Hi everyone to the uh Novato Planning Commission meeting of September 8th.

Uh thank you for joining us here tonight.

Um, first thing I'm gonna do is uh call this to order and do a roll call.

All right, looks like everyone's here, but I'll do it regardless.

Um Commissioner Crockett here.

Commissioner Havill here.

Commissioner Tiernan here, Commissioner Griggy here.

Commissioner Roche here, Commissioner Stuckenbrocker, here broker.

Sorry.

Uh, and Commissioner Derby is here.

Knew I was gonna mess that one up eventually, forgive me.

Um, if everyone could join me in the uh Pledge of Allegiance, a pledge of 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.

Uh I'm gonna need an approval of the final agenda.

So moved.

Second.

Roll call.

Commissioner Crockett here.

Commissioner Havill.

Aye.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Aye.

Commissioner Grigie.

Aye.

Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Aye.

Commissioner Derby's an aye.

Great.

Um I'm gonna open this to public comment.

This is not public comment uh for anything on the uh that's currently on the agenda.

So if everyone understands what that means, I'm gonna open that up now.

Anyone would like to speak on something that is not on the agenda tonight, feel free to come forward.

Seeing no movement, I'm going to close the public comment, and we will get through our agenda.

First item is a consent item.

Uh it's the approval of the meeting minutes on March 10th.

I believe all of the commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Griggy.

So I'll start.

Um, do I have a motion?

I would move to approve as presented.

I will second.

Wonderful.

Commissioner Crockett.

Uh aye.

Commissioner Havill.

Aye.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Aye.

Commissioner Griggy?

Abstain.

Commissioner Rose.

Aye.

Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Aye.

Commissioner Derby's an aye as well.

Wonderful.

Um, seeing as we have nothing else, it's going to get into the public hearing.

I will ask tonight that the uh staff will make a presentation.

We will have the developer follow that presentation with their presentation.

Um, we will come back to the commission.

We will ask questions of staff and the developer.

Uh at that point, uh, we will open the public comment.

And many of you who will speak tonight or choose to speak tonight, please fill out a card, maybe in the interim.

Uh, or after you've spoken, please fill one out because we will need all that information.

Um we will then close that and then uh I would I would it'll it'll come back to uh the commission.

I would like to also offer up since there's sometimes some back and forth that go on, uh, and since there's a lot of folks here tonight, would uh allow for the developer to come forward again and maybe speak to some of those items as I would uh ask the staff to do that as well to make sure all of the concerns were addressed.

Uh and then I'd bring it back to um commission to make their final vote.

So anyway, I just want to make sure we laid that out before we started, but without further ado.

All right, thank you.

Uh Planning Commissioners.

Uh so this item is a public hearing and consideration of resolutions regarding the California Environmental Equality Act exceptions from additional environmental review, exemptions from additional environmental review, and design review and use permit entitlements for the construction and operation of a 95,400 square foot self-storage facility consisting of three buildings and ancillary improvements at 501 Davidson Street.

So the project site is located on the southerly side of Davidson Street, immediately west of the city's public works corporation yard, and uh the Novato Sanitary District wastewater treatment plant is further to the east of the courtyard.

A residential neighborhood is located to the west of the project site.

Uh so the existing buildings and infrastructure on the site would be demolished to accommodate the proposed project.

The project includes three buildings accommodating 597 storage units, an office, dry vials, parking, landscaping, stormwater control facilities, and ancillary improvements.

Buildings A and B are one-story buildings that would range in size from approximately 4,800 square feet to 8,500 square feet.

Building C is a three-story 82,001 square foot building.

Uh once constructed and operating, the applicant anticipates two to three on-site employees and has proposed gate access hours of 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

with more limited office hours.

Building A, which is one of the one-story buildings, is roughly parallel to Davidson Street.

Building B is on the westerly side of the site adjacent to the residential neighborhood, and that is also a one-story building.

And then more towards the center of the building is building C.

So there was a neighborhood meeting on May 23rd, 2024.

Subsequent to that, there were DRC hearings held on September 18, 2024, December 18, 2024, and March 5th, 2025.

The project design was revised subsequent to the September and December hearings at the Design Review Commission.

Story polls were also placed at the site.

And at the March 5th meeting, the DRC made a motion to recommend approval of the project, although the DRC did ask that the Planning Commission and City Council consider directing staff to amend the definition of floor area ratio to address building mass regardless of whether a building is habitable.

Additionally, the design review commission, based on public comment, requested conditions of approval regarding mechanical equipment, noise, and lighting.

And those conditions of approval have been included in the attached resolution.

The slide does include some of the changes from the initial design to what we have today.

Notably, building C is now a step design, with the westerly portion of the building being two stories and then its steps to three stories.

As I mentioned before, the total storage unit count was reduced to 597 from 633.

Also, they did add building and pole mounted heights for the lighting so there'd be a better idea of how light may impact the surrounding uses.

And then there were some various landscaping plan changes.

Regarding CECA, staff has determined that the project is exempt from additional environmental review pursuant to SQL guidelines, Section 15183 and Section 15332.

Section 15183 states that projects which are consistent with the development intensity density established by zoning or general plan policies for which an environmental impact report was certified shall not require additional environmental review.

And this project is consistent with the development intensity analyzed in the general plan and the final EIR.

To comply with mitigation measures that were adopted with the final EIR, the applicant did prepare a biological resource assessment and also a cultural resource assessment, and this was to comply with those mitigation measures, and staff has reviewed both those documents and their advent conditions of approval incorporated into the project resolution before you tonight to implement the recommendations of those professionals.

The second CEQA exemption is section 15332, and that is for the infill development projects.

That specific CEQA exemption does include five criteria for complying to meet that exemption, and staff has reviewed the project, the project site, and determined that the project does qualify for the infill exemption also.

So staff did do a detailed analysis of the project's consistency with the general plan and zoning code, and those are detailed in the resolution and attachment to.

One of the main discussion points that got brought up at the design review commission was regarding floor area ratio.

The city's zoning code has a definition of floor area ratio.

And within that definition, it includes the phrase floor area ratio restrictions are used to limit the maximum floor area of all habitable space allowed on the site.

And this is important because early on the project applicant and his attorney did question, pose this question to staff as FAR applicable to the buildings that consist of the storage units.

And we even went a little bit further regarding some definitions and conferred with the city's chief building official regarding how the building code would classify a storage type facility.

Is that public storage facilities are classified as an S1 occupancy, and those occupancies are intended exclusive as storage, and storage occupancies don't allow for habitation.

So that is the determination that staff made specific to floor area ratio and its applicability to this project site.

Some other items that the applicant has requested.

The LIO zoning district typically has a maximum height of 35 feet.

Within the zoning code, there are some provisions to obtain additional height above that 35 feet.

Does have two parapet walls on a portion of the building that extend to 37 feet, which is two feet above the 35 foot maximum, and then additionally there are the elevator overruns that max out at approximately 35 and a half feet.

And in this case, the applicant has proposed instead of a masonry wall, a wood fence that would be six foot high with the potential of two feet of lattice atop that to replace the existing fence.

Based on some input from the public, staff has written a condition of approval that would require the applicant to basically check in with those adjacent neighbors, and if they would prefer to retain the existing cyclone fence, not cyclone, but chain link fence that's there, there's the potential that the chain link fence could remain, but that would be based on the wishes of the individual property owners that border the site.

And then the third item is parking.

So the zoning code for uh self-storage use requires one parking space for 1,500 square feet of four area plus two spaces for the office use.

Uh at the size of this building, that would require an excess of 65 parking spaces.

Um the code does have a provision that the applicant can submit evidence, quantitative evidence that would justify reducing parking at the site.

The applicant has provided uh some information specific to the typical amount of traffic coming and going to the storage facility, and how the traffic generation, how often people typically visit their storage unit, and staff has uh you know agreed that they there is some sound reasoning for what they proposed and what the based on the information they're provided, and so staff is recommending uh that the seven proposed spaces be considered.

So with that, um staff is recommending that the planning commission adopt a resolution finding that the project is exempt from CECA pursuant to CEQA guidelines, section 15183 and 15332, and also a resolution approving a use permit and design review allowing the construction and operation of a 95,400 square foot self-storage facility consisting of three buildings at 501 Davidson Street, assessor parcel number 153 250 11.

Um couple couple notes here.

So we did receive, I believe it was seven comment letters sub uh subsequent to the agenda being posted, and those all were emailed to the planning commissioners, and they've been in the uh the agenda packet book that's been available for public review at the city offices.

Um additionally, subject to the posting of the gen agenda, staff has made two revisions to conditions of approval.

One condition uh I failed to include the condition of approval specific to the fencing requirement that I mentioned a few minutes ago.

So that was added to the conditions of approval, and then also a condition of approval regarding the Davidson Davidson Street frontage improvements that were part of the public works department engineering division comments have been amended just for clarification on the uh public improvements that would be required along the frontage of the property.

So with that, staff's available for any questions.

Um also we have the applicant uh Mario Gialotti representing Vera West here to make a presentation.

Thank you.

Uh Chair Jerry, if I can tack on a few comments.

I also want to mention uh this evening we have some folks joining us by Zoom.

We have assistant city attorney Mackenzie Anderson with us.

We have uh civil engineer uh Lori Loaza, she's the city's consulting engineer on this project, and then we have the project architect uh David Meinicke joining us as well.

Uh to tack on to Brett's comment about the conditions of approval uh based on a conversation with the applicant's lawyer, we would like to insert some modified language into the condition addressing the frontier improvements.

So if when the commission gets to forming a motion, um, if you're looking at conditions of approval, it will assist with that.

Wonderful.

I know we're gonna have a lot of questions, so I would ask maybe the developer gives their presentation next, and we can kind of aggregate our questions for after that.

I know there'll be probably some visuals in a presentation.

So, so evening commissioners?

My company Bureau West is Mario Duali.

The applicant for the self-storage facility at 501 Davidson Street.

First, I want to thank staff for all the time and effort they've decided dedicated to reviewing our application.

This has been a collaborative process, and we truly appreciate the opportunity to share our project with you this evening.

Before we dive into the details, I'd like to provide a provide a little background on the site and how this proposal came to be.

As you may know, the city purchased this property in 2022 after discovering part of the corporation yard encroached on frontier telecommunications land.

The city used $5.8 million in emergency funds to secure the site and ensure the corp yard could remain in its current location.

When the city began considering how to utilize the property, uh not needed for the corp yard, I entered discussions about leasing it for my family's construction business as a storage yard.

However, through those conversations, it became clear that a contractor's yard would create too much impact for the surrounding neighborhood, and that led us to explore other options.

And ultimately, we landed on self-storage.

It's a low-intensity use and high and high demand, an appropriate fit for the industrial zone property.

I wanted to share that context with you so you understand how this proposal evolved.

With that, I'll turn it over to Riley Hurd who will walk you through the project in more details.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, members of the commission.

My name is Riley Hurd.

I'm part of the project team here, and I wanted to walk you through some additional details about this project.

First, I think neighborhood context is always super important when you're considering entitlements like these.

So here you can see the site in the yellow circle and the types of uses that surround it.

Of course, there is the neighborhood, but we are next to a sewer plant, a corporation yard, we got the community hospital across the way, and then the residential neighborhood.

So this property really, you know, serves as a transition area between some pretty uh heavy industrial uses.

Next slide, please.

So the site as it exists today is fully paved.

Um it's in disrepair, and it is essentially uh one big impermeable surface, and it does not benefit from any meaningful drainage improvements.

So one um plus to this project is there is a robust drainage plan.

So for the first time, the water leaving this site will be bioretained, go through treatment facilities, and that's being has been prepared by a civil engineer and is being fully reviewed by the city.

So that's um pretty important, and it's also important to note that this is what it looks like now.

It's a bit a bit of an eyesore.

Next slide, please.

As you heard, we did prepare a biological resources assessment.

That's part of the EIR requirements.

No special plants, animals, no habitat, no aquatic resources on site, it's pavement weeds, and old buildings.

Next slide, please.

I think it's always really important to identify what the city said goes here, because we of course did not zone this property.

We respond to what the zoning is, and the zoning is light industrial office.

There's a number of things that are permitted there.

Contractors storage yard, heavy equipment rental, auto sales.

Um I was surprised to see that permitted as a matter of right with no conditional use permit, is commercial cannabis manufacturing with volatile compounds.

Uh dry cleaning plants permitted as a matter of right.

So the city has really said in its zoning ordinance that those are the type of uses that go at this site.

Now, initially, because of Mario's family business, he approached the city and said, I would like to use this as a contractor's yard.

Large equipment, storage, coming and going all day, going out to job sites, and that's allowed by the zoning.

And the city said, hey, we know that's in the zoning code, but would you please consider something a little less impactful?

And so that is how the kind of fully contained self-storage concept came about.

If you go to the next slide, please.

The reason storage was selected, other than being one of the uses for the LIO, is it has the lowest trip generation in the ITE manual of almost any listed industrial use.

And that is because it turns out most people don't visit their storage facility very regularly.

They end up being set it and forget it type of thing.

As you can see, over 68% of the tenants come less than once every two weeks.

So when you compare that to the other commercial uses and the intensity of the trips that could be occurring, this is as low as it gets.

Who rents storage facilities?

It's going to be Nevada residents.

It's people nearby.

You don't rent storage facilities far away from your home.

And also with the advent of some of the new housing typologies that we're seeing, your apartments, townhomes, people have less storage than those who have the ability to reside in a single family home.

So this actually benefits the higher density housing types.

Next slide, please.

We contracted with W-Trans to perform a traffic study.1 of a second of additional weight.

So it's essentially as close to zero traffic impact as something could be, particularly when you compare it to the other permitted by right uses.

Next slide, please.

So I think it's very important for the commission to be aware of the history of what it took to get here today, multiple, multiple DRC hearings, project changes, change after change after change in order to get to that unanimous approval, which was frankly hard to achieve.

So what you can see here was the original site plan.

And I'll go over some of the differences here in a second, but I just want to point out at the top of the screen is the adjacent residential neighbors.

And you can see building C there, building B exists in this down below.

And if you could go to the next slide.

So throughout this series of DRC hearings, there were many, many requests that were made, but probably the biggest one was please move it further away from your neighbors, and please reduce the distance of that third story from your neighbors.

So to do this, the three-story element, the most significant building, was moved 30 feet further away.

So this made the new setback 32 feet to the closest building.

And once that moved down on the screen that you saw, an entire building, what was called B had to be eliminated.

So that went away.

Thousands and thousands of square feet of lot coverage was eliminated.

Additional landscaping that we'll talk about was put in.

And during the survey process, it was determined that the neighbors on the top of the screen encroached by a fair amount with their fences and yards onto this property.

So the decision was made by the development team to allow those encroachments to remain, not to make them push it back to the true property line.

So that was one of the many things that happened during this DRC process.

If you go to the next slide, here's the revised plan.

So that smaller building at the bottom is gone because the larger building pushed down.

The building at the top, which is now building B, has been moved quite a bit further away.

And on this one, it's very faint, but at the top of the screen, you can see the line that goes up and then down.

That is the fence of the neighbors and how much of the property is being utilized for their use, which again is being allowed to remain.

So pretty significant changes in the site plan.

If you go to the next slide, this was the original design.

You can't really see it too well on this screen, but it was basically one large block.

It's quite hard to see there.

But it was a kind of large block.

Yeah, you can see it over here much better.

So you see the taupe and taupe color there.

So now if you go to the next slide.

Thank you.

So now we were going to kind of describe what the DRC asked for in regards to the elevation.

The last one was site plan changes.

For the elevations, the big big thing was taking that third floor and cutting it back by 30 feet.

So that's, you know, kind of your wedding cake design or step back from the neighbors.

So that third floor averages 125 feet from the neighboring properties.

It's a very, very significant setback.

The colors were changed.

This is not one of those orange public storage side of the freeway operations.

This is a very thoughtful kind of Marin County-based design palette.

Again, that's the hard work of the DRC requiring these changes.

And then another big thing that you heard mention regarding the height was a parapet.

And that is to screen the rooftop mechanical, not just visually, but for noise as well.

So if you go to the next slide, here's the outcome of all those changes.

You can see the significant setback of both the second and third floors, remembering that the neighboring properties would be to the right, but it's a little bit off access from that setback and kind of the color palette, and is a little bit more elegant than a traditional storage facility that one might think of.

Next slide, please.

Another thing the DRC really pressed for was significant landscaping enhancements.

And this was quite an undertaking.

There are 29 new trees, including a mature tree that's coming in at 25 feet tall with screening.

173 new plants, and I don't, I've been to a few storage facilities.

I would say this is probably the most robustly landscaped storage facility design that I have come across.

Next slide, please.

We did hear comments from the public about security, and I think it really comes down to the operator.

So there are different tiers of levels of storage facility operators.

Everything from your mom and pop shops to really national, nationally recognized high-level best-in-class operators.

And the goal here is to use one of those extremely high-level national third-party firms.

They've got on-site management, 24-7 digital surveillance cameras.

You have to have a unique code to enter this property.

So only tenants can come and go.

And I I want to bring up an important point about this because the operator is so important to fitting in and operating in a way that the neighborhood would expect.

Once that square footage reduction happened by eliminating the building to the south and that large setback on the third floor, we're now right on the cusp of the minimum size facility that a top tier operator will accept.

So it's been shrunk, but now it's to the point where that's it.

If we want the top tier operator, and we absolutely do for all of the reasons that I just said.

Next slide, please.

Heard about lighting, heard about noise.

We already talked about the parapet.

Um there's a really thoughtful lighting plan with shielded down lights, but still at a level to provide enough security, so that's important.

Uh one thing that wasn't brought up is, and you can see the example of the sliding doors uh in the in the upper right.

This entire design has been carefully thought out so that those doors only face the interior of the property, so they do not face out.

So the buildings themselves serve as their own screening for noise and um other comings and goings from the doors opening and closing.

So that was very, very purposeful.

You go to the next slide, please.

So we'll just conclude by some of the benefits.

The city is has a strategic plan.

They say, hey, we have properties that we own, and we need to generate revenue from them.

So that is one big benefit here.

We went through the uses that you could do.

There are many more.

I have the zoning table, I can read them to you.

This is about as least intensive as it gets.

We're in between uh a residential neighborhood and a sewer treatment plant.

So this is a transition use.

Uh one thing that we didn't talk about was when the DRC and and the neighborhood asked for the buildings to be pushed back and shrunk.

Uh, we went into a little bit of area that the city was using.

So, as part of the project, the developers are going to build the city an all new storage facility for their equipment.

So the city is also getting that as a benefit.

And then, of course, um the full drainage plan, sit over 6,000 feet of bio retention, so storm runoff gets treated and the like.

So, in conclusion, you know, this property is zoned to be used for an industrial use.

It's been zoned that way for a while.

It just happens to have not been used that way for a little bit.

But this is a direct response to what the city said goes here, and it's a very thoughtful, evolved application because of the way the DRC really put it through a ringer, to be frank.

So we'll be here for any questions you may have, and uh we'll reserve the rest of our time for uh rebuttal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's bring it back to the commission for us to ask some questions of staff, and then I will be opening the public comment period uh for all of you out there.

And again, please uh leave your yellow cards with me so I can call your names when that time comes.

So I'm gonna open up to the commission.

I'll start with Commissioner Crockett.

Thank you.

So my first question is is for staff.

Um I think you've made it clear that it's the interpretation that uh this proposal is CEQA exempt for the reasons you stated.

The proposed use is clearly allowed by the current zoning.

Uh it also seems as though, even though this project this project has been through design review and and has been evolved significantly through that process, you are looking for this for the planning commission to give you direction, whether it's concurrence or or different direction with respect to the density as the FAR is currently proposed overall, is about 1.4.

Is that right?

One moment.

Let me.

I recall correctly, the FAR is 1.28.

Well, let me let me rephrase that.

The FAR equivalent of the entire project is 1.28.

The portion that from staff's perspective is subject to an FAR is only the office space, and I believe that calculates to like 0.016.

Okay.

And the developer just described some encroachment issues with respect to both the neighboring properties, and there's a line that it's a little hard for me to read, but kind of a jagged line of people's yards, I guess, on the westerly line of the site, as well as the area where the corporation yard encroaches on the site.

Can you just re-clarify that for my eyesight?

Where those are?

Yeah.

So on this slide, you do see the existing fence line, and I'm trying to go along it with the cursor.

Right there.

So the applicant part of it is engineering design team.

I think they had some of their surveying staff go out and did a survey of the property and determined that the dash line that's shown at the extent of the green landscaping area is the actual legal limits of the property.

So that was what was referenced by the applicants team during their presentation.

And as part of my presentation, when I mention existing fence and the code requirements for new fence or masonry wall, this is the fence location that I was discussing regarding that condition of approval.

Right.

Okay.

And the city corporation yard, the balance part, the active part of it.

Maybe I'm just reading this from some correspondence, but there was some reference that that may overlap some of the proposed development on the site is drawing.

It talked about, if I read it correctly, that some of the existing corp yard buildings that are off-site of this site plan area shown here.

Okay.

When you line up the aerial images, it appears it might encroach possibly into a flood control district property.

Okay.

But that's not verified.

But that's off-site, not really part of this proposal tonight.

Thank you.

Then I have a couple of questions for the applicant as well.

Just curious, when do you know when the original or the building building or buildings on site were built, the frontier communications when that was the either the structures or the please approach if you'd like to speak to that?

Looks like it's.

Yeah, I think it's over 50 years.

I don't know the exact year.

Yeah.

Yeah, it looks like it to me too.

Thank you.

Um, it's my understanding for the fire regulations.

Uh among the kinds of items that will be stored here, you won't be allowed to allow people to have store like motor vehicles or boats with motors.

Is that correct?

And partly my question is in terms of the kinds of frequency of trailering and access to the site.

And if you don't know, maybe.

I'm sorry, the question is if if fire uh spells that out.

Are you allowed to store motor vehicles on this in these storage units?

I don't know what the fire code says on that.

Uh so I did review the fire Nevada Fire Protection District's latest set of comments, and they did have a condition of approval in there, requesting that the operators' lease agreements have a requirement that no hazardous materials be stored in the storage units.

So, I would guess that gasoline would be considered a hazardous material without being an expert on what the fire district considers considers hazardous materials.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um this is partly just me being educated about storage facilities.

I'm looking for one, frankly.

But um, when you mentioned the input from the top tier uh operators, um can you expand on the little bit?

It sounds like you your position is you've scaled this back to the position where it's right on the margins of whether it would be something they would um work with you on.

Is that also a matter of square footage in total?

Is it the number of keys or the number of individual units or both?

What describes that threshold for them?

They mostly speak in terms of gross square footage or rentable square footage.

The the number of units here are so nuanced.

I mean they they can be as small as five by five.

So when you and that's kind of up to the development team to decide.

So the number of units wouldn't really be a good communicator.

Yeah, we're we're right at that, we're actually below the guidance we received for them to be interested.

But um, okay.

And the site lighting, there's been a lot of discussion about it.

I would assume that your primary objective for site lighting is the draw what I'll call the drive areas, the fronts of the storage units and that big square donut of circulation.

Do you know if that's lighting design will be intended to light like what I would call the back side of building B, the west facade of it?

No.

Not the back.

No.

Okay, and and I believe part of the DRC we actually lowered the lights and um the and the project plans that shows the the cone radius of them, and I believe the and I believe most of them are motion sensors.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um be interested in hearing from your perspective a couple of things about the fence.

Because the staff has indicated some flexibility, and I think you've indicated some flexibility.

I'm talking about the fence along the west side that's currently chain link with vegetation.

Is that fence intended primarily in your proposed use as a visual screen?

Is it a security barrier?

In other words, you're not pretty fencing off the entire site.

Uh what's from your perspective the purpose, the primary purpose of that fence, whether it's existing or if it were rebuilt.

Yeah, the the intent is for the whole project to be fenced for security one.

Okay.

And the additional fencing requirements bordering the the neighbors or the transition fencing is for a purpose for screening.

The existing fence today, that's a chain link fence, is covered in um vegetation where it actually kind of night works as a nice uh screen.

So I think we've left that open to leaving that in place if the neighbors.

Yeah, I visited the site.

I didn't walk the length of the fence.

Um, but I'm I'm curious.

Well, it would be presumed that in the next level of design, whatever fence, if you make any changes to that, a big part of that would be navigating topography and dealing with the property lines too.

You wouldn't want to build a new fence on well, it would be, I guess it'd be on your property no matter what you do, but you'd be sort of reinforcing the encroachments if you built it on its current location.

It would seem a little strange to me to do that.

That's just me.

Okay.

End of my questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Havel, thank you.

Um staff uh most my questions are gonna be directed at staff, so you guys.

So the the survey that was prepared shows the fence, then the landscaping.

It's unclear to me from the plans where the landscaping is with respect to the fence.

They're not, I mean, is the fence moving to put in landscaping?

Is there gonna be landscaping going behind the fence?

Maybe that was sort of what I was getting at in my question is does the landscape plan anticipate new fence, or does it weave around existing or I realize that landscaping can be moved, but I'm just I'm kind of curious what yeah, um this might actually be a better question for the applicant or possibly his um uh architect.

Uh I'm looking at the landscape plan and it doesn't show that existing fence.

And so I'm not 100% clear with the proposed landscaping and which side of the fence that's that's on.

Yeah, and that's okay.

I just I was at this point it said I don't need absolute solidity on this.

It was a question just kind of highlighted.

Um with respect to the property line and the fence, um, has the the applicant put anything forward regarding like an agreement with the property owners easement something that clarifies and memorializes and sort of like to your and I realize that's not necessarily a part of a land use entitlement application, it's not a requirement.

But have you been have they apprised you of that?

Is there any discussion about that?

Uh to my knowledge um there hasn't been a discussion about easements.

Um it's my understanding that the applicant when this uh question got brought up about the fence line versus property line did have a discussion with uh the city administrative staff, city manager's office, and there was conversations about trying to retain since the fence line is there, more or less utilizing that fence line as sort of a project boundary, and just leaving kind of leave leaving it let be the idea that the fence is not right at the property line.

Okay, all right, um, and then I I noticed from the plans there's it appears to be um topography.

I I was trying to I went I've been out to visit the site, I've walked around, I've walked around the neighborhood, I've read all the letters that came in.

Um, trying to get a real grip on sort of what you know what's happening.

The topography, um, from what I could tell is um it looks like it drops from uh the neighborhood down to this site slightly um maybe five-ish feet, plus or minus.

Um is there is there any more like topographical information or grading plans or anything?

I recognize again, I recognize the site has an existing concrete pad.

I would imagine that the grading or the site prep is going to be pretty minimal as far as site prep goes.

Um, yeah, so we do have an existing site plan survey, and I think this does show that topographical change that you're talking about right here.

Uh you've got a 20-foot contour, 15 foot contour, and then you get to the point of um where it looks like the pavement starts, and there's maybe some drain pans along that payment pavement edge.

Um then additionally on the um then we have the site plan, and that does show um some grading lines here.

Um but I think essentially that on the back side of that fence, the existing fence, I believe it's going to remain untouched essentially, and then all grading would occur mostly, I believe, just to deal with uh drainage management areas and leveling the site for that sort of thing.

And then in reviewing the project record uh, and correct me if I'm getting any of this wrong, the the application was submitted in February of 2024.

That sounds about right, yeah.

Um it went through a neighborhood meeting in May of 20, actually back in May, kind of late May.

And then it it went through four.

Did it did it actually make it to four design review commission hearings?

Uh no.

Um, well I saw that a few were canceled.

Yeah, I there was one in January, and I believe if I remember correctly, we showed up to the meeting, and unfortunately, we did not have a quorum.

And then so it got postponed to the next month, and I believe prior to showing up to the meeting, we had a quorum issue.

So that's how it got essentially bumped to the March hearing date, March 5th hearing date.

So this has been going on for a year and a half.

Yeah.

Okay.

And uh so it didn't happen last night or overnight or in the dark of night.

This is something that's been in the full light of review and discussion and debate.

Okay.

Um and then I guess the other thing I'm curious about is forgive me for not seeing this in the the materials, but when was it deemed a complete application?

Uh, off the top of your head.

Application deemed complete.

Uh that wasn't until uh June.

So there was uh, you know, there was some time where the applicant was preparing additional studies that were requested by the city, the city's engineering division, that sort of thing.

Biological assessment, the cultural resource.

Cultural resources assessment, uh the engineering reports.

Yeah, and those all take time and money to prepare and okay, and then when staff reviews those, it's it's data.

It's it's not for or against, it's it's information about the site, it's disclosure, it's part of the public record.

Um so that's available to everybody to come in and review.

Correct, yeah.

Okay.

And when you're when you've got um, I'm not a biologist, and if I want to challenge a biologist, does my opinion matter or do the facts matter?

So when we get uh what I'll call special studies that the applicant provides, first off, we look at the quality of the work, we review the document.

Um I'm not a biologist either.

Um, but typically what we do, in this case, we have a general plan environmental impact report that had mitigation measures, and it had certain mitigation measures specific to uh the requirement for biological reports in certain instances.

So first thing we do, or first thing I did was review the content of the biological report for consistency with the mitigation measures in the general plan EIR, and then of course, review the biological report to see if it appears to contain all of the information that one would expect to be in there, you know, reviewing the fish and wildlife, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, uh CNDDB database that shows uh sightings of um various plant or animal species, doing the the site inspection to determine if there's any um listed or special species plants or animals on the site, that sort of thing.

Okay.

Um is it on it on a disturbed site?

Meaning there's already been development there, it's already been paved over.

Um is it a regular practice to ask for a biological assessment to have somebody say to go to a property owner?

Whether it's somebody fabulously wealthy or somebody just a regular Joe and Mary, is it normal to say, yeah, you know what, your site's disturbed, it's been developed before, but we need to see a biological assessment to ensure that there's going to be no environmental impacts.

Even though it's covered in concrete, even though it's already been disturbed.

Is that is that a regular thing that is done?

Uh well, I would say um if it's if it were a ministerial project, say uh a single family residential lot that had already been developed with a residence, and someone was tearing down one house and then rebuilding, and the site would typically have non-native, maybe grass or that sort of thing.

It typically wouldn't be required in that instance, but uh when you have a use permit, which is a discretionary project, um, potentially subject to CEQA environmental review, and then also based on the mitigation measures in the environmental impact report, that's where it comes up to a level of the city requesting these that show we so we can show compliance so we can determine compliance of the project with those mitigation measures.

Okay.

Yeah, that covers it for me.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Tiernan.

I'm gonna pursue this fence stuff a little bit farther.

So the perimeter of this project is going to be a wooden six-foot fence all the way around it, or is it just uh against the West neighbors?

Uh just the West neighbors.

Okay, yeah, okay.

And and I appreciate the the communication we received the the amendments to try and address some of that.

Um and I heard the applicant talk about hydrology in that area because it does appear to me that that it drops off and that there's a swale or a ditch between the properties.

Um the hydrology there would be important, particularly to run into that bio swell.

And it seems to me that that is exactly where landscaping and neighbors' backyards and fences are.

Um so it would seem to me that there might be sort of a procedural process to get the hydrology done properly, because that's gonna rip out landscaping.

That's that's bound to alter some of that, and then figure out how you can not only secure it but then make it attractive, or you know, um because I uh I as much as the neighbors probably like that chain link fence, because part of it is is the vines have been ripped down, and from my perspective, it look horrible and and it is need of some kind of um attention.

Um, and then as it was pointed out, there's a grade change.

So even if you put a six-foot fence along the secure along the uh 32 feet from building B, the houses are still above it by considerable amount.

And so hopefully the landscaping can address that.

But um I I can see that we're gonna I think we need to have a little more discussion before we're done here about you know, is it how can we address that?

I think you've done a nice job of attempting it in the resolution, but part of it I think requires the neighbors to participate somehow.

Um, those are the extent of my questions or comments for now.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Griggy.

I think a lot of my questions have already been asked by my fellow commissioners.

Uh, but I'll keep the extent of my questioning brief uh today so that we can get to public comment.

Uh the first question I have, I guess most of my questions are really for the applicant.

Um my first question is uh you meant uh in the uh presentation, uh you mentioned that uh the setback had been moved from 15 feet to roughly 32 feet.

Is that being measured from the pro the surveyed property line or from the uh residence fences?

That's from the property line to the to the first to the shortest corner of the first building, and so you can see that tapers and it increases.

Perfect.

Uh, just wanted to make sure.

Sorry, I'm still a new commissioner, so I'm getting my C Legs.

Thank you all for bearing with me.

Um I also wanted to inquire about uh the other like side of the parcel.

Uh you had mentioned the residents, the uh uh you know, the street, the corporation yard.

I wanted to ask about uh the side facing the marsh.

Uh what measures have been taken there to prevent disruptions to the ecosystems.

Yeah, our intents to um respect the existing fence line, even though that's not the property line, so that we're not uh intruding on any uh you know new new land or undisturbed land, and then we'll have our I think typical pre-construction uh um sweepy best management practices, all the stormwater concerns, and um given the biological report of no uh species, habitat, et cetera, that I don't think there's there's been any other requirements for that, and then uh my last question.

Uh it was it was also mentioned in the presentation that this project is now approaching the minimum uh amount of square footage that a like top tier operator would accept um what what is that minimum just for our information?

It it's around a hundred thousand square feet.

Okay, uh those are those are my questions for now, but I'm sure we'll have another one.

Yeah, of course, you will have another round.

Next slide.

Thank you, Commissioner Green.

Commissioner Roche.

Uh thank you.

So on the lines of the top tier operator looking for that definition, you would be the property owner, and then it is out to one of these national entities that do this.

Is that what we are looking for with the definition?

Yes, correct.

Got it.

Uh then along with the hazardous materials, would this be standard information or any storage lot that would have very visible signage on the outside, although what is not allowed?

Yes, and then new building facility uh for the city light equipment.

Uh, we shed some light on that a little bit.

So, our question, counselor, sorry, commission.

So that's been a conversation mostly with our public works department and not planning staff.

However, um there is a location to the east of this project, uh, that's in an area that the city has historically used for storage, and as part of the agreement, um, a new storage building will be constructed, and I believe the purpose of that storage building is specifically or mainly uh tied to the um charging of electric maintenance equipment.

As you know, might know the state's going away from those small engines um for a lot of uh maintenance type equipment and going towards battery operated, and so that of course is gonna require some new infrastructure to charge all of those uh batteries, and so I believe that's the primary purchase of the proposed um storage building on the city's courtyard side of this property.

Thank you.

Uh also along the lines of uh security.

I don't think you can hear me, right?

Okay, so along the lines of security, what type of security would be in place for this?

I think more the question that I was reading through this, I would do that.

Yeah, there we go, speak a lot too.

Yeah, I know they need for the record.

Anyway, so what I'm wondering about is what as I was reading through some of the letters that came in later, and the concern for the potential for increased uh the increased potential for theft for lack of a better phrase.

Uh, what can we do to possibly track that or what is in place?

What type of cameras would be in place relative to the entrance and things of that sort, and is there any way to track that?

I know that's a little out there, but that was raised as a concern for from one of the neighbors, so I thought I'd bring that to everyone's attention.

To to track potential, correct, exactly.

Yeah, so so the the entire site has security cameras and they're monitor 24-7.

24-7, yeah.

Okay, yeah, and and there's the on-site manager, different different hours, but um an on-site personnel that comes with the third-party management, and then for the on-site man, excuse me.

On-site manager, do they live in that property?

Is it more of a checking in on IMF work at this point in time?

Some of these some of these properties can have people stay overnight or even live there at this point in time.

Would it have the capacity at some point in time to build that in?

No, we we've been advised that that typically doesn't result with the the highest quality um folks and and uh representation.

So no, they're they're an employee coming and going.

Got it.

All right, and then coming back and thank you for the information on the fence.

I know we've spoken a lot about it.

Uh appreciate it.

If I'm picking anything up, it's we have the opportunity to leave the fence next to the property owners as is, or put in a wood fence on the line that is now established and keep it on that level.

That would be a six-foot fence with two-foot lattice work on top.

Yeah.

And the property owners would have their choice, or would they all have to act in unison?

Um I don't know in the DRC um notes of approval.

I think it was not clear if it's you know all or one, but our our our intent is to respect the fence line and if if required or suggested uh by the neighbors replace the existing fence line in which the landscaping would respect that and not go into anyone's backyard.

Great.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

And then one question for the city would be we're picking up 6600 uh square feet in bioretention.

Is that correct?

And re uh runoff reduction?

Yeah, yeah.

So I'm certainly not an engineer, so I can't give you the factual information about the area requirements for uh bioretention based on the amount of impervious surface, but um I would trust that the applicant's um reference to 6600 square feet is correct without going to the uh stormwater control plan to verify.

Very good.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Stuckenbroker, no questions at the moment.

Wonderful.

Thank you.

Uh and I just have one clarifying question.

The um the city will maintain ownership here, is that correct?

Yes.

Uh if I remember correctly, the lease agreement goes through sometime in 2058.

Okay.

So it's a ground lease?

I believe so, yes.

And they'll and will they have a say in the final uh user of the project?

The uh, I don't know what you'd call it, uh, hotels can have a flag operator with the operator.

I don't think that's spelled in out in the credit, but I'm open to that.

Wonderful.

Um, last question.

On the um, was there a I think I saw something about it uh being open till 10 o'clock at night?

Was there sort of a um was there a time that needed to be, did it need to be open till 10?

Could it be open until eight?

I was just curious if there's any flexibility there, or that's sort of an operator requirement that they can talk about.

We reached out to three major operators and they were all very firm on that.

Okay, almost more firm than the the size of the building.

Um, so that's wow.

Okay, it's important.

Yep, understood.

Uh no other questions from me, so thank you.

Uh you can sit down, and then I will open up the public hearing.

Um does anyone needed uh file break or anything like that?

Are we ready to go?

I think we got a lot of cards here.

All right.

Well, I'm I'm gonna open up the public hearing.

I'm gonna read through these cards, and again, if you would like to speak, please come on up.

Oh, we got another one, all right.

Because you put it in last, you're going first.

Uh, may I call forward uh Loretta de Grey uh degree?

And I'm also gonna I am gonna limit this time to just because we have so many.

Is it typically I know it it varies at times, but maybe um two minutes?

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Loretta DeGrief.

I live at uh 561 Fernando.

I live at 561 short Fernando Drive.

I live right across the street from where the development is.

So from my front door, I look out at this building.

My neighbor across the street is they're backed up to the um the property.

A couple of my questions, as um, is the concrete that's existing there going to be removed?

Because it almost seems like it's you're acting like it's not going to be removed.

It's gonna be all dug up, and all the stuff underneath that.

Is that going to be exposed?

We're gonna be exposed to whatever's under that.

That's no, that's one of my questions is what's gonna happen with that.

Um, is there some kind of environmental study on what's underneath all that concrete that's been there for quite a while?

Um the fence that's on my neighbor's backyard.

Did anyone ask the neighbors at 561, 562, and 564 if they wanted to keep the fence?

Um Mark, did anybody ask?

Just you.

Anyway, anyway, that's that was my question.

So did anybody actually ask them?

And is a six-foot fence?

You've got this 35-foot tall building that's a hundred and something feet away from you, and if you look at the the story polls, it's it's pretty high.

And is there gonna be a six-foot fence going to be reasonable?

And is it going to be secure?

It's easy to hop over a six-foot fence.

I have seven foot fences or six-foot fences with the lattice on top in my backyard, and I could still hop over that fence.

So, how secure is that for the people that are to um the people that live around there?

Okay.

Um, almost dub, so the hours of operation, that's I mean, 6 a.m.

on a Sunday morning to 10 p.m.

And do we do we really need to have that much ex that much time open?

Um, and what is what's gonna be the value of the property when you guys, when the city gets it back after 30 years?

This building's gonna be 30 years old.

Is this gonna still have the same value?

So is what anyway, I just throwing out these ideas and wondering.

And nobody's really addressed the roads going into it.

I know other people are gonna bring that up.

The road going into this property.

We've got one way in and one way out.

It is a dilapidated road.

We have no sidewalks.

It's not very safe.

There's a grade that when you're walking your dog over on Davidson, there's this grade, and it's a blind.

Thank you very much, by the way.

Really appreciate your comments.

Sorry, there's so many folks.

I'm gonna have to move along here.

Thank you.

Uh Jim Madden.

Hey everyone, thank you for uh letting me speak.

Uh I wrote something down, just kind of um some thoughts I just wanted to share with everyone.

Um so I just wanted to kind of um uh something's been going through my head that I just wanted to kind of have you think about as well.

And is like the idea of like just because something is proposed to you or brought to you doesn't necessarily mean it has to actually happen, right?

So before you make any decisions on approving this project, I would ask you to uh take a moment and put yourself in the shoes of the people in the adjacent neighborhood.

Um, you know, really think for a moment about how you would feel if you lived in a small neighborhood with one janky road in and out, and now you have to worry about your property values or noisy traffic through your neighborhood, or cars parked on the side of the road, or trailers parked on the side of the road, or um, you know, how this will affect the feel of living in your neighborhood.

Um, you know, we even already had uh neighbors of ours move out because of this, and no, that was a big loss to our neighborhood.

Um, you know, as the developer pointed out, um, you know, they said we've got uh a hospital and with that has tons of light pollution at night, and the sewer treatment plant, which occasionally smells, but you know, I have to ask um how it makes sense to put a building uh to counteract other buildings.

It's like saying, you know, hey, I have leukemia, so let's give me lung cancer to help me really ease into dying.

So, you know, I wonder why we would do anything, even remotely industrial there.

Maybe a better use would be to rezone the property and do something more meaningful and less intrusive with the neighborhood.

Um the developers also made a point that this took a lot of time to put together.

And I would like to point out that just because something was hard or took a lot of time doesn't automatically mean it has to happen.

I work in software and in software engineering.

You could spend months on a project and the company decides to go a different direction and you have to shelve your your code.

So I mean, shit happens.

Uh so again, just leave you with the idea that just because something is presented to you and um you know, it doesn't have to happen.

So just thank you, Mr.

Yeah.

Appreciate it.

Uh Ron Alcosta Acosta forgive me.

Hi I'm Ron Acosta.

I live in the neighborhood.

Yeah and I'm a contractor also.

I was wondering if the U.S.

Department of Fish and Wildlife do a study on this or the EPA.

Did they get in contact the city of Novato?

No?

They should.

And if you're gonna be uh drilling old concrete.

Usually it has asbestos in it.

That we don't want to affect the uh neighborhood you know there's a frogs the major breeding ground for frogs and they keep the mosquitoes down if you have overpopulation of frogs I mean of mosquitoes you have it you know you can have West Nile virus and it would affect these people in the city of Navado should know about that.

That's a liability right you know I mean here's an attorney here obviously so you should keep that in mind.

Also the illumination of lights on people will affect their health too.

It will also affect birds and pets and migratory birds.

That's a major area for migratory birds.

They come in every year you know and it will affect their food source and they'll start running into buildings so the U.S.

Department of fish and wildlife knows about that and the EPA does too.

So the city should really check with that and you know keep you guys out of trouble.

Also like I was saying when you start concrete and water don't mix you know so there's wetlands but and they're protected by the the government so keep that in mind.

And also these I work in the city a lot so these places are incubators for crime and people trying to hide stuff you know you look on forensic files you could see that you know I mean it's pretty it's pretty dangerous so I'm sure Justin knows about I mean can see that because he's the green sopposly so you know thank you we were we're all human here in this whole building right so we're concerned about these people you know and their kids and we don't want people breaking into their homes you know they work really hard to keep their homes and their home values so keep that in mind.

So I think the EPA I don't know if they did they get in touch with the just so everyone knows the questions we're we're writing them all down and then we will ask the okay thank you.

Yes I just thought I would we can't engage unfortunately so you know when you get really old concrete in schools you know you got asbestos.

Okay.

So if asbestos gets in the I will I will certainly aspect of it thank you Mr.

Acosta time is up awesome.

Julie Ann uh forgive me borrow forgive me yeah I live in the neighborhood too 595 I just have a little bit we do not need to have a storage union in our neighborhood because it will create a lot of traffic and plus the neighborhood already deals with freeway noise and the storage unit is not necessary.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Eileen Volowitz down to my level I live in the neighborhood and I would like to bring up the access road Davidson.

Walking on Davidson is a challenge.

I have to cross Davidson to get to the park.

I have to walk on Davidson to get into town via DeLong.

I have to walk on Davidson to get to the smart train station.

I walk on Dave and Davidson to walk my dog.

There's one road in and out of the neighborhood.

The same road goes in and out of the corporation yard.

The same road will lead to this storage unit.

I just read in the traffic study that we're expecting 107 more trips per day on Davidson.

Usually when I walk on Davidson and I've been walking on Davidson for a few decades now, there's only one car at a time.

And it slows down when it sees people's drivers slow down when they see people.

And this road is used for walking because the neighborhood roads are very narrow and there's cars, and we're an entire neighborhood without sidewalks.

So it's the nearest place we can walk if we're so inclined.

Some parts of the road are have a an incline, a hill on one side, and a ditch in the other.

I know the ditch well, I've fallen in it before.

And if a car comes by, they can move, I can move, but I can't step off the road to make space.

With 107 more trips per day, we're going to have two-way traffic some of the time.

And there's barely enough room, I think, for two cars to pass.

I don't know what the minimum width of a road is to accommodate two-way traffic, but once there's two-way traffic, there's no place for people.

And I'm concerned mostly about that.

So I would appreciate someone looking at that and making sure that for those of us who live there that it's safe for us.

Thank you, Mr.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

I'll keep this quick.

And I'm a tenant at one of the other self-storage facilities, and over the course of two years in storage, the uh rate was raised four times.

Would have been nice to have another option.

And I think, you know, some of the changes that have been proposed and uh, you know, the concessions, I think that is a good thing.

So that's all I'll say.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr.

Demson.

Hello.

Hello.

Um I'm Hilary Peters.

I live on Fernando Drive.

My rear fence is along Davidson Street.

Um I must continue to object to the size and scale of this project.

It's simply too large, especially Building C, which will be easily seen for our neighborhood, considering that it has points as high as 37 feet, and parts that are 39 and a half feet for the elevator.

These heights far surpass the height of the surrounding single story homes.

The 3.31 acres of that parcel, which has been abandoned for decades, currently provides enough of a setback between our neighborhood, the wastewater treatment facility, and the city's corporation yard that we do not see or hear either of those existing industrial facilities from our homes.

If a three-story self-storage facility is built, when we look to the east, instead of seeing skyline, we will see Building C and we will hear the noise of the moving vehicles and the banging of storage unit doors, opening and closing from 6 a.m.

to 10 p.m.

seven days a week.

I still do not understand how the planning department legally determined that self-storage facilities cannot be considered habitable habitable uh space and as such, that for 40 percent far and 35 feet height limits of LIO zoning do not apply.

None of the other self-storage facilities located in LAO zones in Navado exceed 0.4 far or 35 foot heights.

The same goes for the parking.

There is no street parking available on Davidson Street to compensate for the lack of parking at the storage facility.

Why is this particular project an exception to that zoning rule?

What sort of precedent will it set for future storage facilities?

A city should be bound by its own municipal codes, including zoning and building regulations, even when constructing on city owned property.

No one, including the government, should be above the law, and a city should not be allowed to arbitrarily disregard its own regulations to benefit its own interests.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that it was during a closed session city council special meeting, which the public was not allowed to attend that the city of Nevado decided to spend taxpayer dollars on the purchase of 501 Davidson Street.

It is also my understanding that there was no public bidding process for the lease to this property, so no other potentially interested parties were provided with the opportunity to propose other uses of this site for the state of California to ensure fairness and prevent the misuse of public funds, competitive bidding procedures are relevant and sometimes required for leasing public property.

The Navado taxpayers have not been provided with any other options for use of the city owned land.

Some of the other permitted uses of LIO zoning include live work facilities, printing and publishing, research and development facilities, health and fitness facilities, studios for art, dance, martial arts, music, bookstores, florists, business support services, personal services, and plant nurseries and garden supply stores.

Have any of those other permitted uses been considered?

Are the tax-paying residents of Nevado allowed to have any say in how the city owned property is used?

Okay.

I know I have so many points.

Um for the project's plans between buildings A, B, and C, there are a total of 34 units that are 10 feet by 20 feet in size, 19 units that are 10 feet by 25 feet in size, 13 units that are 10 feet by 30 feet in size.

Thank you, Miss Peters.

Sorry.

I just I want to know is heavy machinery going to be stored in these, and will it be.

Thank you.

I very much appreciate it.

Again, Norman Hall.

Norman Hall.

My name is Norman Hall.

I live at 594 Davidson Street.

Our family's been there for over 61 years.

I just want to make sure I understand what's going on here today.

Are you, after all this, going to be recommending or not recommending that this uh construction will continue?

Is it up to you to make a decision after what we say tonight?

Uh remember, we cannot engage with you.

This is just a you speak, and then we're writing down all your questions, and then we will discuss afterwards.

All right, thank you.

As you know, our family has been living there for over 61 years.

If you know the history of that area, you can imagine what the people in our neighborhood had to go through when the freeway went through.

That was quite an undertaking.

And we went along with it.

I wish you could have been there and suffered it with us.

At 594 Davidson Street, I can tell you that the traffic in front of my door has made such an impression on the road in front of my house that has never ever been fixed.

And I don't think there's been any talk about what they will do when you guys move in.

There are about four enormous nasty holes right in front of my house.

And I don't think that's going to be doing any good to see all the traffic coming and going.

I want you to think very clearly that the NIMBY situation is always prevalent.

And I understand that.

But we live in a very closed, quiet facility area.

And we've had to deal with a lot of problems already.

And the idea of a whole new facility moving into our neighborhood is going to be a real challenge.

I know my time is up, but I want you to think clearly and deeply when you make your decision that it's not just a matter of I've lost three cats, one dog, in front of our house.

And it's not because of any um nonchalance of all of laws keeping up with us.

It's what's actually happened.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate it.

Shane Griffin.

Mr.

Griffin.

Hello.

Oh no, I got to raise it.

I just two things real quick.

Um I don't follow it, but my wife does very closely.

Next door Novato, I don't know if anybody's ever heard of it.

She's always saying this car got broken into on this street, this happened on this street, there somebody broke into this house on this street.

Nothing has ever happened that I know of in our neighborhood.

No car break-ins, no car stolen, no house broken, because even somebody at the city said they didn't even know we existed, the neighborhood.

Nobody knows they think it's a dead end if they get off on the long.

But my biggest concern is somebody has brought it up about the walking.

You so you said you walk the neighborhood, and I appreciate anybody that took that field trip that started at the long and walked down Davidson all the way to the to the uh end of Davidson.

It is a challenge.

The once you leave the Jewish center, that there's a sidewalk, then the sidewalk just ends.

And then, like she said, there's a hill in a ditch that goes like that.

You have to walk on the street, and that hill tends to have vehicles go fast around that corner, and there's little girls that walk home from school over there overpass that they're in a group, they're probably in the fourth or fifth grade, but they walk together, and I commend the city tremendously.

Whoever manages that uh the city back there with the trucks and the workers, over the years they've done a great job.

They drive slow through that neighborhood, because I think they've been told over and over again to please drive slow and respectful.

But there's places on Davidson where if you have an SUV and a regular sized truck, you you can you one has to stop or pull over a little and let the other one go by.

It's it's it's and this is the city of Novato, it's not the county, you know.

So we're in the city, so I don't know what the solution is.

Widen the street, put sidewalks and proper drainage in.

Um it's uh anyway, that's all.

Thank you, Mr.

Griffin.

Uh Paul and East.

Hi, 577 Fernando Drive.

Um, respectfully, I would like to request that the project be uh put in the garbage or um discontinued and uh Mario or whoever come up with another feasible project because this is really a reckless, um dangerous project, and uh, first of all, uh any storage unit facility is all about the cash, it's automatic cash.

And I and I said from the beginning it was a done deal, and hopefully you guys will rethink and really consider what people are saying here.

Um, when you talked about the when the talked about the um the security overnight, I brought that up at the first meeting.

I just moved out out of to 10 years out of where the Deer Island uh storage facility is and they have um and most facilities in Marin and other places in Sonoma have um uh 24 hour living in uh managers and they and even with the live-in manager, Billy at Deer Island, um has had to go after people that have gotten over the fences.

He has full full security, and he's on it lives on the trailer there, and and he's had to go after people, and he has a dog that will help him go after people, but and it's a crime and a crime thing.

Um I disagree about Davidson.

I live across of Davidson from from the street that you can see up.

I've had to call the um make complaints with the police b quite often because of the tailgating and speeding city traffic, and they have to be reminded the city yard, the delivery trucks very fast, and we have these young girls.

I've also worried about them too, and I've contacted the city about it because they it's not just them, it's it's we have a lot of young mothers with strollers.

We have a it's just it's a very young, growing growing community, and um animals and everything have been killed there.

Thank you very much.

Respectfully.

Thank you.

Sorry, but just no, don't apologize.

Thank you very much, Miss Nees.

Um I have a Elker, forgive me, uh El Kiv.

Meeting, it's Lauren Elkin.

Elkin, thank you, sir.

Thank you for the time.

Unlike uh the other people who have been talking to you, I'm speaking for the community of Novato, or at least what I feel is the community of Novato in terms of there is a very, very limited amount of space and low and mid-income, there's a lot of low and mid-income apartments we have here.

We're getting a lot more.

And one of the biggest problems that came up the staff brought up is the fact that there's not any storage capacity, and we desperately need to have some storage capacity.

This is probably the best use of that land.

Granted, there are some issues being addressed talking about traffic, talking about a variety of other things, but they've all been addressed by the staff and by the applicant.

We already know, and I think it was important to note, design review found the project was consistent with the general plan.

It was maintained and enhanced the community's character according to the design review.

They said it's not material injurious to the properties or improvements of the vicinity, and it does not interfere with the use and enjoyment of existing or future developments, and it does not create potential traffic pedestrian or bicycle hazards.

And I think one of the other things that I think is important is is that they've been all sorts of studies that were done.

We can't ignore those studies.

I understand there's a lot of people.

I deal with EPA, I deal with fish and wildlife.

Um, and I understand some of those things, but I've I have faith in our city staff and I have faith in the developer that he's he's acted in good faith.

I think listening to all these comments, there's no doubt that the applicant and the staff have addressed and resolved the issues of traffic parking, noise, light trespass, mass invisibility of the building, and screening between land use.

Novato needs more public storage capacity, and I'm urging this commission to do the right thing for the community and allow this project to go forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, no, whoa, no, no dialogue in the crowd, please.

No dialogue.

Daniel Walker, Daniel Walker.

There's a Daniel Walker.

Hi.

Danielle, for example.

Daniel, that's really high.

Uh Daniel Walker, 586 Davidson.

Um, so all those 107 cars, or 58 cars would pass my house twice on each trip.

Um I actually don't want to talk about the building.

I'm not opposed to development on the site.

I don't like the scale of this project, but development, I'm not against that.

Um I would like to ask the city whether there was a lot of talk today about encroachment on lands.

Um we have this property, the city of Nevada has this property because Novato encroached on someone else's land for decades.

So I would like to know whether the lot lines have been adjusted to make sure that that doesn't happen in the future and that the considerations for the neighbors are made.

If there's going to be an exemption, there should be a formal agreement so that way the developer cannot come back later and try and find uh remediations against people who are encroaching on their properties.

I'd like to protect my neighbors.

Um, I'd also like to know that if this passes, and if you guys go ahead with the agreement and you endorse this, what does the city plan to do to bring our streets up to um code for having a commercial use at the end of the business at the end of our street?

So not only the width, but the walkability, the lights.

Um, for those who came out, you probably came out during the day.

The lighting actually stops just past my house.

So there's another quarter of a mile of unlit street down Davidson.

So imagining cars going down in early morning or late at night.

That's a safety hazard for my family, for our neighbors, for the drivers.

Um I'm sure that the top-tier property manager that they're gonna hire is gonna be great at securing their property and their renters' assets.

I would like to ask the city of Nevado to put some kind of exemption into fast track, streamline or approve any permits that homeowners have to get in order to harden our spaces, to protect our homes, to heighten our fences, to put in any gates or anything like that.

So, will there be any consideration for the uh steps that we'll have to take as homeowners to protect our homes and our properties against the influx of traffic and the influx of um unaccounted visitors to our streets?

A lot of people have talked about how the city workers have gotten to have gotten to understand the rhythms of our street, but they are accountable to us, the residents, because they drive up and down, they work down there.

These will be unaccountable drivers.

People who are coming to check out the facility, have no idea how fast to drive, don't know where our stop signs are or where the families live.

Um, I would like the city to make plans for the residents that will be impacted by this.

Thank you very much.

Jennifer Roy.

Hi, I also live in the neighborhood, 568 Lewis Drive.

Um, the section of Davidson Street between Lewis Drive and 501 Davidson is only about 18 feet wide.

Per Murrin County Code, Davidson Street is classified as a residential road and residential roads are required to be 36 feet in width.

I request that the city increases the street width to 36 feet.

So Davidson become a legitimate two-lane residential road.

According to the Nevada municipal code, Davidson Street is not a designated truck route and has a weight limit of five tons.

As such, vehicles exceeding this maximum gross weight are prohibited from using Davidson Street.

Most of the heavy construction equipment that would be required for this project far exceeds that weight limit.

As you know, there are no sidewalks on Davidson Street.

That's been talked about already.

There are no gutters or stone stormwater management systems in place on Davidson Street.

That's an issue, as well as a not sufficient street lighting along the streets and also does not have any speed limit signs posted.

Um request that the signs of no more than 20, 25 miles per hour are added to help prevent vehicles from speeding up and down the street.

Um I want to address our community's needs for the city to provide us with full transparency regarding this property, its history of PCB contamination, flood risks, and its proximity to the Deer Island based in wetlands, which contain existing cultural resources.

And in closing, I just want to say that it seems like the city made a mistake when it built its corporation yard on property that it did not own, and now is a remedy to recoup some of its 5.8 million losses.

And finally, Shirley Hall.

And again, if anyone else would like this, please come on up.

Welcome, thank you for hearing us.

My biggest concern, I live at 594 Davidson.

My biggest concern is the traffic.

The traffic is tough because as everyone has said, Davidson is uh has no sidewalks, no drainage.

It's one way in and one way out, and I we walk our dog twice a day all around our neighborhood.

And when I'm on Davidson Street, if if trucks are coming from different directions, I have to find a driveway or someplace to scoot off the road because there's barely room for them to pass.

And it's dangerous.

And so I can't imagine I'm not even thinking far enough ahead for the traffic for a storage unit, but I'm thinking about the construction traffic and how disruptive that will be.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

With that, I'm going to close the public hearing.

Um what I might recommend here is um in lieu of a rebuttal at first, I was thinking I would go through just a list of some of these items.

Many of the items that um the residents brought up, really seem to be those things were directed towards the city.

Some of them seem very technical, and I'd love to hear some of that, maybe before uh we hear a rebuttal from the developer.

Would that would that be all right uh with staff?

Um, because I did make a list here.

Um so one of the first things I wrote down was uh the environmental and geotech of the demo.

Can you speak to any of that?

And why there might be risks or not risks?

Yeah, before we dig in.

Yeah, forgive me.

Could I suggest maybe just like a 10 minute recess?

You know, just because we've been out of that would be fine.

That would be fine.

Just just to uh stretch the legs for a minute.

Yeah, everyone, let's do uh you want to do 10 minutes?

Let's come back at uh thank you.

Yeah.

All All I'm gonna put the microphone back on and I'm gonna bring Meg is everyone ready on our side?

Yes, all right.

Hello everyone restarting the meeting.

All right.

Um let me jump in where I left off again.

I was gonna ask some questions that came percolated out of the uh public um hearing, and I wanted to just run them by staff to make sure we have some of them addressed.

So the first one was uh environmental geotechnical of the demo, which presumably would be the um the current uh uh paving that's there.

And again, my question kind of lands on what what is this what is the city typically requiring, what mitigation measures, you know, anything else if there was something like asbestos, has that been tested, etc.

So it's a good program.

Take those off mute.

So it's a it's a great question, uh, one I probably don't have a specific answer on.

So um the question uh at hand was asbestos uh in concrete.

Some of which I believe apply to asbestos, I know um in past experience in working on projects that have um building demolitions typically a company will go in and characterize whether or not there's any asbestos containing materials and then direct a remediation before the uh building is uh demolished.

I don't know that about concrete though.

So I would have to defer to the air quality district and their expertise in that particular issue and also the experience of a demolition contractor who farms that work.

Yes, so they would only get a demo permit from the city with proof of a um J number from the air quality district.

Um, I'll circle around again.

I will circle back around with the um developer at the end if um if perchance there's an expert that you had, such as geotechnical engineer or uh else or civil engineer that they could weigh in on some of these items that the staff misses.

Um the uh so the I did mention environmental but biological.

Some items came up about frogs, about the adjacent wetlands, just curious, um birds, bats, etc.

I would guess some studies have been done.

Can you tell us a little bit about that and any mitigation measures that would arise from um the demolition and construction.

Yeah, so uh they did have a biologist uh do a site visit and do the sort of the record search of what might be out there uh based on the habitat conditions, and uh that biologist did have some recommendations for the project, those have been included in mitigation measures.

Um they didn't find any habitat on the site.

However, due to the proximity of the wetlands, there were some recommendations regarding uh pre-construction bat surveys, bird surveys, um I believe there's even one for before they demoed the building to make sure there wouldn't be any reference bats or birds roosting in a building.

Uh so that was on there.

Um so yeah, in summary, uh the biologist that did the site visit wrote the uh report, did include a number of um mitigation measures that we turned into conditions of approval to ensure that uh the project demo and construction would be consistent with the uh general plan EIR mitigation measures.

I'd also add that there is a condition about a particular type or color of lighting in the project, and that's intended to avoid any sort of disturbance of the nearby wetland area.

Wonderful.

Okay.

Uh this is a big one, and that's Davidson Road.

Um we heard a number of comments, concerns about Davidson.

Could you talk to us a little bit about the upkeep of Davidson Road?

I assume it's a public uh right-of-way, the or lack thereof, I should say, of Davidson Road from the city.

Uh you know, again, I feel like there was a lot of comments on this, and it feels more like something the city should, you know, speak on rather than the developer.

Well, I'm gonna throw up the planner card.

Um typically road maintenance is handled by our public works department, and they do so based on the pavement index scale uh where they go around and they have certain thresholds for pavement repair, um, and that that guides their decisions and where um new paving projects are proposed and other improvements.

Uh, for this project, what is expected of the applicant is what's called a half-width improvement.

So out to the center line of the street for the distance of the property's frontage with Davidson uh street, would be repaved uh curb gutter, and that would be for mainly drainage purposes, and that's part of the condition of approval tonight.

And one of the things that staff did want to clarify in that condition of approval is that those improvements are only required for the frontage distance along the property frontage distance along Davidson Street.

So just to summarize um planning staff, we're not aware of any um pending projects or future projects involving repaving or other improvements to Davidson Street, other than what might occur for this particular project.

So, but uh a number of safety issues were brought up, of course, on the street.

Was anything even you know, obviously the this project is not built there yet.

Uh, there it sounds like there's already issues there.

Has the city been identified?

Is the city identified this roadway as something they're looking toward to maintaining, improving, etc.

I'd have to defer to public works to answer that question.

Um I don't believe our public works engineer or consulting engineer would have that information that really comes from our capital improvement program division.

It's certainly something I can take back to them and ask them about, you know, where does this roadway stand on their uh pavement index or study and what might be the future in terms of improvements for it?

And I can certainly send that out to the commission.

Okay.

Um but everything that's being done, again, it's uh for the everything on Davidson, nothing's being done to the main road, it's just in front of the front of the actual property in the project, right?

That's correct.

Okay, just making sure.

Uh environmental agencies were brought up.

I know we had already addressed this, but there was talk about the EPA, there was talk about uh fish and wildlife, etc.

I'm just curious, is that um is isn't there another time that we address that?

Uh so I don't believe as far as our typical project referral that uh this project got referred to the EPA um I believe it I'd have to go back and look but it probably just got referred to the typical reviewing agencies that review most projects I do know it did get sent to the flood control district because they do have the adjacent um property ownership and whenever that scenario occurs um we do um refer it to them um yeah okay can I add on to that answers so what we typically do with a project is we will look at what we call the Cortesi list so it's a series of websites where we would look to see if there's any listing for a property as having known contamination this particular property has a history of a leaking underground storage tank that was remediated back in the early 1990s late late 80s and there is a case closure letter from the regional water board that says that agency was satisfied with that cleanup so other than that record there were no other indications of any other issues involving the EPA either the federal or the California department or the regional water board.

So with that information we would typically not go any further in a review on this particular property.

Okay.

Crime crime came up a lot I just from a planning planner's perspective how do you look at crime how do you address how do you have project kind of address crime in any way and prevention thereof.

Yeah I think on a general as a general statement as planners we typically are not regulating land use based on the potential for criminal activity to occur you know we don't if a bank's propose we don't look at criminal statistics of the likelihood of this bank being robbed or you know that sort of thing so for this project we didn't specifically look at the compatibility of this project on Davidson Street and with the surrounding land uses from a perspective of do we believe crime will occur after this is built okay um there was a really good question about formal lot line adjustments for the neighbors and how that's going to be how you can proceed with that and I don't know if it's more of a developed question or you so there has been no lot line adjustments involving these properties they they sit as as they were purchased I think after a survey was done obviously there is an encroachment by the neighbors uh immediately uh abutting the site to the west and the city has made a decision at this point not to do anything uh but reserves the right to certainly exercise its property rights in the future um so it's an open ended question and for the time being it's gonna be left as is okay and maybe the developer could provide a little insight on that um finally at least on my list and then I'll open up to the commissioners for anything I might have missed from this um from um uh everyone that came out tonight uh is the neighborhood and if they if there was any if there's any improvements that anyone wants to do to their house to their neighborhood is there uh I believe she asked if there's an expedited path there to get something done again it wasn't specific but so it really depends on what what a homeowner is planning to do with their property uh if we're just talking about something as simple as a fence uh it may not need a building permit may not need a planning permit um there's certain thresholds uh other improvements uh I think we were hearing about security improvements uh lighting um bars on windows things of that nature um I think it depends on what the building code includes and what the scope of that work is.

So they would all be addressed on an individual basis, and they would fall in with all of the other permits that the city gets.

But the uh the internal roads there are not uh private, right?

So there's no ability to gate the street, for example.

That was just jumping in my head.

I don't believe those roads are private.

Okay.

Okay.

Um those are all the questions that I wrote down that were very specific is is there any other ones that I might have missed from your side?

Um that I think that relevant to staff.

I think you captured the ones.

Okay.

On that note, I think I'll welcome the developer to come back up and speak to anything that they'd like to.

Thank you.

Riley heard from the applicants team.

I also made a few notes, just some brief responses before you begin your deliberations.

Um, first is just an observation.

And what we have here is a property zoned for industrial use that happens to have been vacant for an extremely extended period of time.

Can I can I jump in real quick?

I'd actually prefer it if the developer at this point kind of stuck with answering questions just because we're not going to let the public get up and kind of make their pitch again.

Yeah, I don't want the I don't want the dialed back and forth.

However, I did want to, I um that yeah, that is fair.

I actually I do think we should stick to questions and making sure you guys can speak.

If if you could address any of the questions specifically that not only we brought up the or the youth concerns that maybe they had, sure.

Thank you.

Stick to that.

Um first of all is the concrete removal.

Um this is a very significant investment.

So both a phase one and phase two environmental study was obtained before we even considered embarking on this.

Those both came back clean.

Um, the J number was referenced.

If you've been through that process or familiar with it, uh you end up with um significant number of BMPs, a SWIP, all these technical jargon that basically says when you're doing this removal, here are the things you need to do to contain dust, drainage, off flow, what does it do when it rains?

So we have that covered.

Um let's see.

Davidson safety.

So uh that really to me comes down to trip generation.

So less cars, less statistical chance of pedestrian problems, bicycle problems, etc.

So I listed some of the uses from this zone.

Uh someone else uh from the public listed many potential uses.

All of those have exponentially higher trip generation rates in the ITE manual.

So for the Davidson safety issue, the key is getting a use in here with the lowest trip generation possible.

Um, another issue that came up was the FAR.

I think staff went pretty deep on that, so I won't discuss that further.

Uh another issue that was brought up was parking, and we just wanted to point out that these are poll two units.

So the parking spaces are really mostly for staff or someone who might be interested in leasing a unit.

When you go to a storage unit, it's to drop off or pick up, and these you drive to your unit.

So I just wanted to point that out.

You would never want or need 60 parking spaces here.

That would be totally, totally crazy.

Um, Commissioner Havill asked about the granting of an easement, and just wanted to note uh, although it's been said that you know the applicant will not own this property, they cannot grant easements.

Uh, but they did say, hey, we don't want to do anything to the fence line.

Fences come up from almost every commissioner, just restate.

We're flexible.

Whatever you want, the neighbors want, staff want will we'll make it happen.

You can't have a fence that goes masonry wall, wood, old cyclone with IV.

So, yes, it has to be uniform, but again, happy to address that.

And I think as far as only questions.

Uh oh, the final issue was uh was the crime and and the comment about that.

And I I think all I would I would point out two things in that regard.

First of all, you're looking at a state of the art new top facility that brings a certain clientele versus long-standing, dilapidated other types of buildings.

My second comment is the customers here are other Navado residents.

That's who need storage, not people from far away or anything like that.

So these are your community members that are coming.

And that's it.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

I do have one question.

Okay.

Oh, and I'm sorry, Jack.

Um, as far as the operations, I'm assuming that that once the building is constructed and it's ready to open for business, um, stuff kind of floods in.

And I can see that being a bit of a hassle if you have a dozen moving vehicle, you know, moving trucks um clogging up.

Perhaps the operator can make appointments so that there's only two, and I'm talking about the three-story building.

Obviously, the garages are in and out and a lot quicker.

Does that make sense?

Is that something that you would embrace?

Uh I I I think you might be surprised by what we call the absorption rate, which is um the manner in which these things get leased out.

So um the studies show that it will take a significant long build-up period to um market, attract the customers.

Perhaps people are coming from there's a guy who spoke, you said he's a customer somewhere else.

So it it it actually doesn't ramp up as vertically as you might think.

Okay.

I appreciate that answer.

Okay, thanks.

Chair?

Yeah, it's I would actually if does everyone have questions for the developer?

Is that I have one question.

Okay, why don't we?

Yes, of course.

I wanted to circle back to one of the questions that had been raised in the public comment.

Uh one of the speakers had uh expressed concerns about the hours of operation and creating noise and uh disruptions to a point by residents.

Um it didn't really seem fitting to have staff address that, but if you wanted to have any comments on measures that you're taking to reduce the impact of those hours of operation, I recognize that they're not flexible with the top tier operator, uh, what steps uh the applicant will be taking to mitigate those disruptions to nearby residents.

Yeah, so first of all, the key to the hours is the um uh low frequency of visits.

That's the most important thing to me.

The four trips per hour would have a very difficult time of so you got four people in one hour might go in and out of a storage unit.

It's hard to imagine significant noise generation from that.

That being said, um abatement through design was the key, and that was the inward-facing nature of it.

The outside is hardened, you know, structure without penetrations that lead to noise escaping.

So it all faces inwards, got the timing, and um that's that's really the plan.

And the setbacks, which were greatly increased.

Thank you.

Commissioner?

Uh, thank you.

My question is what do we generally speaking consider at capacity?

Meaning it's great to have a hundred percent.

That's not reality for many national institutions that would be operating this facility.

In the larger context, is this sixty-five percent would be traditional normal full capacity with the 35% space, or was that 85% something along those lines?

You know, we're at all around 75.

Three quarter percent full.

Got it.

Well, that's mostly due to turnover.

I uh but it's the context, and that's important.

So thank you.

Yeah.

Any other commissioner questions for the developer?

Okay, not seeing anyone, I'm gonna bring it back to the commission for deliberations.

Thank you very much, Mr.

Bird.

Yeah, I'll close the public comment period.

Technically, um, okay.

So bringing it back.

If does anyone have any more questions before we weigh in on kind of where we think we might go tonight?

I think staff has suggested there was going to be another condition or an altered condition.

Uh were we gonna speak about the f it was it the defense or was it?

Well, the defense is here already in red, but I think there was something else to do.

And it's the condition speaking to the half street improvements.

42.

Oh yeah.

What page is that on?

Forgive me.

What page?

Got it.

Thanks.

If you have something it would be great to be able to show that 22 section A, I guess.

42.

Is this the uh special condition of approval here?

I could read it if you'd like.

Yeah, I could also pull it up here very quickly.

You're just taking a sidewalk.

Again, this reads a little vague that doesn't um so this is specific to the I'll let you put it up before we speak.

Let's see.

That works.

There we go.

So it's condition uh 42.

And what we would like to do here is to clarify A, so again, sidewalks are not required uh for this frontage improvement, and we want this condition to make sure that that this front improvement is only required for the distance of the property, the project sites, frontage along Davidson Street.

I see.

So the suggested language change here would be uh frontage improvements along the project sites, frontage at Davidson Street.

Understood.

Okay.

And we could we could figure out better wording if that's the desired.

Yeah, this is yeah, this would is vague.

Okay.

Um we did want to talk about the fences, correct?

Is that was that that was asked of us to really kind of discuss that?

Or I'm sorry, that maybe one of us had brought that up.

Forgive me, Commissioners.

I did.

And I think the condition that they put forward is is okay, but it does call for uh so it's page 16 looks like the order to pull that up.

Thank you.

But I see it as a as a bit awkward in that again the area is is gonna be dealt with um for a hydrology basis, um, in order to make sure that it's gonna drain properly under that bio swell or out to the wetlands.

And so it seems to me that that it's right now a Blackberry, you know, jungle is gonna get cleaned up or um dealt with.

And so I think when that's happening is the same time to talk about fencing and landscaping and how it all fits together.

I I don't think we can do it tonight.

So is the concern that the fencing somehow influences the drainage?

If you yeah, if you walk the site, so at the west corner of it, it's higher, probably 20 feet higher than the property we're talking about.

And on the equivalent of the property line now is a drainage swell.

It's it's an open ditch.

And that I believe I I think I heard from the applicant is gonna get addressed through engineering and to make sure that the water drains appropriately through there.

I'm assuming that that means that that a lot of that landscaping is getting ripped out of there so that it's either culverted or cleaned up so that it actually the water's gonna flow because I don't think it can stay the way it is and address hydrology.

Commissioner Roche, did you have something to say on that?

We should probably get clarification on that because I do not think that that is for the entirety of the property.

I think that's for a small corner.

It runs the length of it.

But that's the the uh change in elevation.

I thought it was more conden, I thought it was more concentrated in one corner.

It's it's this the site will ultimately be flat, but there will be a slight grade change to direct in the water until it's a points at the north northwest corner and then along the west property line that slopes sharply.

Okay, so it doesn't really show itself well here, but this is the uh drainage plan.

And the corner that I believe Commissioner Tierney is speaking to is right up here where you see my cursor moving.

And it looks like there's a little bit of recontouring happening in here, and then you see this right here, this arc arc here that is a drainage, drainage ditch um going through there, and you can see the direction of flow, and I'm trying to look here.

It looks like it goes into an underground system at that point.

Looks like there's a collection box there, and then the drainage will split the other direction down to another collection point.

Um I think drainage is covered here.

We do have a condition of approval that a construction detail drainage plan will come in, and then our um our civil engineer Laurie, who um is here this evening, um would take a look at that, do a plan review, and then uh either decide to approve it or not at construction.

So if you'd like to hear from Lori on this issue, we could have her come on or please, okay.

Lori, hopefully you can hear us if you want to come on and there you are.

I can't.

Hey, I'm here.

I'm sorry, my camera stopped working for some reason, so I apologize for that, everybody.

Um, but yes, uh uh City is correct.

Uh this project uh we'll we'll go through a detailed design.

But the overall the concept is pretty good.

I think as the owner had stated, the site is paved currently, and it will be paved, you know.

In fact, I think it's even maybe even a little bit less.

So it's actually um for a project, you know, so close to the creek and everything, it's actually pretty easy uh from a drainage perspective, and um yeah, it'll it'll it'll be handled and we'll definitely be able to watch that at the improvement plan level.

But for the entitlement level, I believe the applicant has given enough information to determine that this is his drainage plan that will work, and um, and we should be able to work out these kind of details uh during the approved plan phase to make sure the final design, you know, will not create any problems.

Okay, um, I don't I don't recall that being included in our documents, so that is interesting the way that the drainage is flowing.

What would happen?

What's let's assume that that drainage is what's the final product.

What happens to the the ditch?

Let's see if we have another drawing here.

Oh, go ahead, Lori.

I can't uh well I'm trying to look on my screen.

Unfortunately, I can't see your screen, but uh the existing ditch, I think remains.

You're talking about the one at the rear of the project, kind of behind the bio retention swell.

But there's that is that a ditch at their no this would be at the uh upper upper corner near, I think it's 658 Fernando.

Um, there's a price.

Okay.

So we also have the applicant civil engineer here.

So it makes sense.

Yeah.

So we could actually have the civil agent.

They designed it.

Why don't they come up and speak to it?

Yeah.

Do I need to reopen the public meeting if we're bringing in an expert?

Okay, just make sure.

Good evening, everybody.

Um so yeah, as most of the residents know from Davidson Street, there is a hillside slope down towards the property.

And so that concrete drainage swell will capture all that runoff.

Uh it's been sized appropriately to hold a 10-year storm of it.

Um, and it does convey it to a collection system underground that then discharges to the uh stormwater treatment.

So, okay.

So, what's gonna happen if that's the case to the ditch that's there?

Uh well, proper maintenance will obviously be a big part of the uh site.

Uh maintaining that uh for proper drainage will be key.

Um, but I think it's a large uh increase from what's there existing as far as the size of the soil and to capture the amount of water.

Um, um and then you do have the bioretention area to help you know absorb some of that water back to the ground.

So, so okay, so uh that's what I assume that the bioretention basin was all about was to capture what was coming down that ditch.

Correct.

Um but apparently not.

Apparently that's for runoff sheet runoff from the actual site.

Yes, it's both.

Well, it'll correct uh sheet runoff from the site, collected into an underground system that then discharges to the bioretential.

Okay, so what's the point of a bioretention if it's all being culverted and and sent to be treated?

Oh that's good.

Well, it's uh part of the BATMA requirements are to uh treat any new um for any new development, treat the hardscape.

Okay.

Fine.

Okay, thank you.

That's all good.

Um, sorry, I I'm still not I think we're talking about the fence, right?

Well, it yeah, and I think they're related, but uh okay.

I think we can just talk about the fence because apparently drainage is being dealt with down parallel to Davidson.

Um, but it'll require some kind of fill.

I mean, there is a great difference.

It's a significant one when you're standing on the property where this applicant is, and you look, you're looking right at people's back doors right in their back bedrooms.

Um and they're above you.

And so uh certainly if you put a six-foot fence, they're gonna see right over it.

That's that's not blocking anything for the people unless the grade changes.

So I think you're saying, Commissioner, that the site's lower.

Absolutely.

The six foot plus the two on top, right?

It's eight feet lattice.

You think that they'll still be a hardly making a difference.

Interesting.

Uh where any studies, I know there were some visual studies, but were any visual studies done that address that?

And through the chair, let me interrupt.

Well, hopefully, landscaping softens it and makes the difference up.

So, you know, um I that's why I I would support this resolution that it be mutually agreed to by the property owners on the other side of the fence as well as the applicant.

Um this is a section drawing with a site line back to the larger building.

But where is that taken on the site?

So that's from the backyard of one of the residences.

Okay.

If I understand Peter's point, yeah, it's that that section would be quite a south of the northwesterly corner of the site because the the backyards, the the the lots that those houses sit on, are stepping up, sloping up significantly from north to south.

So that section is very different from one house to another.

So we're talking about this area right here.

Commissioner, keep going.

So keep going down, Steve.

Keep going down along the west property line.

Oh, sorry.

UPS truck in the way.

Oh, wow.

Okay, it's even better.

So it's just see if we can get around the truck here.

This is altogether different than what we've been focused on.

So we're looking at this corner right here.

And right, that's what we started for drainage.

Run it, follow it down.

Follow it all the way down the property line.

No, the the west.

Well, I can I can only get a street view, I can't get I can't get into the property.

Okay.

Well, you can arrow it.

I'm sorry for interrupting.

And Commissioner Roche, I'm sorry, you had a comment uh given that you uh.

Right.

There, there you go.

So if I'm hearing you correctly, and it is kind of important what you're talking about the grade here.

So if we're looking at this, you're stating that the grade is severe all along the residential side.

And when I say the residential side, I mean the neighborhood side.

Yeah, the homes that are on Fernando are higher.

Okay.

So if that is, in fact, the case, you're also stating that there needs to be um it needs to be raised.

Well, um, that is the end, then along with that, how does this play into relative to the treescape that was agreed to relative to where the um fencing may or may not be, and will that uh treescape still be going in regardless of which side of the fence those trees are gonna lie on?

I would hope so, but I think that again that needs to be uh internal dialogue with the people affected, impacted and and whether it's the city or the applicant to minimize.

It's not gonna go away.

I mean, it's even even if you put I from what I could tell, uh a sixteen-foot fence, they're still gonna see part of that project.

Um, and so that's unavoidable, I think.

An unavoidable impact that they're gonna see something.

I'm just talking about minimizing it and providing some privacy in their backyards.

If they choose to continue with their fences, like we put in this resolution here, fine, keep it that way.

But I think if not, it there needs to be some kind of an accommodation along that line.

So, Mr.

Marshall, do you have any uh, yeah, I'm gonna add here, maybe you can see in the in this the photo here, there's a large amount of tree cover.

Those trees remain.

They they don't change.

Um we're also talking about what would be a six-foot solid board fence with another two feet of height, and depending upon the distance of the viewer to that fence, it's the question of whether or not you can look up and over to a building.

Um I believe we had some section drawings here that um I'll switch computers with Brett that you can take a look at.

Commissioner Tierney, are you concerned about I mean it does feel like they have options and they get to weigh in?

So that's you uh you're suggesting you're okay with that, but you wanted to want to make sure that some of these details, such as the topography are looked at.

Exactly, and particularly if hydraulic was going to be addressed, that meant that the area was gonna be engineered and perhaps it could be a better solution.

That actually does a pretty good job of showing the swell.

Yeah, okay.

And so the so the landscaping you have there is is dead on the property line, or is that on our side of the fence?

Well, remember the fences in this instance encroach on the city's property.

So well, the landscaping would be with or the tree that's depicted here would be on the city's property.

Okay, so how how have the residents reacted to to this landscaping to the the existing trees that are there?

They're not gonna be removed as far as I know.

The proposed proposed landscaping, I I don't know.

Yeah, they've had the the neighbors have all been noticed, the homeowners in those units have had the opportunity to come to several design review meetings and this meeting, it was part of the design review package, was the the yeah, okay.

So this was shown during the design review, and what I'm hearing from the applicant is they will individually reach out to those property owners regarding the fence design, whether it's to leave the existing fence as is or go with the wooden fence at the uh eight-foot height.

Okay.

So you you wrote you wrote this amendment, correct?

I believe that was a condition of approval that was provided to the design review commission uh but had been omitted from this resolution, so it was added in.

And and I'll support it.

It's just I I this idea that you know, um existing fence remains if property owners prefer, then obviously they're gonna still put up a security fence for this project.

Uh I don't know that that's that's the case.

Um I would defer to the applicant if they were going to add an additional fence beyond what was there or what exists there today.

Okay, but either way, I and there could possibly be two fences.

I mean, I wouldn't make sense for them to assume that chain link fence is secure.

I think I think that's a question for the applicant.

We're we're only showing on this particular plan a single fence, and from our perspective, it's either the existing fence that stays or it's the new wood fence that's an either.

So that's the way from a staff perspective.

I don't know if the applicant has a different plan there, so maybe we address it by making sure again it's called out in here that they're gonna, and it already is that they make the decision and work with it.

Yeah, because the way I interpret this is could be both.

This could have not only the existing fence remain, but the applicant's entitled to put their security fence up at six feet with lattice.

So I'm just looking at the condition to see if there's a way to resolve this issue.

And I think this is difficult because the homeowners themselves can come in and say, I want a different fence and put up their own.

So I think well, I think what we would ideally want here is a commitment to a single fence.

Um whether it's the existing one or the proposed fence.

And I'll be honest with you, it's really the if the applicant is constructing the fence, it's really their discretion.

Agreed.

Yeah, agreed.

So uh again, as I read this potentially two fences, they can keep their existing one, but there's not there's no question of my mind, the applicant's gonna put up something for security purposes.

And that's okay.

I mean, I that's fine.

I but that's the way I think this is probably a good point for the applicant to weigh in.

If they if they want to talk about the intent of fencing, I may ask the applicant to um just just come to DIS and let us know whether they're planning on doing two fences.

Um as we've said, we're flexible, I think.

Yeah, so we're not gonna replace half of it.

I think practically speaking, if there is a majority consent through the neighbors that they wanted a replacement, we would just put one fence.

Right, but the wood fence would be enough for security for you with the lattice on top, or you'd like to see and remember, yeah, the security would be from, you know, I don't know how the public or any other criminals are getting into their yard and then jumping over that.

So again, it's up to the I mean, you know, you're I don't I don't think any of uh the residents here want to do that.

Well, there is a lot of break in at the at the uh I guess it's the end of Fernando, it butts into that, you know.

It looks like at one time there was a an extension considered perhaps for a road.

So there is kind of an access point.

Um do you care if there's do if they say I'm in love with that vine and blackberries and all, I want to keep it.

Would you build a second fence to protect your property?

Uh I don't particularly care.

Okay.

That's fine.

Then we can I think this is fine.

Thank you, sir.

Okay.

On to deliberation, perhaps anything else, Commissioner Chair.

Well, maybe we'll just start with the deliberate, we'll get into the finalize this, sorry, with the deliberations.

If there's any other questions, I just want to speak speak now.

Staff.

You know, just clarification, not question so much, but the planning commission is the decision maker on this application.

Correct.

And it is appealable to the city council.

Correct, staff?

That's correct.

Okay.

What's the appeal period?

Just like you're asking.

I'm sorry, what was that?

The appeal period.

Appeal period is 10 days following the action.

Okay.

So this is the deciding body tonight.

Uh, any commission is a deciding body, and the fee for an appeal is uh $500.

So there is a there is a fee for that.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And then uh you did have one question or commissioner.

Yeah.

One other thing I wanted to ask staff to maybe expand on a little bit is the conditional use permit, as I understand it among many things, requires the operator to manage and operate this facility in a certain professional manner, right?

And complies with lots of standards.

And that means that the city has the obligation over time to come back to the applicant if there's observation of mismanagement of some kind or some reason to revisit some issues.

And specifically the reason I'm bringing it up in this in the light of the input here is the comments have been made along the lines of um activity that this will bring to the neighborhood, but also the long hours.

And if the long the operating hours, whether they're long or or not, but some perceive them to be.

If that becomes an issue down the road, is there potential recourse to address that?

Yes, that's correct.

So a use permit allows uh full discretion to the commission in terms of determining what the appropriate hours of operation are in this instance.

And based on that, this based on the decision that the commission makes this evening, if there are complaints about issues later in the evening, um certainly this use permit can be revisited.

Um staff would usually try to work with the applicant to resolve those issues without going that distance.

However, if there wasn't cooperation on that issue, a city certainly has the ability to come back and modify a use permit uh based on operating conditions that aren't um consistent with the local code.

Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Roose, you have a question?

Hours of operation, just to reconfirm, and if those hours of operation meaning there will be staff on the property during those hours of operation, and if the staff isn't on the property, will people have access to get in?

I think what we've seen, and I I'll defer to the applicant on this, is most of these facilities will have staff there during what will be like an eight to five, but the gates are open a little bit earlier and longer with your key card access.

So there is the ability to be on site when an employee is not present.

Got it.

All right, um uh some I'd ask for I'd ask for some quiet in the crowd, and then I think we can start.

Um, Commissioner Crockett, any comments or thoughts before someone makes a motion?

Yeah, I'd like to make a couple of comments.

I think the um look at the history of the site when this uh when the frontier complex was active, probably was uh quite active, a lot of lot of um vehicles throughout the day coming in, those buildings appear to be over 50 years old.

Um, it looks to me like the site coverage is significantly less, plus the stormwater retention basin is a is an actual net improvement on the site in terms of managing stormwater.

Um, I think the traffic I'm I'm persuaded that if something's going to be built on this site, and and it can't, no one's bought it to turn it into wetlands, for example.

No good soul has done that.

This is probably generating uh the least traffic, it doesn't have any windows, so in terms of light pollution, et cetera, I think good measures have been taken for that.

Um, I think there's a lot of work to be done clearly for applicants communicating with the neighbors and working with the neighbors in terms of the fence, um, landscaping, targeting it to make sure it really does its job in terms of screening.

Um I think light industrial use is what this site is is zoned for, and I think it can be a legitimate transl uh transition to the other uh properties, you know, basically the front on this cul-de-sac.

So I I don't take exception to the use.

Um, I would just like to see that there's some additional conditions or some clarified conditions, such as mechanical equipment on the rooftop doesn't project above the parapet.

If it needs to, it can be put down in a well or some other accommodation for visual and uh sound mitigation.

Um I think the um I wonder if the applicant would be willing to study building B, which is 190 feet long.

In terms of security fence, you've got a solid wall for 190 feet.

Maybe that itself could serve as the security fence along most of that site and just rely on the rest of it for landscaping.

Now, I haven't thought through what might happen on that open landscape if it was accessible, but maybe that would help have less stuff on that part of the site.

Um, I think the um one concern I have about this is for the long haul, you know, from a sustainable practice standpoint.

Despite what I said about it, I think this is a an appropriate building for minimal impact in many ways.

When you look at the probably the economical structural grid, et cetera, it's probably not a building that can be adapted to much other use down the road.

So that's a that's a caution.

Um I'm not sure what you do about that, but if it may be a relatively short-lived building because of that, but I I guess the only other comment I really wanted to share is that I feel because we're being asked, you know, this has been through design review, and we're not really providing design review.

Again, you've already been through that.

But when I look at the site and I look at the site context, I feel like a two-story building I can make a case if I'm being asked to um try the scale that is an appropriate transition between industrial and a neighborhood.

I think a two-story scale is preferable.

Uh I think it's a better neighbor, less screening involved, and um better fit.

That's my comments.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Hamble.

Yeah.

Um I concur with staff's findings and SQL determination on this project.

Um the project applicant prepared phase one and phase two determination.

So not only did they do the historical research of the site, but they actually did sampling of what was beneath, so they do know what's under the concrete, and they've got a J number from the regional water or excuse me, the uh air quality control board.

Um, the air quality control board doesn't mess around.

They have a lot of standard operating procedures or standard construction measures that are required in a project.

So the phase one and phase two came back clean.

The Cortesi list showed that whatever was there was remediated and the case was closed.

So I I think that um that's been demonstrated adequately that that's um not a potentially significant environmental impact.

Traffic report repaired by qualified professionals used data and you know, uh information collection.

When you when you look at uh a CEQA document, um these are i that's information that's prepared by a qualified professional, supported by factual data, and it it they reach their conclusions based on that.

So what my colleague just said, yes, it's a a low impact, low-intensity use.

Um there's no rush hour for a storage facility, there's no um you know events at a storage facility, so it's it's a relatively um low impact, quiet use, and uh potential environmental resource issues.

Um environmental assessment was prepared by a uh qualified biologist.

They looked into all the issues, they collected data, they did their research on the background of the area.

Um again, these these are all things that looking at the site typically wouldn't be necessary because it's already a disturbed site, and it's um it's kind of it's overkill, frankly, for a project applicant to have to go through that level of environment that level of um research for for a site.

So I'm confident that the work that that's been done to determine whether or not there's potentially significant environmental impacts on the property is adequate, thorough, and very robust.

Um the issue of crime, um a storage facility um it for, you know, and I I appreciate one of the comments made that this is storage for folks who are living in apartments or uh condos or kind of more affordable sources of housing.

They don't necessarily have a garage or on-site room to store things, so this provides folks with um that ability and hopefully it's more economical and and it serves the public in that respect.

Um, I I don't necessarily I don't again, applications like this typically aren't referred to the police department for review and analysis, but um I'm not aware of any sort of study or finding that storage facilities or crime centers.

Um so I, you know, again, it's uh, you know, to to staff's point about if there's a proposal for a bank, we're not looking at is it gonna be robbed, and you know, that could argue arguably be a crime center that attacks attracts criminals.

I I so you know I don't necessarily see that as being a big issue.

Um, you know the the traffic um Davidson Road and and the condition of Davidson Road um and noise associated with traffic and and kind of congestion and whatnot.

I mean, we've got the freeway right there, we've got the smart train, we've got the sewage treatment plant.

Um when I was out at the site, the the freeway noise um was prevalent.

It just it just was.

Um at one point the smart train went by, I could hear that as well.

I wouldn't necessarily say these were horrible noises.

It was just part of the the acoustic landscape.

Um I don't necessarily based on the traffic study and based on the the levels of you know trips generated by this use, I don't I don't see how that's gonna significantly contribute to any sort of um additional acoustic load in the area.

So I'm I'm in support of the project and I concur with the findings that staff's made and would support the project.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Yeah, uh I view this as an in fill project.

Um it's been a use out there before Nevada was Novato.

Um it is zoned for industrial purposes.

Um so what I'm seeing is a fairly benign use out there.

I I know that the neighbors don't agree.

Um and what I'm hearing is no, no, no.

And I don't think that's an appropriate response.

I mean, did somebody, you know, we zone property, people own property, entities own property to use them.

And I think that this property is being put to use, and I think it's um it very interesting that over the last year and a half, the amount of accommodations or the amount to attempt to mitigate and to address issues as they raise.

Um it's outside their purview to fix all those roads and the and the drainage elsewhere other than their property.

If that needs to get done, I think staff was pretty clear, it belongs in the CIP, the capital improvement project.

You're probably about talking assessment districts.

I mean, it's not that's an old part of before Nevada was Novato, that was built, and it doesn't have the same standards.

You're absolutely right that the rest of the city does because it was so pre-dating many of the standards the city actually has.

Um I'm in support of this project.

I I again think that there's been a lot, a number of modifications.

I think there's been an attempt to address the issues that have been brought up, and I and I give them credit for that for you know hanging in there long enough because I don't think no is the answer.

The answer is how do we make this fit and get along.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Griggy.

I'll I'll keep I'll keep this short uh and I'll echo a lot of uh Commissioner Crockett's comments.

Um I also will point out that I think that Ms.

Walker raised a lot of uh important points uh related to ensuring that the neighbors' lots are not disrupted, that we that if neighbors do feel concerns about this development, that we do ensure that they can harden their homes as they feel necessary.

Uh and as Commissioner Tiernan pointed out uh that we look at you know improving Davidson drive in the long term uh because it you know, as the residents have repeatedly pointed out tonight, it is in need of improvement.

Um, the other the other thing that I would flag uh, I'm not sure if it would come before us or the city, probably to city council, but uh the I don't know if we've resolved the floor area ratio issue.

Uh well we'll if we approve it tonight, then we will uh in this one instance, but that might be something that city council may wish to take a look at uh in the long term because there are presumably lots of different uses that are not habitable, but and thus could be exempt from from the floor area ratio requirements.

Uh but with all that being said, uh, like my commissioners before that who spoke before me, uh I'm generally supportive of this project.

Uh, but I do hope that we will revisit the concerns that had been raised here tonight.

Um, and uh so perfectly encapsulated by Miss Walker's public comment.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Commissioner Roche.

Uh thank you.

Uh thank for coming out tonight.

I appreciate it.

I also think it behooves the city of Novato and CIP, public works, be it who it may, to be able to speak to Davidson Road when appropriate, maybe at the council meeting, get in front of this.

It just comes across to me as a bit of a passing of the buck, and I don't buy it.

So I would have liked to have seen public works had some involvement here.

Um it's really plain, it's really simple.

I've driven that road, and I agree.

I really do.

I think the fencing, it's a leap of faith for me here.

I wanna see those, I want to see that thick thick shrubbery come in.

I wanna see that forest of green to provide that wall for these homeowners.

It's so important.

And it's one thing to plant a tree, it's another thing to ensure that you've got that water uh happening, however, you want to call it water irrigation, drip irrigation, make sure it's happening.

How often is that checked?

Is it checked every four months?

Who's checking on this to make sure these trees are living and not dying in the first two years?

It's critical.

Those things are critical.

Speaking to Davidson Road is critical.

Do I support this project?

I do.

I want you to know that.

Okay.

Um the city of Nevada owns the property, the land.

It's what they choose to do with that.

And this is a step in the right direction, I believe.

There are not it's not perfect.

Um, but at least it's a step in the right direction, and I think um public works uh deserves your neighborhood an answer sooner than later.

Okay.

And drip irrigation and shrubbery and trees and privacy are what it's all about.

That's really important.

Let's be good neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Steckenbroker.

Yeah.

So I've been thinking about this for a while, and I'm gonna go based on being a small business owner.

I do need storage.

And the storage I find here in Novato is either too small or way too large and too costly.

I have a small business that I deliver and rent baby equipment, and I need a place to store my cribs and high chairs and such.

I can't put it in a little five by five, it doesn't work for me.

So every time I've been to my storage unit or when I had it, I would see maybe four people in there, never very many.

I mean, most of the people in these storage units are there long term, they go once, maybe twice a year for Christmas decorations or holiday stuff, or you know, like me, we have to go get a few items out of storage.

I know in a residential area, nobody wants to see a business come in.

Nobody.

I get it.

I totally get it because I live right next to a shopping center that is never gonna be built to anything.

Um I live in a very high traffic area.

I'm right by San Marin and Sinaloa High School or Middle School, right off Nevada Boulevard.

And being right off Nevada Boulevard, we don't see crime.

I mean, a few cars here and there.

My husband's truck was broken into, and all of his work tools were stolen.

It does happen.

And there's absolutely nothing.

Anyone can do to stop it if it's gonna happen.

Um cameras are a good deterrent.

Signage saying, you know, everything's on camera.

Maybe the city can do what like Tiburon did, and maybe put in some cameras, license plate readers.

Um I really don't know.

I mean, as much as I don't want crime in this community, I have to, you know, agree with everything they've said.

I'm not gonna go into all the technical part because they did plenty of that, but I'm talking as a business owner here in town.

You know, I need certain things, and I can't say no to something that is needed, definitely needed.

And I mean, I did see all the trees.

Um, I have you know, confirmation that they're planning to put in a bunch of trees and protect the habitats out there.

The trees will help buffer the noise.

Um there are ways to buffer it.

Um I know it's not the answer anybody wants it.

I I understand, but I am in support of the project.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Uh I guess it's finally down to me.

Um, first I did want to thank uh staff, excellent uh staff report and great job uh with everything you guys know for this meeting and being able to provide uh all the context.

I know there was a lot that happened here and transpired to the app and thank you for.

I know it's a long process uh in the city of Nevada.

I know you've been working with the city and trying to move things forward and ultimately listening to everyone I'm gonna thank next, which is all the residents.

Thank you for being here.

I know this is exhausting, and I know you feel defeated at times, maybe tonight, but you've designed a better project because of your engagement, and ultimately I've heard a few pro people mention that yes, the city owns the property.

And again, you know, I I would have sneaking suspicion you might be in front of council, even though we are the last body that might be an appeal.

And the city, the council, they are those decision makers on something like that.

We are just upholding the general plan.

And again, this wasn't a rezone, uh, and I think the use was appropriate.

Um, anyhow, without further ado, is there I was gonna ask for a motion, but was there some language uh that you needed us to include in that motion?

So you'll want to take each resolution separately, starting with the environmental review resolution.

So uh a motion is second and a roll call vote, and then when you get to the second resolution, uh same thing, motion second, roll call vote.

And uh I'd ask the maker of the motion to address the issue of the revision to the condition of approval.

And we can help with that if necessary.

Since I have it in front of me, you want me to read the read it because I know not everyone else does, and then maybe someone else can make the motion for what I read.

Is that possible, or can I just make the motion?

I don't even know.

Uh any member of the chair.

Any member can make a motion.

Then I'd like to make the motion uh for um a resolution finding the project is exempt from additional California Environmental Quality Act CEQA, review pursuant to pursuant to CEQA guidelines section 15183 and 15332.

Second.

Commissioner Crockett.

Aye.

Commissioner Havill, Commissioner Tiernan.

Aye.

Commissioner Griggy.

Aye.

Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Aye.

Commissioner Derby's an aye.

Uh the second uh the second recommendation resolution, uh, a resolution approving a use permit and design review to allow the construction and operation of a 95,400 square foot self-storage facility that includes 94,200 square feet of storage facility floor area, and 1,200 square feet of office space and three buildings at 501 Davidson Street, as depicted in the architectural plans prepared by Jordan Architects, dated December 20th, 2024.

Landscape plans prepared by Soviet Scapes, dated December 30th, 2024, and civil engineering plans prepared by CSW.

ST 2, Stro.

Um, dated June 27th, uh 2025.

So moved.

Or seconded.

Second, yeah, I made the motion and he seconded.

All right.

So address the amendments though.

Okay.

Is do I do that on this one?

Uh you can make that as part of your motion.

So the motion that we're hearing is the revised resolution that was hand distributed to the uh commission this evening, and then you'd want to acknowledge the revision to um condition 42A to recognize that that condition only applies to the project sites frontage along Davidson Street.

So, to add to my motion, I'll add in I was gonna ask, is it the um is it this piece?

This is already included.

You'd be adopting the whole resolution, including those revisions, and then we have this subsequent uh addition to make sure it's clear that for condition 42A that the project motion adopt the resolution is presented by staff, including the uh addition to clarify the vague language in what was it?

Uh condition 42a, condition 42a.

I still second it.

Commissioner Crockett.

Hi.

Commissioner Havill.

Aye.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Aye.

Commissioner Grigie.

Aye.

Commissioner Roche.

Aye.

Commissioner Stuckenbroker.

Hi.

Commissioner Derby's an aye.

Okay.

Anything else?

Uh staff?

Uh on anything?

Anything else we need to cover tonight?

Nothing else.

Okay.

Chair.

Yes.

One thing.

Commissioner Green touched on it, and I just for the sake of staff and guidance and you know where this goes from here, the Flourier ratio issue.

I think we were if I'm understanding, we're in agreement that Florida ratio, the way it's defined in the code, the way it was interpreted by staff, we're in support of habitable floor area.

The question of should it be amended, should it be changed?

I think that's a conversation that outside of this.

Um, it should be pursued in some sort of discussion.

Or for us to change something midstream, especially when the application has already been deemed complete.

You know, so just wanted to clarify that.

I think in case somebody in the future says, Well, what did the planning commission think about Floor ratio?

Right.

We supported the stops analysis.

Yeah.

I thank you.

Fully agree.

I appreciate uh Commissioner uh Havill clarifying the situation.

Yeah, I completely agree.

Okay, great.

Look forward to it.

Too vague, it needs work.

Yep, yep.

Okay, do you have a question?

Yes, of course, go for it.

Um so demos underway out there on Samborin Drive.

About the duration, do you know?

Is it a month long?

They're gonna be able to do that.

I'm talking about the fireman's fund correctly.

Yes, so for the benefit of the commission, uh staff issued a courtesy notice of the impending demolition of the firemen's fund buildings.

Um there's an expected up to four month period uh demolition, although things uh are weather dependent and sure other things can come up, so it could be longer.

I think it's okay.

A lot longer.

So is everything going up to the dump or we might uh we have a construction recycling ordinance uh where there's a diversion.

I I couldn't tell you it's it's handled by our building division, but there is a recycling component to the demolition project.

Okay, thank you.

Welcome.

Up to six months, yeah.

Alright, without further ado, I will close the meeting.

Anything else?

No.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for all that came.

I'm sorry I didn't go exactly.

Yeah.