Planning Commission recommends amendment to Tech Center development agreement allowing event space, restaurants and other conditional uses

The Nevada City Planning Commission recommended approval of an amendment to a development agreement affecting 62.6 acres in the Tech Center, voting unanimously after hearing staff and the property owner outline the proposed changes.

Lisa, a city planning staff member, told the commission the amendment would apply to four parcels owned by Christopher Anderson and would modernize permitted uses that had been limited by a previous agreement and a 2021 amendment. She said the proposal would allow certain conditional uses in the light‑industrial zone — such as event centers, motels, restaurants, private recreation and employee‑oriented services — while retaining the land‑use plan’s requirement that overall uses align with employment‑center policies.

Planner Amy Wolson said a 2021 SEQA memorandum prepared for a prior amendment concluded no additional SEQA review was required; an environmental impact report certified in 1984 was used as the baseline. "We compared the previous environmental review with current SEQA law and determined allowing these light‑industrial conditional uses did not trigger further review," she said.

Owner Christopher Anderson, present by phone, described interest in establishing an indoor event center and food and beverage uses that would reduce the need for special‑event permits. "We're looking at an event center, potentially a roller‑skating venue with food service and a bar," Anderson said.

Commissioners focused questions on whether child‑care or classroom uses could be allowed by mistake; one commissioner asked for explicit language excluding child care. Lisa confirmed the exclusion would be included in the amendment text so proximity to cannabis businesses would not create an unintended allowance. "We will add explicit wording to exclude child‑care facilities," she said.

Commissioner Brown moved to approve the item with the clarification to explicitly exclude child care; the commission then made a separate SEQA finding motion. Both the development‑agreement recommendation and the SEQA exemption determination passed on unanimous roll calls.

The Planning Commission's recommendation will go to the City Council for final action; staff noted ordinance adoption is required to amend the development agreement.

Next steps: the City Council will consider the amendment; staff will return finalized ordinance language reflecting the explicit exclusion of child‑care uses.