the housing element sites and such.

Sure. And you mentioned studies that you'd ask the developers to do. Can you talk me through some of what that might look like? Sure.

Let me go back to the staff report. Looking at policy SH17, so there's areas within Is

it 16 new development? Oh, sorry.

Okay. That one also. But 17 specific to emergent groundwater. So we have a map. And we know there's areas that are going to be subject to emergent groundwater. That area around is it Stafford Pond? Stafford Lake? Yeah, the pond, not the lake. That area, it is shown as being an area of emergent groundwater. So if there's new development proposed there, there might be a study where it has to look at, based on the best available data, what emergent groundwater would look like and what type of development that they're proposing there and whether they're putting in adequate safeguards.

Exactly what that requirement will be, I'm not sure at this point. I think what we'll do is we'll take these policies and then look at our current application guidelines and submittal requirements and see what might need to be revised in those submittal requirements to comply with these new policies.

And it sounds pretty subjective, It sounds like staff can say, well, it's in this hazard zone here. There's potential for groundwater to increase over the next fifty to one hundred years. So you need to study that. And it sounds like that's a study that would be would that be in addition to any of the CEQUA studies they'd be required to do?

Well, I guess part of it would be, is the project subject to CEQA? If it is, then I think it would be probably part of that study through the CEQA process.

If

it's not subject to CEQA there's still the potential for those studies.

I guess that was one of my big questions for PlaceWorks and you. As you're looking at a new project, do you see that when we implement this, that this is going to be an addition to CEQA? This is going to expand CEQA in terms of our studies? And in fact, staff will be coming up with, hey, based on our safety element, we think you need to do some additional studies to prove to me that groundwater won't be an issue.

Well, and Steve can jump in also. But I think one thing we probably want to do is sometimes you do have to separate CEQA from studies that are required because of a policy and a general plan. As an example right now, CEQA for traffic and transportation, they look at a VMT model versus an LOS model. But our general plan still has policy in there regarding level of service. So LOS is no longer in CEQA.

But occasionally, we do have to ask an applicant for an LOS study to comply with the general plan policy. And I don't know if Steve has anything.

That's scary example. You're saying you make people look at VMT and LOS when they do a traffic study in the city? We do. Wow. It's been a while. I don't know if I noticed that. But that's, yeah, it's not very developer friendly.

I think I would try to sort of bring everything together with an it depends answer. So every site is different. Every project is different. Even the laws now are different. So as the commission knows, there are state housing laws that exempt projects from CEQA.

But within those laws, there's qualifying criteria. And many of the times, there's questions about wildland fire hazard areas, earthquake fault zones, flood zones. So I think for many projects in California and Nevada, I think the observation was, gosh, Nevada has pretty much all of the hazards that you can expect earthquakes, fires, floods, etcetera. And so some type of state is going be needed. So I think we're most familiar with new development requiring a soils report so that you can look at an engineering design.

What I could see happening here potentially is we have a policy, and that has to now implement itself through either a program or an ordinance. So ultimately, we'll use the example of emerging groundwater. I could see a situation where ultimately there are some regulations around emergent groundwater and its effects on development and how you deal with that from a design perspective perhaps. And so what you'd end up with is either an ordinance that's reflected in some form of building code or for an entitlement process. If something were subject to CEQA, you may be looking at that particular issue.

So again, it's an it depends answer based on-site and project. But I think the idea here is that this plan represents the higher overarching policies that may ultimately lead to something more specific that would be clearer, perhaps subjective, may have some subjective components since we are talking about things that require perhaps engineered solutions. So many different ways to address that. But I think I'm channeling some concern that this is new requirements that we've placed on development. I think we've always asked for constraints information.

It may be an expansion of that information. But we're now facing, I think, what we could arguably say are new hazards. I mean, when's the last time we heard about emerging groundwater? It's new to us. So we'll kind of have to find our way through this.

Yeah, I mean, this mitigation in the form of a PT slab. But how do I mitigate for rising water? If there's not a precedent, it just feels like another exposure for a development to get hung up simply for subjective reason of staff not liking it.

Well, Brett and I were having conversations about this issue. And one of our perspectives was developers aren't going to actually want to buy a property that has these constraints and these risks associated with them. And in some ways, actually, there was a comment about insurance companies. They are probably the greatest litmus test for whether or not a property will be developable. Some of the things we've heard now is townhomes, townhome product.

It's challenge with the fire.

Fire insurance

is crazy.

We can do our process here, but then there's an actuary somewhere that came up with a different perspective that really drives what happens. So it's an interesting area. And quite frankly, a lot of this is new. And it's going to be evolving over time.

But anything ordinance wise will be coming back here?

Yes. If it relates to development, it would end up in our zoning code, unless it's in the building code or the fire code, which are separate documents. If it's zoning code, it would come back to the Planning Commission for a recommendation of the council.

I just want to make sure that if there's studies, it's not some wild goose taste study. I've been involved with some studies that feel like they have no end and I'm doing a science report. And in the end it's like, hey, can I just do a geotechnical study? No, you've to study a bunch of stuff that doesn't qualify with my project.

There's no nexus. I think we're most versed with swells reports. So you have swell types that are mapped out. You may have an engineer who will do sampling. And then what you have is basically engineering practice and experience that will give you what your foundation designs need to be, your grading, your drainage. So I think we're fairly well versed in that. And I think that gets adapted into, Okay, what do we do for emergent groundwater? And what's the engineering answer to those?

Okay. So moving away from new projects into old, let's just say I want to remodel my whole house or tear it down, rebuild it. I'm going to have to go through the planning process. But I happen to be in a what is

it, a

wooey wildlife urban interface. Interface? Happened Happened to to be be in in there. Maybe I'm on a long cul de sac too, and there's more than 10 homes there. What position does that put me in?

We did have discussions about that. If you're an individual homeowner and you have an inadequate evacuation route, it may not be your burden to make that evacuation route. It may ultimately require alternative means of protection is the term that the fire district would use. There may be other things you do in your project that lower fire risk that may other options in terms of you can come up with alternatives. It may be based in the fire code, or it may be your own proposal to the fire district to accept something different.

I think that's why the fire district actually made a recommendation to staff to change that evacuation threshold from 10 to just not stating because, number one, there are thresholds that trigger upgrades to existing improvements. There is the option for alternative means. And then really, the fire code is consistently evolving. So I think the fire district said, hey, give us the flexibility to assess each situation and then make a decision that's right for everybody involved in that. So I think that's where our recommendation went was go ahead and take the unit threshold out of there, and then we'll rely on the fire district to give us guidance on that issue.

And I was just going say that was what I was going to finish with is I agree with the staff's analysis. SH-fifty is that? Yeah, I agree with that. I'll say that I've built numerous cities where we had a issue. We're at the threshold of around 30. So 30 it's 30 or 50 depending on the city. But in the end, don't put a number down because it changes constantly. Every piece of land is different. It could depends what you're surrounded by, what type of product it is like you were mentioning, right, how dense it is, how much space there is in between the homes. It's a whole host of things.

And ultimately, the fire department's probably tougher than the planners when it comes to your site design. So I would say that you made the right call there. And I do also want to state that I am in agreement with Commissioner Tiernan on recommending, or what is

it, suggesting, sorry, versus requiring.

Encouraging, forgive me. Yes, the softer word is better. Anyhow, and then that covers all my questions. Do we need to go back through, or does anyone have any follow-up questions or any other comments before we wanna make a motion?

Just a Sure. Commissioner Cross. Just a quickie if I may. I think that the encourage versus require, those are two words. I think they're they're good because you can distinguish the differences and the implications, perhaps. I also think it just in listening to this discussion, I at least, when we talk about areas and one way out, I was pretty conscious of this when I lived in Pacheco Valley. You think of the physical means of getting out. Like, I gonna get my car loaded up with my stuff and what am I gonna face? Can I even get out of my driveway? Whatever.

You think of vegetation. But we also We don't know where the fire is coming from. Your neighbor's house? Is it a wildfire sweeping over the hills? You know, embers driven by the wind or whatever. But I'm gonna bring it back to the, you know, encourage versus require here in a second. But in addition to that, there's the physical environment such as the houses. Houses built when those houses were built in Pacheco Valley. They're not they're not hardened facades. You know, they're they're combustible siding.

They the vents in the attic for the attics and the crawl spaces don't have the features that would be required in modern construction, etcetera. So that's another there are lots of different aspects like that. I I know from personal experience, if you do a renovation, you're required to the urban wildlife interface to upgrade the windows to increase the, you know, the the time, whatever, the fire resistance of the of the, you know, the windows, limits like that. But so that's an example of required. If you make a renovation in a zone, where I'm going with that is how this might be implemented from my perspective is, number one, I think it's better than what we have.

Maybe a lot better than what we have. But how it will be implemented is it'll be up to other measures perhaps. But looking for those ways where to increase the it's like the difference between what is the level of service versus what's the currently accepted methodology. Vehicle miles traveled. Yeah.

Right. So analogy between a street in a high risk area might be targeted for more intensive requirements to harden facades, to reduce fire resistance and reduce vegetation. And there's a compromise because it'll physically change the appearance, etcetera, maybe the value of the homes and everything. But if there isn't another way out, you may need to buy more time. But under the presumption that more people are gonna be forced to spend more time there before they can evacuate.

I mean, I know it's a what if scenario, but I think I I support the notion. I think it's been floated by at least two of you guys that the encourages appropriate for a broad brush. I'll I'll call this broad brush, I don't mean to be dismissive about that. This is about as far reaching as it can be for what it's trying to accomplish. But anyway, that's just my observations.

It's not just vegetation. It's it's all kinds of things like the buildings themselves. Factors taken into account if people do second units. And I think that reinforces the notion of not being eliminating the numerical limit from say 30 or 10. Just build it.

If could add into this conversation. So when it comes to wildland fire evacuation safety measures, we really look to the fire district to give the city its preferences in terms of what regulations are applied to new development or substantial modification of existing. Matter of fact, I believe we're on the cusp of being potentially asked by the district to ratify their latest fire code update. I don't have the details on that. But from what I have experienced in the past, the fire code usually keeps a very strong emphasis on wildland fire safety.

And I know in the press there's been comments about the zone zero, which is vegetation away from home. So I wouldn't be surprised whether the city says encourage or require. I have a feeling the fire district is probably looking at a fire code that would actually require. So I think I'm pretty comfortable from a staff perspective that if we have a policy that says encourage, we can get in behind the fire district and use their expertise in that particular realm.

Wonderful. Any other commissioners want to speak? Mr. Grigey?

I just, I was wondering, I imagine that we're gonna have an extended discussion when we formulate our motion. Was just wondering if we might be

able Oh, no. This the discussion.

In that case, I was gonna ask for a five minute recess, but

Oh, boy. Alright. Do need you need a recess?

Yes, please.

Oh, okay. Can we do a five minute recess? Five minute recess. That's fine. Alright.

We can do a five minute recess. Come on back at eight. Alright. Seeing as everyone is back, I'm gonna reopen the hearing. Okay.

Hearing back in session. So I think we were just going back for any final comments that we had, and then I think we were looking for a motion.

I shall permit.

Yes. Of course. I will permit. Thank

you. Well, you for permitting the recess. Of course. Going to the point on SH-thirty 3, I personally have The way I see it is this is the only, as far as I can tell, the only proposal here that would require something of existing properties, whereas all the other required policies, are for future developments. Personally, I have no problem with requiring these measures for future development, but I do share the concerns that my fellow commissioners have stated for current property owners and potentially subjecting existing property owners to unexpected requirements for property that they already own and manage.

So if staff is open with just striking, requiring, go to encourage, that's fine with me. Alternatively, I could also float that we just insert the phrase, after the word require on the first line of defensible space, we just say require all new development and encourage all private property owners. Could be another alternative. I'm not a lawyer yet, so my legal drafting skills for policy techs might not be up to snuff yet. But I'm just spitballing here if that's something the commission wishes to explain.

Okay, I think staff Does that alter what our greater some of the it doesn't really alter

what we're doing? No. Could do require as the standalone for all properties. You could do encourage. And then as Commissioner Grege said, you could split them. You could use the term require for new development and encourage for existing.

I guess my thought would be I you're talking about I would guess most new developments would have that fire break, Right? I mean I doubt they're gonna I think usually what we're talking about here with defensible space is kind of the encroachment of yeah debris and trees etcetera over time. I'm gonna guess that most new developments after they've scraped everything and are built from scratch unless it was something that incorporates trees into its into the landscaping. But I would think we'd want

that. Anyhow, that's that's That's exactly what I found. This thought was bouncing around. There's a lot of space in my head. And I was thinking about that. I was thinking that perhaps if you distinguish between, in this document, the difference between encourage for existing and require for new. Hypothetically, or that should already be addressed and be constantly updated in the future through the building codes and other requirements for all the different agencies. So whichever one is most appropriate for the intended result, in my opinion.

Go ahead, commissioner Roche.

My question isn't help me flesh this out a little bit. So when we're saying defensible space, are we talking about, okay, there's not gonna be a California oak allowed to be planted here? Is that where we're going with this? Is that the logical conclusion when I think of this? That is exactly what my head thinks.

I think that question should be for staff. They're going to be the ones interpreting it. And I think that's why we're all a little nervous about our language.

So just a few points on this. So for new development projects, it's fairly consistent for the fire protection district to require what's called a vegetation management plan. So that takes into account defensible space, also looks at the landscaping materials and different features on a property, all with the intent of reducing or minimizing fire fuels. Then you have, I believe, their standard defensible area requirements. I actually don't know if they're requirements, so I'll say that.

So again, whether it's encourage or require, ultimately it's the fire district that the city would be looking to create regulation or provide the criteria or standards that the city could use in reviewing projects or looking at changes to existing development. And the closest thing I can give you right now is the wildland urban interface. So there is a whole code around that. And as Commissioner Crockett mentioned, there's a host of things that come with that, whether it's tempered glass windows, non combustible siding. That is all written into a code.

And when the city sends out a plan check for a building permit, the fire district gets an opportunity to look at that particular proposal and then have comments on what type of products are being used on the building relative to its location in a wildland urban interface. So I honestly think this issue of SH 33 and defensible space is probably already well covered by the fire district. So again, perfectly comfortable with Encourage, because I think another agency is already doing it. Great.

All

right. I'm going to make a motion here, if everyone's Okay with that. I'm going to motion that we adopt the attached resolution recommending the city council adopt the CEQA amendment addendum and amendments as presented exhibit A and B, respectively, with two modifications, one being to SH50 as it was presented by staff with their language related to no limit on the number of homes and relying instead on fire. And SH 33 related to defensible space where we would like to see the word encourage rather than require.

Second.

SPEAKER One additional request. Of course.

If you

would like to change map CW3 to the 30 unit threshold, that would be the third request, I think.

Yes. And again that doesn't make 30 the new number. It's just yeah I think that's yes I also motion that we modify that map to show 30 is the limit. 30 homes with one ingress egress point.

And the second is good with that.

Great.

To

clarify, if I may, that would include the if were to adopt that amendment to switch to the 30 unit, that would include the, I guess, redo of the GIS analysis around Marin Valley, correct?

Yeah. No matter what, we're going to take a second look at that neighborhood to make sure it's correctly mapped.

Excellent. Thank you.

Wonderful. I'm going to roll through for a, vote. Commissioner Crockett? Aye. Commissioner Grigge? Aye. Commissioner Tiernan? Aye. Commissioner Havel? Aye. Commissioner Roche? Aye. Commissioner Derby's an aye. There we have it. Okay. That item is closed. Moving on. Believe there was some is there some general business that you wanted to cover tonight that's not

GREGORY No general business, just a liaison report. So looking at agendas going forward, we will not have a meeting on November 24. This meeting tonight was in lieu of that. So we'll be sending out a formal cancellation on that. But moving into December, we'll be coming to the commission to review the draft EIR for the Costco fuel station.

So at that time, the commission will be asked to comment on the adequacy of that EIR and take public comment on it. And then moving further into December, we have an alternate date of December 15 if needed, but at this point we don't have anything on an agenda for later in December. So we'll keep the commission posted on that. And that's all we have for this evening's report. Wonderful.

Yes, I was going say this. Want to

say So I do see the demolition is underway. It's pretty impressive what's going on at Fireman's Fund. What's coming up next from the planning perspective?

We would be looking to the property owner or their development partner to submit applications for subdivision mapping and project design.

And you anticipate that?

I believe we maybe have applications as soon as the first quarter of next year.

So it'll probably be 27 before construction actually starts?

I don't know. A lot of that depends on how quickly the entitlement process goes, how the design building permit process goes after that. And that's a combination of the city and design consultants and developer.

So it hasn't been through design review, the the various neighborhoods

or assets?

There's no tentative map that's been submitted to my knowledge.

The tentative map been submitted? No tentative map.

Yes. They still got a ways. I would I would guess we won't see a home there till '29. If we were making bets that's where I would go.

I don't know if I'm betting against

the market. Yeah but that's probably a good thing

because the market is pretty

rough right now and no one wants to bring homes to market right now. But honestly think about it, tentative map, improvement plans. I mean it's the actual demo, not just the building but they have to build out massive streets. There's a whole bunch of walls you got to build there and then they need to build a lot of

Well, they got to fill in The water. They've got a water feature out there that's gotta get all filled or

Well, I think that'll be demo. Right? Yeah. It's all part of the demo. So they'll we'll probably the nice thing is by the time the demo's done, I'm gonna guess it'll be a nice are they mass grading as well or just demo?

I believe they're doing a light touch on grading mainly for current drainage needs and stormwater prevention. And then I think ultimately the individual project designs will dictate that the larger grading

Might look pretty clean for a while while they get through the

Okay.

But it is a big step. It's a huge project. One building of three is entirely gone.

No. It's it's amazing watching the the demolition go underway.

And by the way, do they do are they recycling all that? What are

they doing with all that stuff? Yes. Have they have a recent recycling program. It's mainly the metals that are coming out of the building, concrete, asphalt, things of that nature are diverted to recyclers.

Wonderful. Thank you. Thank you. Alright. Meeting is adjourned.

Okay. Thank you.