Good evening.

The uh normal chair is out of town, so as the vice chair, I'm taking over the role for this evening.

Um I think I need to have a roll call of uh call to order and then a roll call.

That's correct.

Oh, I'll make the call.

Okay.

So uh Commissioner Roche.

Here.

Commissioner Havill.

Here.

Commissioner Grinkin?

Here.

And Commissioner Tieran is here.

Excellent.

We have quorum.

Oh so I need a motion to approve our final agenda.

So moved.

Second second.

Go ahead.

Okay.

And I'll make a roll call in favor of Commissioner Road.

Hi.

Commissioner?

Aye.

Commissioner Grinky.

Hi.

And Tiernins and I.

At this stage we have public comment.

So if there's something other than what's on our agenda for this evening, I would welcome your comments.

So the next item before us is our consent calendar.

It is the extension of the Woodhollow residents.

Unless a commissioner wants to question it or have any kind of further discussion, consent calendar is typically you know a motion.

Yeah, I'd move that we approve the extension or the consent item of agenda.

Excuse a second.

Second.

Okay.

Oh so Commissioner Roach is an aye.

Commissioner Havill?

Hi.

Commissioner Grinkin?

All right.

And Tieran is an aye as well.

That would be a four-zero with three missing.

Um at this stage, there's no unfinished or other business, uh, but before us are some amendments for the public hearing tonight.

Consideration of amendments to the chapter 19 zoning ordinance of our municipal code, um, land use categories, um, implementing programs, and the six-cycle housing element.

Um the staff for this is um yeah.

This is feedback.

Yes, that we can.

Yes.

Um if you the floor is yours.

Yeah.

Uh good evening, commissioners.

My name is Vivek Dalmadarin, senior planner with the planning division.

Uh, and tonight I'm joined by my colleague Brett Walker, senior planner as well, uh, and we will be presenting the zoning ordinance amendment item.

Tonight the planning commission will be considering adoption of a resolution recommending the city council amend Chapter 19 of the Novato Municipal Code to modify uh several zoning ordinance divisions and sections and to establish division 19.29 and section 19.34.028 and finding the amendments are not subject to further environmental review uh pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act or CEQA guidelines section uh 15162, 15183, and 15061B3.

Staff would like to highlight some of the notable amendments that are being presented tonight.

Um these include uh changes to the zoning district descriptions to reflect updated definitions and development intensities in Novato General Plan 2035, uh land use table formatting changes and internal zoning ordinance consistency corrections, uh changes to the zoning districts development standards tables to reflect the updated general plan definitions and development intensities.

Uh a new zoning ordinance section to provide consistent permit processing requirements and procedures for housing development projects in accordance with state laws, uh an alternate option to the master plan and precise development plan process for housing development projects, and finally a new zoning ordinance section to allow for the transfer development rights to further protect listed historic and environmental resources.

The proposed amendments will modify descriptions and development standards for all zoning districts to reflect the updated definitions and development intensities specified in VOTO General Plan 2035.

These modifications are necessary to maintain internal consistency between the general plan and the zoning ordinance.

The table on the slide shows the new building density and intensity modifications and each of the affected zoning districts.

Additionally, the current zoning ordinance format was developed for print versions of the ordinance.

As such, we are provide proposing to consolidate and reformat several tables, including the land use and development standards tables for clarity and ease of use across various mediums, including the online version of the zoning ordinance.

The proposed amendments include a new zoning ordinance section that would apply to all housing development projects.

The term housing development projects includes any development project that contains two or more residential units.

This section is aimed at providing a permit process providing permit requirements and a process that will be uniformly applied to all housing development projects.

This ordinance will establish two tiers of review authority based on the proposed unit count in a housing development project.

The community development director would be the review authority for projects of 150 or fewer units, and the planning commission would be the review authority for projects with greater than 150 units.

This distinction between review authorities is based on the overall review time frames that is prescribed by state law for housing development projects.

Additionally, considering these prescriptive time frames and the limits on the type of review for housing development projects, the review authority's decision on a housing development project is not appealable.

The proposed amendments for our master plan and precise development process includes modifications to the requirements for our plan development zoning districts.

Currently, the zoning ordinance requires for the adoption of site-specific master plan and precise development plans.

This amendment would then provide developers with an alternate option to instead propose a housing development project subject to the standards of a zoning district implementing the general plan land use designation applicable to that parcel.

Now I'm going to hand it off to Brett Walker for our transfer development rights section.

Good evening.

So as part of the housing element, there was a program identified as program 2A, which directs the city to adopt a transfer development rights ordinance with the goal of increasing affordable housing opportunities.

So the draft ordinance includes eligibility criteria for both donor and receiving properties.

Regarding donor properties, there are two eligibility criteria.

One for sites with state or federally listed or registered historic buildings, and the second is for sites that are vacant and have environmental resources, such as sites subject to the city's wetlands, waterways, hillside or woodland preservation ordinance, sites that are located in the Baylands or flood hazard overlay district.

Are those sites located in the agricultural or conservation zoning district areas?

Receiving areas need to be located in the downtown or North Redwood general plan focus area, not have an historic or environmental resource on site, and have a land use that allows residential uses.

One is that the receiving property can obtain units up to 25% above the receiving site maximum density per the general plan land use designation assigned to the receiving site.

An example of that was if you had a receiving site that based on its land use designation could accommodate 100 units with this 25% provision, they could get an additional 25 units through the TDR process.

Regarding program implementation, this means that a donor property would need to partner with four different receiving sites to maximize that density unit count credit.

And from staff's perspective, we foresee that initially one donor and one receiving property developer would apply for a TDR, and if that were approved, the donor property would be required to record a conservation easement, which eliminates remaining development potential from their site.

The donor site would still retain 75% of that density and dwelling unit credits to potentially partner with other development developers in the receiving area.

A future use permit or amendment to the first use permit would be required for any subsequent transfer to a receiving property.

The ordinance also includes a provision that the receiving site would not be subject, the receiving site units would not be subject to the city's affordable housing ordinance, and this is created in there to incentivize the program.

So as I mentioned earlier, use permit approval is required.

This is a discretionary approval, so a TDR application is not guaranteed to be approved.

Additionally, receiving units would not be part of the base density for calculating density bonus.

So that base density would be based on the general plan land use designation for the receiving site, not including those extra units that they might garner through the TDR process.

Three are specific to the TDR program, and a fourth, which is not currently in our zoning ordinance is a definition for a vacant lot.

So as proposed, the downtown area and the North Redwood corridor are the receipt potential receiving sites.

The map also shows the Northwest Quad, but that is not part of the program as proposed.

This next slide just gives you some hypothetical scenarios for a receiving site.

And two with the downtown core that has 23 units per max acre.

And you can see on a smaller site of about 7500 square feet, that's the 0.17 acres.

Add in 25% of that 3.4, you get 0.85.

Add those together, you get four and a quarter units.

This would actually allow you to round up an additional small incentive for this.

Then I also have an example there for a five-acre site and then about a 30,000 square, 36,000 square foot site using the downtown core 23 units per acre max.

So with that, uh page six of the staff report does include a section regarding the planning commission considerations.

For the TDR ordinance, staff did identify the 25% limitation for receiving areas, and then also that exemption from the city's affordable housing requirement ordinance.

So these are two areas that we just wanted to bring your attention to that the planning commission may want to comment on.

And as I mentioned earlier, the exclusion from those units being part of the inclusionary housing ordinance, affordable housing requirements ordinance, we felt that it would be best to not require these units to be part of that calculation as another incentive for the for the program.

So with that, that uh does uh conclude staff's presentation, and Rebecca and I can answer any questions you may have.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

So let me first quiz the the uh commission see if they have questions of staff before we move on.

So do we have any questions uh regarding the text or this uh transfer of development rights?

I have a couple questions either away.

So first it just uh as the procedural posture, am I correct in understanding that a lot of the changes that were already that we're being asked to consider have already been adopted by council as part of the general plan that we're just being asked to codify?

Yeah, so uh planning commission reviewed it and then city council adopted the general plan uh back in October of 2020, and so it's just taking staff some time with uh getting these uh amendments before the planning commission.

But um on some of these, we've essentially been implementing them already when new housing development projects have been coming in because we do have the general plan as sort of um the guiding document to make those decisions.

Right.

So we're primarily focused on the two items that you flagged for us as things that you want our particular feedback, and the rest is all kind of more or less what the council has directed staff to do.

Yeah, I would say um the amendments that Vivek described are largely based based on bringing consistency between the zoning code and the general plan.

The TDR ordinances and the housing element as a program to implement.

Um but with that, there's not there's I would say a little bit more leeway in what the actual regulations are that are eventually adopted.

Perfect.

And now kind of just changing gears to uh the TDR proposal.

Am I I I just want to clarify just for my own sake, uh that you you mentioned that the the TDR bonus would not be would not then be subject to the density bonus.

So am I correct in assuming that they're both being applied to the base rate as opposed to like so if we start out with a hundred units and they had a 20% density bonus, they would be, and then a 25% TDR bonus, they would get 155 units as opposed to 25% of uh you know 120 and get a higher number from that or 145 units as opposed to 150.

So I can't do math at this late hour.

Yeah, that's a correct calculation.

You said 20% with uh density bonus, that'd be 20 units, 25% through TDR, 25 units.

So you add 100, 20, and 25, 145.

Perfect.

Just what yeah, just wanted to make sure I I had it correct.

Uh and then finally moving to the uh the review threshold.

Does it differentiate at all like the 150 units between like say a brown field in field development versus like a sprawling you know subdivision or anything like that?

Is there any it's just the the total units?

Yeah, and Vebek can step up if he can clarify, but yeah, it's basically just um written into state law into these housing laws that the threshold is 150 units, and it's not specific to location, whether it's infill or um green field development.

This is the it's just a number, it's there is no additional modifiers.

Okay, I guess that's something we have Sacramento to think for then.

Uh would it I I'm my my thinking is just that like you know, I I would hate for it there to be a scenario where like we have a you know you know Nevada prize itself on our on our open space, and you know I would hate for there to be like a subdivision that comes down the line that is like going to bulldoze you know a huge tract of land that we couldn't have an input on.

Uh but it sounds like Sacramento is once again tying our hands um on you know whether we protect that that space, but um just trying to think if there's any way that any wiggle room that there could be for us to you know potentially have an input on greenfield sites uh within the time frame that Sacramento has set for us.

But that'll I think it might be worth revisiting that after questions.

But sorry.

No, Mr.

Havel.

Yeah, those were good questions, actually.

I'm thank you for asking them.

And to build off of your your kind of last question scenario.

I don't think any land use planner who's good at what they do thinks that the amount of development that's being proposed or contemplated or pushed by Sacramento is a good idea because it starts straining all of our resources.

And I'm not looking at this from a not my backyard perspective.

What I'm talking about is actual real constraints that we have in the state of California.

Um if I put on my NIMBY hat for a second, there's also that part of me that's kind of like, and I think my neighbors and other people I've talked to in town, they're like, why is somebody else telling us, you know, like forcing this on us?

What so my question is this how how do we how do we push back?

Is there a way to push back?

Can we tell Sacramento to, you know, when do we come to the Republic of Nevado and tell them, hey, you know what, we're good.

We're you guys you're you know, we don't have unlimited water like you think, we don't have unlum unlimited land like you like I feel like there's a lot of assumptions being made about what we are, what we have, and at some point local control is is necessary to preserve those resources.

I mean, is that something to stop talking about that?

Is it uh how do we well I think uh the one thing that we do definitely make sure we do a good job on as staff is that when these um housing development applications do get submitted, some of them do have uh siting criteria, um AB 2011, um SB 35.

Some of these state housing laws do have very specific criteria that they have to meet.

So we as staff try to do our best to make sure that they are actually compliant.

Um outside of that at the local level, it's real difficult because you know these really are state mandates that are coming down to us from those state laws.

So um yeah, all I could say is maybe contact your state representatives.

Right.

I I guess I mean we can do that.

I can write a letter, then get a nice little form letter back from their intern or whoever's you know writing the responses for them.

So I don't I mean, yes, you're correct.

That is the way to proceed.

Um I'm wondering if the city is interested in making a larger statement.

And I realize that would be something to talk to my elected officials in Novato about and you know, sort of go that route with it.

Um because I write a letter, yeah, whatever.

They might look at it.

Um again, this is I I realize you're we're talking about these changes.

I you know, I think Commissioner Grigie's questions were good.

Um we're not here to I mean this is pretty straightforward.

Um if just I wish Commissioner Derby was here because he he he provides that developer view on a lot of this stuff.

Um I would argue that I think some of the sentiment, I I don't know if the sentiments maybe from Sacramento is like trying to address the pain and suffering of contractors across the state who think that there's just too much red tape, which you know sure there might be some credence to that.

But that I think the pendulum swung so far in the other direction.

I'm I keep on asking myself when when do we as a town push back and say, you know, that's we're not gonna keep on going with this.

Like yeah.

Anyways, thank you for listening.

I'm done.

Thanks.

There's more of the floor.

Um a couple of questions, but I had the specific about 150 and above and 150 below what you were talking about there, so thank you.

Um I also wanted to clarify on on the TDR item three, and this is not subject to the city's affordable housing requirement, and that that is an incentivizer.

It's an incentivizer because why um so in our typical affordable housing requirements ordinance, uh, once you get to 20 a project of 20 units or more, uh 20% of those units have to be uh deed restricted as affordable at the various affordability levels, depending on whether the project's a rental project or a for sale project.

And that the number was 20?

20 percent, yeah.

But relative to the larger unit of how many what when does that threshold get crossed for the 20 percent?

Uh 20 units or more.

20 percent and then 20 again.

Yeah.

And so um if a developer were looking to use this TDR ordinance and say they were able to get, say it's a hundred unit project, they could get 25 extra units.

Well, if this ordinance were uh these units were subject to the affordable requirements, that means their um burden of the number of affordable units based on 20 percent would go from 20 units to I think 25 units.

Um, which is an additional cost burden on the developer.

Um there's discretion for the planning commission and the city council on that.

Um that's how staff wrote it, but that's certainly a discretionary thing that can be a decision ultimately of the city council to change that, amend that language so those units would be subject to the city's affordable housing requirements.

And as you mentioned, these are already basically in play.

We're simply trying to codify these amendments into the general plan.

So the housing element had this program for us to adopt this TDR program.

Uh, but it didn't have the specifics of what the P TDR program should be.

So this is very much what I would say um the ability for the Planning Commission to provide input and ultimately the City Council to have this TDR program unique to this how the city really wants it.

With that said, could we go back on the TDR and take a look at item three?

I could just use some clarity on that, please, if you don't mind on the screen if at all possible.

Oh it was item one, actually.

Item one and three I had questions on, but item one would be great.

Um was this the slide?

I think that might yes, let's take a look.

So there it is, okay.

Receiving site, units not subject to the city affordable housing, that's item three.

Item run, receiving property can obtain units up to 25% above receiving site maximum density per general requirements, land use designation.

I look at that sentence and it might it's a little bit of a word salad to me to understand what the intent of that sentence means.

Yes, so um the example of if you have a receiving site and the density is set that the total units allowed would be a hundred units.

Having tw an increase of twenty-five percent means that the general plan land use designation would allow 100 units, and through the TDR process.

They get to 125.

They can get to 125, correct.

Got it.

And the benefit of getting to that 125 is uh I think that would be a situation uh where a developer had a target number of units that they could not achieve through the regular general plan land use um density allowances, possibly stacking that with some density bonus units, and they just needed a few extra units to make the project financially feasible.

Um it's hard to scenario play of exactly how this was because so much of it is a developer-driven and financial decision that you know staff isn't always privy to, and it's very I would guess very unique to each developer's project site and all of the uh financials that go into their process of putting together a development plan.

And so then this what we're talking about here is limited very to a very specific area of the city, not the entire area of the city itself, but two areas that were mapped out earlier.

Correct.

And that was again a staff decision to present to the planning commission and city council, and we base that decision on what we felt were this parts of the cities that were most appropriate or accepting acceptable for additional development above what the general plan limitations.

And does this help with with the information here?

Does this help streamline the general plan getting our ordinances up to speed and up to SNUP?

Does it assist or is it more about um encumbrance?

I think it's just an additional tool that can potentially get additional units bill that would go towards the city meeting its arena allocation.

Got it.

Thank you.

Sure.

So we'll stick on the TDR for a little while.

I think the advantage is that they don't have to be affordable units.

The units on the receiving edge.

So if they prefer to have market rate housing rather than provide the affordable in their perception would be a you know red ink, they get to have market rate.

But what I see is that it's such a narrow area for receiver.

It's just exclusively downtown.

So it goes up to Afterton, stops there.

So that would be the North Redwood corridor picking up that triangle.

And then down Grant Avenue, and then the so what's a challenge for me is trying to actually, without a concrete example, and I recognize that these would come through formal public hearings so that we would see a concrete example.

You know, just say how comfortable we are with that, or if 25% is enough or not.

What I'm envisioning is somebody owns a piece of property that's all ridgeline, perceived as all ridgeline, and they're you know, 30 units are essentially undevelopable under our current status, that they would I'm assuming sell those 30 units to somebody that could use them in the downtown corridor area.

And at that point, then the ridge line is const is conserved, right?

They can't do anything else with that property, the development rights are gone, and those 30 units move downtown somewhere.

Is that a fairly accurate picture?

Yeah, I think so.

Um, when staff was sort of doing some scenarios of what this might look like, we did think about those steeper hillside properties that would be very difficult to develop.

And um, you know, the city obviously in the early 2000s adopted the hillside ordinance with this idea that there was a push to preserve those hillsides.

So we see this as sort of a a carrot towards someone that might own property to actually conserve that property.

Um would it be possible for that same property owner who their property zone its hillside zone for 30 though to say, well, I'm gonna sell 15 to project A, but then we're gonna sell split off the other 15 and sell them to Project B.

Is that a likely scenario as well?

Yeah, yeah.

I think because given that a receiving property isn't able to, assuming we keep a limitation of 25% or some other number, it's unlikely that a donor property and a receiving property would have an exact match of units the donor property can sell and a receiving property can receive.

So that's why I talked about the scenario where it may take multiple receiving properties to fully realize the donor properties development credits that they hold.

Okay.

Um do we have anybody waiting in the lurches that's ready to jump on a transferred property?

Not that I'm aware of.

Um and to be honest, you know, these TDRs, I don't think they're used, it's not a very common practice.

Um, we've got the two options here, one for the historic properties and the other for the the more environmentally environmentally environmentally constrained properties.

I know San Francisco, they have uh a TDR program that focused specifically on the historic resources.

I know it's been used.

I don't know how much it's been used, and and again, they have it in limited to very specific receiving areas.

I think the downtown area and the south of market area.

Um jurisdictions have uh the county does have one, it's more tied to the agricultural resources.

Uh their donor sites are all the ag properties.

Um City of San Rafael has one.

Um not sure if it's ever been used though.

Um so that that kind of brings to mind, so because we have the county line fairly close in many parts of this town.

Could some development rights from the county be transferred into the city?

Not as the ordinance is currently written.

Um I think that would have to be uh a larger, more thorough thought out program, probably some inner jurisdictional agreements.

Um just sort of a what if okay, but I so I do have a couple of questions about the text and my PC's not operating.

So I have the pages that showed up in our staff report.

I have some questions.

Sure.

So page six.

Um it has under building standards something about the the max density doesn't apply for uh open space.

I'm just curious why we would even it's open space, what density do we need there?

What what paragraph?

Um so it was on page six, it's part of the part of the text changes table two three, the under ag where it shows open space.

Um it has something about building standards in my notes here.

And I don't get why we need building standards in open space.

Unless it's like maybe a shed or yeah, oh good question.

So the question is if it's open space, why are there building standards?

Uh okay.

I'm assuming it's just for a shed or for maintenance stuff, but what if you could clarify?

Great question.

C we can support such a there may be some land use types that do allow for the development of a structure that would have to meet those development standards, so like you had mentioned like a shed farm, something, and so we like that.

Okay, I mean that's what I'm assuming, but I'm I just want to verify that that's that is indeed the case.

Yeah.

Okay.

So then um on page 19, uh the residential unit uh uses CN for multi-sam multi-family.

Um, as I recall, or as I I don't have the grid in front of me, but it was something about how it needed a permit.

So again, page 19 residential land use of CN.

Yes.

Multifamily.

Um it says that it needs a permit.

Oh, so okay.

So this is a uh a correction from the 2012 ordinance amendment where um the multi oh sorry, excuse me.

This is a response to a housing element policy where we have removed the use permit requirement for mixed use in a multifamily project.

Um so this is uh you know required by or kind of dictated by the um the housing elements.

Okay, so so previously it was a it was a permitted use, now it requires a permit.

Somebody's got to actually apply for it.

It's actually the other way.

So previously a use permit was required, now a use permit is no longer.

Okay, that's that's fine.

Um page 16.

Um the abbreviations you and I'm curious which one is old town versus new town.

You know, we got a CDR and then we got a C D B.

And I'm assuming the business district is the West End, is New Town, if you will.

Yes.

And okay, okay.

Um, I think there it's it's kind of intermingled.

It's not a clean right, but it would be nice actually in brackets if it said old town.

Right.

A little bit clearer.

Um do we so um page 21?

Um this is about the uh check caching.

So that was the question why it was.

I think it's it's a permitted in the west end in new town.

But not an old town.

Is that accurate?

Or did we did the city council take action on that?

Because we had a little controversy about a business.

Yeah, and I believe that a new land use type was added where there's a note somewhere.

There is a note number 16 here.

Um that's specific to check caching.

It says state check caching services may be offered as an act as an accessory use to a travel agency or grocery store outlet, grocery store subject to the requirements of section 19.34.034.

Um so yes, that would be a correction to include that that reference, but if it the note is in text, but the note is not listed in the table.

So we will have to leave that on if you should try that one more time.

So old town check caching is now as long as it's within a grocery store or some other service is a permitted use.

Yes.

Okay, it doesn't require a use permit.

Oh, business.

That's what it was.

Okay, there we go.

So uh the note that I had mentioned that is a note that's listed under the travel agency land use type.

Um, and that is a permitted use in all of the commercial zoning districts.

Okay, both both and all ground.

Okay.

Okay, thank you.

Um then lastly, um so there was there's a table four-2, and it's regarding design review.

And I'm just uh curious, did they have a chance to review that?

Have they had a that committee?

They have not.

This is the first meeting for the zoning ordinance amendments.

Um they would not be reviewing that that table.

The the the changes to the design review table are largely formatting.

Okay.

Um we the only I think new uh land use type, or sorry, the design review type would be the housing development projects that we discussed tonight.

The balance of it's a good thing.

So assuming we make a recommendation it just goes straight to the city council, and that's right.

Okay, okay.

Um that's the extent of my questions, at least for now around the text and the the TDRs.

Um does staff want to contribute anything else before I open the hearing?

Okay.

So I'm gonna open up a public hearing in case members of the public want to talk to us about these text changes or the uh transfer of development rights.

Um it is kind of esoteric a little bit.

Um I'd I'd be curious from staff's perspective, you know, how much more work um this may well develop being that that now um you'll be handling projects with 150 or less units.

But that's just a rhetoric uh we'll get to that.

Yes, come on.

Uh you know your TDR page really confuses me.

Uh maybe you'll clear that.

I don't quite understand.

I thought we'll one of the goals to have more affordable housing.

But now you're actually saying that you are going to tr transfer the right from the donor property to some downtown property.

They can build more, but they don't have to be affordable housing.

I believe that's what comes down to it, right?

And I guess the second price, how do you get a maybe it doesn't make any difference because you say you don't have any property that you identify as such?

But you're also saying on the first process you have donor property that's either of historical value or a property that has resources, environmental resource.

What does that mean by environmental resource?

A beauty do you have a I mean are we talking about because we had creek and we have other things?

So you're saying, okay, I own this property that has one or the other.

Which I either have a hard time building because it's a historical site.

So I have no idea how many units I can build on that, and I cannot build it.

So now I'm just going to go and say, hey, I'm going to switch the right, give you the right.

Okay.

So you can build 25, 40 more units.

So what do I get?

I mean, how does this even work?

I don't know.

I I we share some of your.

I know you try to.

Do you wanted to clarify the question?

Or did you can you give us a question?

Yeah, I think.

I know you explain already.

We have the back and forth, but I that's that's fine.

Um let's see if they can try and address that for you, Sylvia.

Yeah, I can I can respond.

Uh so there's two things.

One is that uh say uh Dr.

Insomniac.

So that's a building that's listed, I believe, on the national registry.

Okay.

Um so there may be some additional development residential development potential that's not being utilized by the existing structure on the site.

Um that property could potentially be a donor site, and then they would presumably be approached by a developer that has a receiving site that can take additional units, and the two of them presumably would come to the city, apply for a use permit, and assuming the city approved that use permit, then the receiving site that the developer wants to develop could receive units from the Dr.

Insomniacs site as a historic property that they will never develop.

So it's basically you're taking units, development potential from one site and transferring it to another site.

I think I understand, but I also wonder if what would the neighbors think because they're like, okay.

It's kind of like interesting idea.

Yeah, and I think that's why uh we have this as a discretionary process, so there is the uh ability for public input and to make sure that the receiving site is an appropriate site for that additional uh number of units and additional density above and beyond what the general plan would typically allow on that site.

Proof will be in the pudding if we ever see one of these projects then.

Anyway.

Yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Um just to uh if you would like me to, uh she mentioned the sites with environmental resources.

So as you mentioned, hillside sites, sites that have um uh federal jurisdiction wetlands, um we have our uh waterways ordinance that uh limits development uh within a certain distance of the top of bank to preserve uh creeks and rivers.

Um so essentially if you had a vacant site on one of that meets one of those criteria, you could similar situation, donor property matches up with the developer on a receiving site, they come to the city, um, ask for approval for this TDR program, then that donor site could transfer their development rights to the receiving property.

Okay.

Did that help much?

Because I thought your example wasn't wasn't was pretty decent.

So let's just assume you own five acres as a creek running through it.

Um essentially you should be entitled to 25 units if it depending on the density up to 50 on five acres with the creek running through it, you couldn't probably build much of anything, but now you can sell what otherwise you could have developed to somebody downtown.

Now you use doctoral insomnials as the example, so that would be your receiver, but they can donate to that would be a donor because it's uh it's a federally recognized historic site.

Okay, because of that caveat.

Yeah.

Um.

No, no, I'm just saying that.

So the whole concept is it's taking some imaginary unit and give it to somebody else, so they can build more units.

Just creating more units by something that probably never be built or really hard to build.

I wouldn't say imaginary development because it is a piece of land that has the right to develop.

It's just maybe difficult to develop, and the city has enacted ordinance that puts more restrictions on development.

So it's giving the ability of a property owner with vacant property, the ability to realize some monetary value to their property without actually having to develop the property.

So you know, I don't think just out of goodness of your heart, you probably negotiate maybe monetary reward because that's no restriction.

What donor?

How does donor decide they want to donate a unit?

And my I guess my other question is still we're not building more affordable housing actually building more unit.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah, I I think you asked great questions, and you know.

Okay.

So anybody else from the public want to speak to us?

Otherwise, I'm going to close the public hearing and bring it back.

Okay, back to the commission.

Um you've heard a little bit of discussion, further questions.

Are we prepared for some actions?

Commissioner Rood.

So uh kind of what I'm wondering here is I'm looking at the map.

It's a small area.

And are we thinking if we want to get up get this into the general plan and clean up the amendments a little bit?

Is this kind of being used what I'm thinking as a template for something further down the road?

Or is this simply to this very small area is kind of where my head's at right now.

That's that's what I'm wondering because there's a whole lot of stuff.

And stuff that needs to be brought in to the general plan, I get that.

But it's only specific to this area that we're talking about right now.

And so yeah, I think what this ultimately means will be you know um unveiled when we actually see a project where property owners want to trade some some of their rights um and we see the locations and the criteria uh established.

Um I mean, one of the things that that I have felt comfortable with is is trying to identify development infill closer to our services, and that's precisely what this would be doing would be bringing if there are units available that are on the perimeter of town but can't be developed, you know, closer to restaurants and services.

What I what I'm getting out of this for where my mind went was air rights in Manhattan.

You know, on a microcosm.

But it's kind of the same concept.

I think that that you're onto something there.

It is it is very conceptual.

Um if you have questions, just after the other.

That is it for me.

This is I just wanted to get your feedback on that.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

No, I'm I'm um uh I'm supportive, but I'm hesitant about the process until I actually see the realities of it come around personally.

Um any other questions any discussion?

No, just quick comment.

Umce again, staff.

I think you're doing a wonderful job at walking that tight rope and being innovative and sticking to your guns where you can, given the conditions that are existing, you know.

My rant earlier aside.

Um, you know, I I really do think that uh you're finding solutions to a lot of these issues, and I appreciate all your efforts and the cleanup work looks great.

And I you know, I don't have any issues with any of it.

So I I think that the the streamlined aspect is is pretty apparent, trying to combine stuff and make it less uh odorous to go through the process and find what can you use and which districts and what have you.

Um so I I I believe that that that is will be accomplished with this vote.

Um but the the TDR thing is new new turf.

I I'm not you know I'll support it, but and for the sake of moving everything along, I'd like to put a motion on the floor that the planning commission uh find the language here recommends recommends approval to the city council or recommends adoption to the city council.

Okay, on the second emotion.

Okay, any discussion on the motion before us?

Okay, I'll start with Commissioner Green.

All right, well, I just wanted to on the the point of just before before we vote.

Um I did also just want to discuss like what role design review would play in the you know review pro going back to the review process, like the role design review would play.

What it sounds like given the time constraints they would not have time to review the fewer than 150 units, but would if it were above 150.

So for projects with 150 or fewer units, that would be a a staff level review with the community development director action.

Um the the the units or sorry, the the projects, housing development projects with greater than 150 units, that would just come straight to the planning commission as written.

It would not go to the design review commission beforehand.

So once we adopt this designer view is basically like has no role in reviewing future developments, period.

Am I correct in that?

Only projects um that are uh fall under the housing development project definition, so it's uh residential projects.

So I I don't want to rep it, but the design review established objective standards, and that's supposedly their answer.

You know, you fit into one of these boxes, it it's okay with us.

I mean I don't want to put words in our mouth, but that's yeah.

Okay, yeah, I that's that's true.

Okay, yeah, I just wanted to, I guess, got clarification on that.

Uh I guess we'll see as these projects enter the pipeline if that works, and I guess it can get revised later on.

Uh if it doesn't, um Sacramento willing, of course.

Um with that I'm ready to to vote.

Okay, okay.

So um your uh how would you vote on the resolution to send this to the city council?

Uh I'll vote aye.

Commissioner Havel?

Aye.

Commissioner Roach?

Commissioner Tiernan's an aye as well.

Um and I do want to commend staff.

It looks like it was a lot of work, a lot of red ink to try and you know change stuff and make it more streamlined.

Um and let's hope that that helps in the process.

Um and and to touch on what uh Commissioner Havel was talking about a little earlier.

Yeah, I think that um, you know, uh the regional numbers come down from the some other entity, the Bay Area A bag.

A bag, excuse me.

Um and so between them and I think our members of the assembly or Senate, you know, those are the people I think we have to try and twist arms.

Um except for an eight-story building underway in San Rafael.

Um I haven't seen a whole lot of evidence of of this yet, but um, you know, we'll see where we go.

Okay, so that concludes um that item on our agenda.

We have one other item before us, and that would be the election of chair and vice chair.

Um and so the floor is open for nominate the Peter Tieran is for the next chair of the planning commission.

I would accept.

Okay.

Um and then with that I'll open up nominations for vice chair.

Um we have to we have to hold an election to elect you first, Peter.

Well, okay, we'll we'll we'll get around to that.

You know, if there's no other nominees, then we don't.

Any other nominations for for chair?

No.

Okay.

For the the position of vice chair, the floor is open for nominations.

I would like to nominate commissioner.

Accept.

Any other nominations for vice chair?

Nope.

Okay.

With that, I will declare a white ballot for both positions.

Congratulations.

All right.

Um that pretty much concludes our business from staff's perspective.

Anything coming at us, something that we need to know.

When's our next meeting?

Um next meeting.

Currently unknown.

Uh we are uh we are working on some additional zoning text amendments related to the general plan and housing element.

Um these ones I definitely know regarding parking requirements.

Oh that sounds fun.

And there might be a couple other minor um items that come through at the same time.

Um probably are aware the state has come down with some revisions to when the city can require parking, uh, especially when it's within a half mile of uh major transit stops like the smart station.

So the pedestrian so we're looking to bring our code into compliance with that, and then also um adjust our parking requirements for um multifamily residential buildings, and these are programs that are in the housing element.

And I think also the general plan.

Okay.

The land use stage.

So demolition is still underway at fireman's fund.

Is there any movement towards that having you know move forward through the process?

I believe they we do have some applications submitted.

I see and I believe that might be at the tentative map level to uh subdivide the property.

I see, I see.

And get it below 150 units.

We shall see.

We shall see.

Okay.

Um unless there's anything else from the commissioners, I'll adjourn this meeting.

Meeting's adjourned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.