The United States of America is the remote for which it stands.

One nation undergo.

Invisible Liberty and Justice Russia.

Okay.

Roll call.

Commissioner Havill.

Here.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Here.

Commissioner Crockett.

Here.

Commissioner Roche.

And Commissioner Derby is here.

We are missing.

Let's see here.

We're missing Commissioner Griggy, and we'll see.

He might come in at some point if he's a little late.

That's okay, right?

Yes, and we're also missing Commissioner Stuck and I'm not sure.

Oh, forgive me.

Yes.

Okay.

Well, we have a quorum, so that should be fine.

Approval of final agenda.

So moved.

So great.

Commissioner Hamble.

Hi.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Hi.

Commissioner Crockett.

Hi.

Commissioner Roche.

Hi.

And Commissioner Derby's and I.

Public comment.

I will open public comment for any items that are not on the agenda.

It's open.

And seeing no movement.

It is closed.

Alright, wonderful.

Consent items.

There are none tonight.

Unfinished another business.

There is none tonight.

So we'll start with the first hearing, which is Valley Oak.

All right.

Good evening, Steve Marshall, Deputy Director of Community Development Department.

Tonight I'd like to introduce Julia Doberstein.

She's a planner two with our department and she'll be making her first presentation to the planning commission seating on Valley Oaks matter.

So I'll hand it over to Julia.

Good evening, Commissioners.

My name is Julia Doberstein and I am a planner two with the city's planning division.

Tonight the planning commission is being asked to consider and possibly adopt a resolution approving a three-year time extension for the vesting tentative map that was granted to the Valley Oaks housing project.

Please note that the applicant has decided to withdraw their request for a waiver of park and loo fees, also known as Quimby fees for eight low-income houses within the project.

The Valley Oaks Project site is located at Pinkston Road off of Redwood Boulevard.

The development entitlements for the project were approved by the City Council on January 23rd, 2024, and the vesting tentative map was set to expire on January 23rd, 2026.

The project includes 61 single-family residential lots, four multifamily residential lots to accommodate 20 airspace condominium units and 18 common ownership parcels on an approximately 38-acre site.

Forty-nine of the single family homes will include junior accessory dwelling units.

The project is listed in the city's sixth cycle housing element as a pipeline project and was acknowledged to contribute to meeting the city or to meeting Novato's regional housing need allocation.

The project is required to provide 12.2 affordable dwellings in Valley Oaks North, with six dwellings reserved for sale to low-income households, and six dwellings reserved for sale to moderate income households, as well as four affordable dwellings in Valley Oaks South, with two dwellings reserved for sale to low-income housing to low-income households and two units reserved for sale to moderate income households.

The applicant is requesting an extension of the vesting tentative map due to delays in obtaining required permits from outside agencies for wetland fill and replacement at the project site.

These permits were anticipated during the city's environmental review, but were delayed following the discovery of potential tribal resources reported and recorded in 2016 at the Northwest Information Center.

The discovery of these records required a new cultural resources survey in consultation with the Federated Indians of Graton Rancheria.

The previously reported potential tribal resources were ultimately determined to have been incorrectly identified in records at the Northwest Information Center were corrected.

Once the information was corrected, the outside agencies issued the required permits for wetland fill and replacement.

The applicant has been actively seeking a builder to purchase the project, who would then record the final map and obtain the building permits to construct the project.

The applicant is now asking the city to extend the expiration date of the vesting tentative map because of these unforeseen delays.

Staff considers the applicant to have proceeded in good faith and exercised reasonable due diligence to advance the project, including compliance with the conditions of approval applicable to the vesting tentative map.

In staff's experience, the resource permits required for the wetland fill and replacement involve preparing complex technical studies and design documents to address the differing yet similar permit criteria of three resource agencies.

As a result, obtaining resource agency permits can extend well into the initial two-year time limit applied to the tentative subdivision maps.

Additionally, is typically the case that a residential builder will not purchase an entitled project until these types of permits have been obtained by the original developer.

Therefore, staff supports the vesting tentative map extension request.

Staff are available for any questions the commissioners may have.

Thank you.

Wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Great job.

Thank you.

Let the record show Commissioner Green who's joined us.

Um let's jump into some questions.

I'll start with Commissioner Havill.

That was a thorough staff report.

Answered any questions I had, thank you.

I'm good.

Great.

Commissioner Tierner, no questions.

Commissioner Crockett?

No questions.

Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Griggy.

No questions.

Commissioner Derby has no questions.

We've seen this.

Yeah, I believe many of us were on the commission's project originally.

Actually, Commissioner Durby.

Yeah, go ahead.

Let me ask for a clarification.

Okay.

Go for it.

So the request for the waiver of Quimby fees is off the table, correct?

At this time, correct.

It's off the table.

Got it.

Then I guess I'll ask one more question.

Was there anything else that the developer looked?

Obviously, not the Quimby, but was there anything else the developer was looking for for modifications this time around?

No, not at this time, just the three-year extension request.

And all the resource agencies are in hand now?

Yes, those permits have been obtained.

Great.

Awesome.

Okay.

I guess uh we could bring it around for discussion or someone could make a oh, forgive me.

Sorry, the public.

Ah, yes, the important part.

All right.

Ah.

I haven't seen any cards, so I've forgot about you guys.

I apologize.

Um, I'll open it up regardless.

Uh, but if anyone would like to speak, please come uh approach the diasp and then uh the applicant.

Does the applicant want to speak?

I'm sorry, I she didn't meant make a comment that the applicant wants to see.

One second, sir.

Would the applicant like to speak?

I did I didn't know that that was okay.

Yeah.

You were welcome to speak.

Good evening.

Robert Oxford.

Uh, so yeah.

Uh I'm not ready to say anything, but very happy to answer any questions.

I think you're very trouble with staff recall.

Um, as she said we're pulling the V Waiva reputation for the time being.

Uh if you've got any questions about the vesting tenant in that, happy to answer them.

Wonderful.

Thank you, sir.

Uh would there be any questions from anyone on the commission before I open the public comment?

All right.

Thanks for catching me, Commissioner Tierney.

You slip in there.

Appreciate your time.

Um, I will open the public hearing.

Anyone would like speak, please come forward.

Oh, sir.

Good evening.

My name's also Robert Atkinson.

Um, I'm a member of the Parker Souls neighborhood, president of the HOA, and um I appreciate the applicants' withdrawal of the park fee waiver request.

Um our neighborhood is um we don't have a pocket park, we don't have a park, we have nice open space full of ticks.

Um we don't have a place for moms to push scrollers, and um I've been in contact with Bay West.

Um, been talking to the county, talking to folks on the council, and um one of my, not my son's Eagle project, but maybe my equal project would be see if we can carve a pocket park out of the neighborhood for some of the young families that were that are starting to we're having turnover in the parts of all's neighborhood.

There's getting a lot of young kids, and I've been asked about the park by new residents, and there's some land available, and I hope to see um the planning commission again if I can um get a little momentum behind carving something out so the uh the collection of the fees would be very helpful in terms of trying to see the project like that.

So thank you.

Well, thank you, sir.

And if you wouldn't mind filling out a card just so we can have uh reservation.

Thank you.

Would anyone else like to speak from the public on this item?

Oh, there we go.

There we go.

That's all right, everyone's getting excited.

Get me energy going.

Hi, um, I'm Emily Larson.

Um, I'm on the Parks and Rec Commission, um, but I'm speaking tonight as a Nevada resident.

Um I got here a couple minutes late, but it sounds like the Quimby fees were removed, which makes me very happy because I was gonna come and speak for the importance of the Quimby fees for a city like Novato.

Um, uh the infrastructure that's going to be built there is very needed, and it's gonna be really wonderful.

And the Quimby fees really do help offset the parks that we have and the parks that we're going to continue to build for our Nevada residents.

We're gonna have all people of all ages come to this place.

So I'm very happy the applicant pulled that.

So thank you.

Um that's it.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

And please fill the card.

Would anyone else?

We're getting the popcorn.

Seeing no one.

I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission.

Does anyone have any comments they'd like to make?

Or would anyone like to make a motion?

You'll interview a motion.

I'll move the resolution.

To the time extent, I would entertain that if someone has a second.

I'll second.

Wonderful.

Uh so I will start over with you.

Commissioner Havel.

Hi.

Commissioner Tierman.

Hi.

Commissioner Crockett.

Hi.

Commissioner Roche.

Hi.

Commissioner Griggy.

Hi.

And Commissioner Derby's an eye.

Um, there was just one thing we need to vote on since the other one I think was the park and loo.

So that's correct.

There was a separate uh fee resolution there, but that's not necessary to address the CD.

Okay, so is the uh we done with this hearing then?

Everything passes.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you very much.

Uh we will be moving on to the next uh hearing item, which is McPhail's commercial offices.

And thank you very much for everyone.

Really, good job.

Um, that's all we're talking about.

Good point.

We wouldn't turn up the time, to talk about the time model.

Yeah, say hey, what's the discussion on that?

Okay, thank you.

I'm Caitlin Zatelli, senior planner.

And this item tonight is a requested amendment to the existing McPhail's commercial office development plan, excuse me, development master plan, um, to expand the permitted and conditionally permitted land uses to be those at the light industrial office or LIO zoning district within the master plan area.

So the master plan area is at 5400 Hannah Ranch Road.

Um is comprised of three buildings between Hannah Ranch Road Highway 101, and it's located just south of the Vinage Oak Shopping Center.

Um the existing master plan was last amended in 2018, and it currently contains a somewhat shorter list of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, which has limited um the types of uses and the tenants that are permitted to locate at the site.

Um the proposed amendment would take all the uses from the LAO zoning district as seen in the zoning ordinance, meaning we would just copy over those uh LAO land uses to the master plan.

Anything that requires a use permit would also require a use permit in the master plan.

Anything that's not permitted would not be permitted.

Um at the McPhiles site.

And this request is made recognizing that the general plan land use designation of 5400 Hannah Ranch is also LAL.

So tonight the planning commission is asked to provide a recommendation to the City Council on this amendment request, and that recommendation will be considered by the City Council at a future public hearing.

I'm available to answer any questions.

And then I'd also like to introduce Casey Clement.

She's on the applicant's team, and she also has a presentation, which I'm going to try to pull up here.

I was going to ask if you're having technical difficulties or good evening.

My name's Casey Baxter, and I'm here on behalf of the applicant tonight.

Staff has done a great job of explaining, giving a general overview of our application, and I'd just like to give you some context to help you understand why we're bringing forth this application at this time.

So I'd like to start by giving you just a very brief site history.

Historically, the site was used as a concrete batching plant for many years, though it sat vacant for decades.

In 2017, the applicant worked closely with the city to process a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from business professional office to light industrial office.

When the city originally processed the zoning change, office vacancy rates were at 37.5%, while industrial vacancy rates were at just 3.9%.

As a result, the proposal to amend the land use designation enjoyed unanimous support from city staff, the planning commission, and the city council, as it was clear there was a dire need for more LIO space in Novato.

Consequently, in 2021, the applicant completed the first class A light industrial office space to be built in Navado in 20 years.

In addition to the general plan amendment, a master plan was adopted, which limited the allowed uses at the site, and those are listed here.

Given this pared-down list of allowed uses, the applicant has attempted to fill the buildings with appropriate tenants, though it has proven challenging given this very restrictive list.

Currently, building A is owner-occupied by Thompson Builders, a locally owned general contracting company that builds large-scale commercial projects across the Bay Area.

Building B has been subdivided into six commercial units and is mostly currently vacant, though we have several prospective tenants in the pipeline.

Now I'd like to focus in on building B, which has been subdivided into six spaces.

The Moran County Fire Department is slated to occupy four of these units.

They intend to use the space as equipment storage with supportive admin space.

Prado's landscaping, a well-established local business, is planned to occupy one of the units.

And finally, the reason we're here this evening, Snakecraft, a local artisan millwork and cabinet maker, is interested in occupying one of the units.

However, the current master plan restrict restrictions prevent this otherwise permitted use.

The owner and operator, Mr.

Jake Ward, is here with us this evening along with his wife Liz.

Snakecraft is a custom fabrication and mill work team currently based in San Rafael.

They've been in business for nine years and specialize in crafting custom original woodwork, such as furniture, stairwork, and mill work, with an emphasis on locally sourced sustainable products.

Snake Craft currently has seven total employees, typically three skilled workers in the shop and four installers in the field.

City staff has confirmed that Snake Craft is considered a cabinet maker as defined by City Zoning Code.

While cabinet makers are an allowed use in the LIO land use designation, the master plan for this site currently prevents them from locating here.

Snake Craft represents exactly the type of skilled artisan manufacturing that creates quality jobs and serves the community without generating heavy traffic or industrial impacts.

Jake Ward and his team want to relocate to this new home in Novato specifically because it's a high-end class A light industrial office building, something that's very difficult to come by in Marin County.

As I mentioned previously, the LIO vacancy rates in 2017 were very low and they have not improved since then.

According to Cushman and Wakefield's fourth quarter 2025 North Bay Market report, the overall vacancy rate for LIO space in Novato is just three point six percent.

While vacancy remains very low, the site cannot fully capture that d demand now or in the future due to the existing master plan restrictions.

We respectfully request that that the planning commission vote to amend the master plan for this site to allow all permitted all uses permitted in the LIO zoning district.

This would bring the master plan into alignment with the city's LIO zoning code while maintaining the high quality character of the development.

Thank you so much for your time.

I'm here if you have any questions.

We also have our commercial broker, Steve Leonard is here, and um the owners of Snakecraft are here as well.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you so much.

Okay, bringing it back to the commission, um, I will ask uh, well, actually, sorry, I'll start with you.

Commissioner Havel, any questions?

No, thank you.

Commissioner Tier.

No, no questions.

Uh Commissioner Crockett.

No questions.

Wonderful.

Commissioner Roche.

Uh, I have a question, please.

Yeah, so basically we're looking at bringing the master plan into alignment.

How often is the master plan revised and does this type of change in iteration of the master plan, does that happen on occasion?

Here, I'm I'm unfamiliar with the context of it.

Yes, it can happen on occasion.

I'd say we have some master plans that have never been revised, and we have others that have maybe gone through several revisions, such as this one.

Um, it just kind of depends on the circumstances of the site and the owner and the applicants, you know, needs and wants.

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

Yeah.

Okay.

That's really the primary question that I had.

Thank you.

Commissioner Grigory.

Uh kind of in a similar vein, just to, you know, I'm as the newbie here.

Um, I'm just trying to I'm trying to think if if there are other additional uses that kind of fall into this gap beyond kind of the beyond what the Apple has in mind that are not coming to my mind at the moment.

Just want to make sure that I'm not missing anything.

Well, there might be other uses beyond um like the examples that she brought up, the the future uses later for the site.

It would be any uses in the LIO zoning district.

Um, just simply copy it over.

So if there's a use that's permitted there now, it would be permitted for the master plan if this was approved.

Right.

I'm just trying to think if there were if there are other like particular like the the idea like woodworking cabinet making, it's a very discrete use.

I'm just trying to think if there are other things that are.

I believe attachment A would be thank you.

Uh my apologies.

Okay.

Um I have no further questions.

Thank you.

And if it matters, I can I can also offer that oftentimes you will have a use that comes in that may not fit squarely as cabinet maker, uh, but the activity um can fall into a different category.

So when we get a use proposal, we go through and look at that particular use.

What is it involved?

And does it fit within some other category?

Even though it may not be, you know, known as one of our land use titles, but in effect, we can fit it into one.

So yeah, my question was be how long did this process take?

From when they came forward, perhaps when Mr.

Leonard found found these tenants.

How long is this process take?

So the actual this application, I think was submitted in November, if I'm not mistaken, but how it kind of came about was through a building permit review.

So Sneakcraft had submitted or the owner may have submitted on their behalf in our call.

Submitted a building permit, planning reviewed it, determined that the use was not allowed, and that was kind of the impetus for this process.

I don't recall when that building permit was submitted though.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I I fear that our master plan process is just allowed forcing us to jump through additional hoops.

I've personally am a fan of anything that allows a lot more flexibility.

So a tenant can come to a to a landlord and to be able to occupy space and then have to go through all this.

I mean, I keep thinking about your time, their time, all the time and money that's going into this, it feels very wasteful when there's a cabinet maker that just wants to use the space.

Um sorry to get on the soapbox there, but I will ask this.

Is there anything else that can be done here that will allow more flexibility for their buildings in the future?

I mean, we have more vacancies there, and it's all a good thing that I I understand there's a number of uses where people would be concerned about, right?

And that's why the master plan exists.

But we require use permits for like marijuana or whatever.

What would go in there that might cause some concern, but you know, cabinet making, and I'm sure there's a bunch of other uses that maybe fall outside of it.

Is there anything we can do to create to make a decision here that allows maybe more than is even being asked right now?

Is there any way to get more flexibility?

I like that you said you tried and fit things in, but it sounds like it's still pretty restrictive and prescriptive.

Nothing comes in, yeah.

So what you have in the list that's provided in exhibit A is equivalent to what's listed in the zoning code for the traditional zoning district that would implement the light industrial office 90s designation.

So basically where you have a uh site now that had let's say had 12 uses and the zoning code allowed 24, this site is now competitive and on par with other sites that have standard zoning that would have those 24 uses.

So I I think what you have now, you have the mo the greatest amount of flexibility beyond what was already provided in that master plan.

So that master plan was very, very limited.

Now you get the full breadth of the zoning code uses that could potentially uh occur at this property.

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

Uh what I mean by that is the exhibit A in your packets tonight mirrors the zoning code.

So if our use in the zoning code requires a use permit, it requires a use permit uh in this exhibit.

Since this is a master plan, you can change that.

You could say that that use that requires a use permit is principally permitted.

Uh, I don't think staff would would recommend that to all.

Um, you know, when we look at we look at how uses play together, there are some uses that um have you know activities that may disturb other tenants, um and so you want to control the use permit, maybe place some limitations on it, hours of operation, um, you may have some requirements around the number of employees or the intensity of the activities.

So I I think what we have in our code is good for this site, and it's probably good to leave it there.

Um, then again, there's always a flexibility to come back and ask for something different through this master plan amendment process, and that's really uh property owner or applicant driven.

Um, when you change a zoning code, that's usually something directed either by a council or a commission or even maybe initiated by staff.

So it's a little bit slower process to turn.

Uh so there's pluses and minuses to this master planning approach, um, but I understand what you're saying.

The pluses being what?

Pluses, so this property um, if you look at its configuration, the master planning process allows a site design and uh a site design that's actually custom.

So you can do setbacks that are different than your zoning code or a building height that's different.

So there is flexibility in that process, and what we have here is a situation when these buildings are custom designed to the site, and if you were to take it over, if you were to take the site over to a like industrial zoning, the buildings become non-conforming.

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

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

Variances are much tougher to support.

It usually has to be a physical defect in the property that it robs the property owner of rights or opportunities than another.

So you'd rather do a master plan.

The staff would rather do a master plan than just do variances for or even maybe look at zoning and maybe make that a little bit more flexible.

I don't know.

Obviously, both master planning and invariants are discretionary.

I think the findings to support a variance are much more onerous than the findings for a master plan.

Okay.

Yes, the only issue is in the last eleven years that have been sitting up here.

We continue to kind of come back and amend master plans.

Uh it just feels like it's an extra.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with this project, I think.

So maybe I'll get off the soapbox a little bit, but even though I have an issue with uh what we're doing is I just feel like it's takes up a lot of our applicants' time, it takes up your time, it takes up a lot of time when again something as simple as a cabinet maker coming in and trying to align with uh what is uh good zoning beginning.

So anyhow, all right, I'm done.

Sorry.

Um is there anything else anyone would like to say or discuss?

Uh public again, yes.

I keep forgetting it.

Okay, I'm gonna open up public hearing.

Would anyone like to speak?

Not seeing anyone going once, going twice.

All right, we will close it.

Okay.

Back to commission.

All right.

Commissioner Havill.

So I in following up on your comments, I guess.

You know, uh, this project, I my recollection when this came to the commission some time back was that there was a lot of uh hand wringing and public interest in its location, traffic, circulation, congestion, access, emergencies, and I think that is probably what resulted in a master plan that was restricted to prevent something from happening in the future that would, you know, open up the floodgates, so to speak.

So what I think we is incumbent on upon us as planning commissioners is to recognize that when a project comes through the door, it's hot to trot, and there's a lot of public interest in it.

What we know that the average Joe walking down the street might not, is that yes, there's a master plan being adopted, and yes, we can incorporate things like this into it that requires some sort of discretionary entitlement for for projects that are maybe need a little bit of extra attention.

Um, we know that that process is thorough and thoughtful, and that staff doesn't mess around with it, and that they do a good job processing it and considering all the different factors.

I think it's up to us to make sure that we recognize and put trust in staff because they're the technicians that are working with this code day in, day out, they know it, you know, very well.

They're professionals, um, and I think that it's again, it's incumbent on us as planning commissioners someday in a project where it's controversial or where people are very interested to kind of make that point.

Like, yes, we might be adopting this master plan or development plan or whatnot, but but help folks understand like this isn't this doesn't their concerns will be addressed through subsequent land use entitlements when the time comes.

If somebody's seeking you know, because I I think that's what's happening, or you know, to your point, as well as that's what happens, right?

So, you know, in this particular instance, yeah.

Let's I'm fully in favor of staff's recommendation and support the menu master plan.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I see this is a very challenging site.

Um I'm gonna support the the applicant um because it was a batch plan and the thing was was blighted for lack of better word.

Um I think it's an excellent uh use to try and make this property more viable.

So I'm in support of giving them that permission.

Thank you.

Commissioner uh Crockett.

I appreciate the discussion.

I think some good points are raised, but I'm uh bottom line is I'm supporting the application.

Wonderful.

Mr.

Roche, I'm supporting the application.

Wonderful, Commissioner Ricky, Grigie?

Uh likewise.

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

Wonderful, and I'm of course very supportive of the project.

Thanks.

Thank you for all you've done out here.

Um all right, so I'll is anyone want to entertain a motion.

We will have a new do we need to go through every one of these, I assume?

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

Okay.

I would move the draft sequel resolution.

Second.

Alright.

Commissioner Havill.

Hi.

Uh Commissioner Tiernan.

Hi.

Mr.

Crockett.

Hi.

Commissioner Roche, Commissioner Griggy.

I and Commissioner Derby's an aye.

Next up.

Okay.

So I'll move the draft master plan amendment resolution.

Seconded.

All right.

Commissioner Havill.

Hi.

Commissioner Tiernan.

Hi.

Commissioner Crockett.

Hi.

Commissioner Roche.

Commissioner Griggy.

Hi.

And Commissioner Derby's an aye.

Next up.

I would move to approve or to recommend to the city council the McPhail Master Plan site plan.

Wonderful.

You don't need to you with the second resolution you recommended all of the land uses.

The site plan was included in the packet simply for any other further action we need to take then.

No, I believe it's the two resos.

Okay, thank you.

Excellent.

Okay.

Well, that does it for that item.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Alright, on to general business.

Anything we'd like to touch on, Mr.

Marshall?

No, just a brief uh liaison report.

So for the next uh planning commission meeting on February 23rd, we're looking to have our annual housing report uh prepared.

So that's the report we file with the state each year to address our progress and working on our uh housing element.

So we'll be reporting out uh housing production numbers from the perspective of building permits issued.

And we'll also have a section of that table addressing our progress on implementing various policies and programs uh over the last year.

So we'll bring a presentation to the planning commission on that.

Uh you won't be asked to make any decision, just receive the report, and then it gets moved on to the council uh for their review and then it gets uh filed with the state.

So we have an April deadline on that, and we're you know trying to advance things here so that we make that deadline and leave a little bit of a buffer if uh folks want to have a further conversation about that report.

Yeah, how are our numbers doing for our housing element?

Uh right now it's slow.

Um I think this year we're probably gonna be reporting mostly ADU production.

Um we have a lot of projects that are entitled.

Um we are looking at um projects coming in for additional uh entitlement reviews so things like the firemen's fund uh canvas.

So I think on you know, going forward we'll have a very we have a very strong pipeline of projects to meet our regional housing needs allocation, but you only get to take credit when building permits are issued.

So that's where the market controls, uh not where the city has control.

So what are all the cities doing right now?

Because that's gotta be uh issue everywhere.

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

Okay.

So it's a watching, you know.

What's the next step?

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

Not yet.

I think that's the next uh application to come in and perhaps even the uh what I'll call the final designs or the objective designs of the different subdivisions and product in that project.

Wonderful.

What about the one right now adjacent to it?

Sorry, I'll catch you guys.

Uh one hundred.

Well, that you guys, yeah, the uh quick it didn't come before the planning commission.

Yeah, so that one, uh I believe they'll be filing for a final map uh here.

They've done their improvement plans.

Uh I think they're working on them.

Okay.

Yeah.

How long are our improvement plans taking?

So they go out for outside plan check uh review.

Hopefully that's fairly quick.

Um, probably a couple rounds of back and forth.

I you know, six months, year, yeah.

You know, it gets to the final map, the recording, um keep keep you uh I'd love for planning to keep an eye on that.

That's tends to lag in a lot of cities and it can easily turn into 18 months and um you know, no offense to any city engineers, but in some jurisdictions they can get very heavy-handed and it's almost like planning needs to kind of keep an eye on it, make sure it's still moving forward.

And I would also mention there's objective standards at play.

So there's also post-entitlement review periods, so there's a very tight envelope for cities to operate.

Um and then there's also the dynamic of the applicant's engineer and how quickly they can react and change things.

So it it is not a short process by any means.

So it's difficult.

No, it's not it's difficult, but it is something that can yeah, change a lot.

Um, okay, I'm sorry.

Oh, I have a question.

Was there any discussion along the way in terms of that development with uh two of the owner of the two office parts of the able to do more of the always to allocate that or not?

Is there anything special, especially with uh land and view infrastructure that will obviously be happening on the road?

On the near the fireman's funds?

Correct.

Immediately north of it.

Um, yeah, there is a so at the at the corner of San Marin and Redwood.

Uh no, but that that's a that's a really good session of itself.

At one point I thought, why not reorganize if there's a point B reorganization?

Especially with uh SST to reorient and rebuild the new infrastructure.

So I don't know that there's there's really no infrastructure improvements planned with the fireman's funds project.

They stay within the loop road and San Marin, and based on review of that project, um the carrying capacity of that infrastructure is acceptable for that change to housing.

Now, if you're talking about the um office building on the corner of San Marin and Redwood, um that was actually purchased by community action marin, so it's now their headquarters.

So I for the foreseeable future that'll be staying office.

I map the two off, it's not that big of a deal, but they're about two stories tall.

Each of them are maybe even the neighborhood and fireman file.

So that's that's the 100 wood hall building I think you're referring to.

Okay.

Uh so that one is slated to be uh demolished and redeveloped with I believe 60 single family homes.

Well, that would be part of the incorporation of the overall.

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

That was the one I was asking about.

It sounds like it's pretty far along.

So, it's a three-office.

It's a single building.

It it has two wings to it, but it looks like two, yeah.

Commissioner Tieran?

Yeah.

So first I want to make a comment.

I like getting those monthly reports about activity going on in the planning department.

I see that the the uh Samborin Drive.

Um I think it's San Andreas.

Um there was gonna be a meeting with the neighborhood.

Did that go off?

Is that something we're gonna see?

Yes.

Uh it did go um for a neighborhood meeting, and it would likely return uh come to the planning commission for recommendation to council.

So that's uh you know, obviously it's not agenda, so we can't talk too much about it, but essentially what it is is it is a rezoning proposal under a uh state law known as Senate Bill 10.

Um so that's coming forward um at some point.

So right now it's in the hands of the developer to consider the neighborhood input, and then they'll likely reconnect with staff and then we'll decide which way we're gonna go um in terms of design review to look at it.

So, um so uh although the applicant at the earlier hearing, you know, withdrew their request to have fees waived, um I'm pretty sure that we had put in the general plan that by way of trying to get more affordable housing that we were going to be looking to try and get fee reductions because at $90,000 a unit, it's pretty insane what it costs fee-wise.

Have we made any progress?

Or are those all such special agencies that it's out of?

So there's there's what the city can control, and then there's the outside districts that have their own connection rates.

So you're certainly correct, the housing element has a very broad policy uh and program addressing fees and other costs associated with producing housing.

And um I think we're gonna be looking here pretty soon at a development impact fee study.

So that would be spearheaded by our finance department, public works and parks and recreation, uh, to take a look at you know facilities demands, costs, and then look at what our uh development impact fee structure looks like.

And that conversation will happen in the context of the housing element that will be informative.

Okay.

We also have other um other items where we're looking at the fees we charge for processing.

So we're we're constantly looking at that.

I think you'll actually see in our annual report this year, we'll have statements on how we're advancing those particular items.

Interesting, interesting.

Okay, because it it does seem um fairly unfair uh as the newer residents come to Novato.

Uh the taxes they pay, whether it's property or otherwise, you know, um, are so extraordinary compared to the existing residents.

Um, I'm not sure that equity is the right word, but there needs to be some kind of leveling of the playing field.

That's what the development impact fee study does.

It tries to uh does it lays out what is new developments proportionate share versus what existing residents proportionate share.

So I'll call it the city share and the developer share.

Okay, so we'll we should see that on the 23rd.

Uh you won't see that specifically.

What you'd see on the 23rd is our annual housing report, and there may be statements in that report, not to check with Brett Walker, our senior planner working on it, acknowledging that we are working towards uh updating our development impact fees.

And I know it's touchy.

Oh, yeah, okay, thank you.

That's great.

Um yeah, just where you're about the bottom line with that policy report unless for us is that correct.

You so for the city to take uh credits where it's regional housing needs allocation, a building permit has to be issued.

All right.

Um nothing else, so I will open it up for anyone to move the adjourn.

There we go, seconded.

There we go.

Okay, I don't think we need to vote on that.

All right.

Thank you.

Just helping you out.

Yeah, no, appreciate it.