[1:14] The regular meeting of the Soma Planning

[1:17] Commission, February 19th, it is 6 pm.

[1:22] If I could get a roll call, please.

[1:24] >> Commissioner Willers

[1:26] » Commissioner Willers

[1:26] >> here.

[1:26] » here.

[1:26] >> Commissioner Barnett

[1:27] » Commissioner Barnett

[1:27] >> here.

[1:28] » here.

[1:28] >> Commissioner Jenkins

[1:29] » Commissioner Jenkins

[1:29] >> here.

[1:30] » here.

[1:30] >> Commissioner Donach

[1:31] » Commissioner Donach

[1:31] >> here.

[1:32] » here.

[1:32] >> Commissioner O'Neal

[1:33] » Commissioner O'Neal

[1:33] >> here.

[1:34] » here.

[1:34] >> Vice Chair Nent

[1:35] » Vice Chair Nent

[1:35] >> here. Chair Chair Hyrick

[1:37] » here. Chair Chair Hyrick

[1:37] >> here.

[1:40] » here.

[1:40] Thank you very much.

[1:43] >> Do I have a motion to approve tonight's

[1:45] » Do I have a motion to approve tonight's

[1:45] agenda?

[1:47] >> Motion to approve.

[1:48] » Motion to approve.

[1:48] >> Well,

[1:50] » Well,

[1:50] I would like to uh make a suggestion as

[1:55] to the rearrangement of the agenda.

[1:58] >> Council or Commissioner Barnett,

[2:01] » Council or Commissioner Barnett,

[2:01] >> ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick

[2:06] » ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick

[2:06] review of the audience here um I suspect

[2:09] that a significant number of people are

[2:11] here to discuss the land use element

[2:15] specifically as it pertains to u the

[2:18] Sebastiani parcels. So um I would like

[2:22] to suggest that we move that discussion

[2:26] up to the top of the list under 5.2 two

[2:31] and um uh as well if the if the

[2:36] commission agrees to actually move 5.2

[2:41] above 5.1

[2:43] so that it's the first item under our

[2:46] items for discussion.

[2:50] » Okay. So is that a motion?

[2:52] >> If it needs to be a motion I can say

[2:55] » If it needs to be a motion I can say

[2:55] yeah that's a motion. If it doesn't have

[2:58] to be, then I then it isn't a motion.

[3:00] How's that for How's that for?

[3:03] >> I'll second the almost motion.

[3:06] » I'll second the almost motion.

[3:06] >> Okay.

[3:09] » Can I get a roll call?

[3:10] >> Yes.

[3:12] » Yes.

[3:12] >> Commissioner Willers?

[3:13] » Commissioner Willers?

[3:13] >> Yes.

[3:14] » Yes.

[3:14] >> Commissioner Barnett.

[3:15] » Commissioner Barnett.

[3:15] >> I.

[3:15] » I.

[3:15] >> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.

[3:17] » Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.

[3:17] >> I.

[3:18] » I.

[3:18] >> Commissioner Donbach.

[3:19] » Commissioner Donbach.

[3:19] >> I.

[3:19] » I.

[3:19] >> Commissioner O'Neal.

[3:20] » Commissioner O'Neal.

[3:20] >> Yes.

[3:21] » Yes.

[3:21] >> Vice Chair Net. I.

[3:23] » Vice Chair Net. I.

[3:23] >> Chair Hyrick.

[3:24] » Chair Hyrick.

[3:24] >> I.

[3:24] » I.

[3:24] >> The motion passes unanimously.

[3:27] » The motion passes unanimously.

[3:28] Okay, thank you.

[3:34] Is there do we need another motion to

[3:37] approve the remainder of the agenda?

[3:40] Okay. At this time, we will recite the

[3:44] pledge of allegiance. Uh, Vice Chair

[3:46] Nent, if you could lead us in the

[3:48] pledge, please.

[3:52] » To the flag of the United States of

[3:54] America to the Republic.

[4:07] Okay, thank you very much.

[4:12] At this time, members of the public may

[4:14] comment on any item not appearing on the

[4:16] agenda tonight. It's recommended that

[4:18] members of the public keep their

[4:19] comments to three minutes or less. For

[4:22] items appearing on the agenda, the

[4:24] public will be invited to make comments

[4:25] at the time the item comes up for

[4:27] commission consideration. Upon being

[4:29] acknowledged by the chair, please step

[4:31] to the podium, speak into the

[4:33] microphone, and begin by stating and

[4:35] spelling your name.

[4:38] At this point, we will move on to the

[4:40] consent calendar of tonight's agenda.

[4:45] >> Oh, I'm sorry.

[4:50] » Please come forward and state your name.

[4:51] >> Thank you. And thank you for the

[4:53] » Thank you. And thank you for the

[4:53] adjustment of the agenda. I get to eat

[4:54] dinner tonight.

[4:57] Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole.

[5:00] B is in boy, O Y L E. I am here to

[5:03] provide comment on the proposed land use

[5:05] change for the Spastian parcels after

[5:07] attending the January

[5:09] >> I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item

[5:11] » I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item

[5:11] is agendaized for tonight under item 5.

[5:14] >> Wait till 5.1

[5:15] » Wait till 5.1

[5:15] >> exactly. So at at this time members of

[5:17] » exactly. So at at this time members of

[5:17] the public can come forward and and

[5:19] address the commission on items that do

[5:21] not appear on tonight's agenda.

[5:23] >> Sorry.

[5:24] » Sorry.

[5:24] >> Thank you for the clarification.

[5:26] » Thank you for the clarification.

[5:26] >> I messed up. You messed up. We all

[5:27] » I messed up. You messed up. We all

[5:27] messed up.

[5:28] >> I got a little practice.

[5:29] » I got a little practice.

[5:29] >> Hi

[5:30] » Hi

[5:30] >> Mr. Abdily.

[5:30] » Mr. Abdily.

[5:30] >> JJ Abdil. What's your name?

[5:32] » JJ Abdil. What's your name?

[5:32] >> JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,

[5:37] » JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,

[5:37] so my comments really about the process

[5:39] and that that you know we're here as I

[5:42] understand it to talk about land use and

[5:45] really to create a definition of what

[5:47] land use means for various zoning and

[5:50] >> so so

[5:51] » so so

[5:51] >> but this is this is this is general

[5:52] » but this is this is this is general

[5:52] because I think what's I would like to

[5:54] say is that the lack of details that are

[5:58] discussed at this point in the process

[6:00] is creating a lot of anxiety because

[6:02] everyone wants details. I think we will

[6:04] address matters related to the process.

[6:07] Okay. In item 5.2 tonight. Fair enough.

[6:09] So,

[6:10] >> so for items completely separate, I'm

[6:13] » so for items completely separate, I'm

[6:13] sorry to interrupt and break your train

[6:15] of thought, but

[6:16] >> no worries.

[6:16] » no worries.

[6:16] >> We will we will hear at this point items

[6:19] » We will we will hear at this point items

[6:19] that are completely separate from any

[6:21] any agenda item that that appears on on

[6:24] tonight's agenda. So, thank you.

[6:27] >> So, are there any additional members of

[6:29] » So, are there any additional members of

[6:29] the public? I'll try not to yell at you

[6:32] or interrupt you. If you have comments

[6:35] tonight or wish to address the

[6:36] commission on anything relating to

[6:39] matters not appearing on tonight's

[6:40] agenda.

[6:43] Okay.

[6:44] Thank you very much.

[6:48] Okay. At this point, we will move on to

[6:50] the consent calendar. Are there any

[6:53] changes or edits to be made to

[6:57] the minutes in item 3.1, in item 3.2, or

[7:01] in item 3.3 that any commissioner wishes

[7:04] to raise?

[7:06] >> I'll just note that I wasn't present at

[7:08] » I'll just note that I wasn't present at

[7:08] the 3.3, so I'll abstain from that vote.

[7:13] >> Noted.

[7:15] » Noted.

[7:15] >> Okay. Is there a motion to approve

[7:17] » Okay. Is there a motion to approve

[7:17] tonight's consent calendar?

[7:18] >> Move to approve.

[7:19] » Move to approve.

[7:19] >> Second.

[7:20] » Second.

[7:20] >> Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.

[7:23] » Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.

[7:23] >> Yes.

[7:24] » Yes.

[7:24] >> Commissioner Barnett.

[7:25] » Commissioner Barnett.

[7:25] >> Hi.

[7:26] » Hi.

[7:26] >> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.

[7:27] » Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.

[7:27] >> Hi.

[7:27] » Hi.

[7:27] >> Commissioner Donbach.

[7:29] » Commissioner Donbach.

[7:29] >> Yes.

[7:29] » Yes.

[7:29] >> Commissioner O'Neal.

[7:30] » Commissioner O'Neal.

[7:30] >> Yes.

[7:32] » Yes.

[7:32] >> Vice Chair Nent.

[7:34] » Vice Chair Nent.

[7:34] >> I.

[7:34] » I.

[7:34] >> Chair Hyrick.

[7:36] » Chair Hyrick.

[7:36] >> I.

[7:36] » I.

[7:36] >> The motion passes unanimously.

[7:39] » The motion passes unanimously.

[7:39] >> Thank you very much.

[7:42] » Thank you very much.

[7:42] Moving right along to tonight's public

[7:43] hearing. The first item is item 4.1.

[7:48] discussion, consideration, and possible

[7:49] action to approve a use permit and

[7:51] design review for the permanent

[7:53] placement of an MRI trailer at 347

[7:57] Andrew Street.

[7:58] >> Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself

[8:00] » Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself

[8:00] from this item since close proximity to

[8:03] my residence.

[8:04] >> Thank you, Commissioner Oakman.

[8:12] Are there any commissioners that need to

[8:14] report any exparte communication with

[8:17] the applicants in this case?

[8:20] Okay. Thank you.

[8:23] And if I could have a staff report,

[8:25] please. Of course. Good evening,

[8:27] commissioners. I am Jake Dunn, associate

[8:29] planner, and I'll be discussing the use

[8:31] permit and design review for the

[8:32] permanent MRI trailer at 347 Andrew

[8:34] Street. So, this item was previously

[8:36] reviewed um in October of 2025 where

[8:39] some revisions and studies were

[8:40] suggested and then we'll go over some of

[8:42] those changes that were made for uh this

[8:44] project as a whole. So, the trailer is

[8:47] located on Andrew Street on the north

[8:49] side of the hospital. The general plan

[8:51] and land use are dedicated as public and

[8:53] the property is not within any overlays.

[8:55] The hospital is located in the central

[8:57] west planning area and setits on three

[8:59] and a half acres of land.

[9:01] And the project is proposing dedicating

[9:03] the MRI trailer as a permanent structure

[9:05] which was previously approved as

[9:06] temporary. And the applicant intends to

[9:09] modify the trailer to match the color of

[9:11] the hospital with the recommendations

[9:12] that were made at the previous hearing

[9:15] and add sound dampening devices to the

[9:18] existing fence that you can see in that

[9:19] image there which should reduce the

[9:21] noise level impacts on the neighboring

[9:23] residences. Uh they'll also be

[9:25] permanently closing the parking lot at

[9:27] this time uh since we determined that

[9:29] the additional parking was not necessary

[9:32] and they will be adding new movable

[9:34] landscaping to uh help with some visual

[9:37] buffering and some aesthetic uh

[9:39] improvements to that parking lot. And

[9:41] then they will still use the parking lot

[9:43] but only for emergencies and maintenance

[9:45] on the MRO trailer.

[9:47] So this site plan shows the northern lot

[9:49] with the uh trailer dimensions in

[9:51] related to in relation to the parking

[9:53] spaces that are currently there. And

[9:55] then this is the modified site plan

[9:58] after the discussion at the last hearing

[9:59] with the landscaping features um in that

[10:02] parking area. And then there's also the

[10:05] location of the sound dampening device

[10:06] on that fence line. And then here's some

[10:10] examples of the landscaping that will be

[10:12] used for that visual buffer. just kind

[10:14] of give an idea of um how they'll kind

[10:16] of hide the trailer

[10:19] and a noise assessment was also

[10:21] conducted as requested and the

[10:24] assessment found that the noise levels

[10:25] produced by the MRI trailer along with

[10:27] the it was a chiller and some climate

[10:30] units that uh the noise levels from both

[10:32] of those ended up exceeding um by about

[10:36] four dB and um affected two of the

[10:40] residences. And then it found that with

[10:42] the recommended noise curtain that it

[10:44] would reduce the levels to below 50 dB,

[10:47] which would be about 47 for I think both

[10:49] of the residences.

[10:53] And so in accordance with the use permit

[10:55] findings, we found that the uh use is

[10:57] consistent with the general plan and uh

[10:59] supports the Sonoma Valley Hospital to

[11:01] respond to community needs. It also

[11:03] found that the MRI trailer is allowed on

[11:05] public properties and complies with the

[11:07] standards uh without needing any

[11:08] variances or exceptions. And then uh we

[11:11] found that the um the MRI trailer would

[11:16] be would further support their

[11:18] operations without negatively impacting

[11:20] those surrounding land uses by

[11:21] increasing the aesthetic value of the

[11:24] property by improving that lot.

[11:27] And as part of the design review, um

[11:30] further findings found that with the

[11:32] improvements to that parking lot, it's

[11:34] now a little bit more compatible with

[11:35] the residences surrounding it. Um it

[11:37] kind of cleans up that that has been

[11:40] unused and the pro uh the proposal won't

[11:43] negatively impact the public health,

[11:44] safety or welfare now that we know sound

[11:46] dampening devices have been added to

[11:48] reduce the sound impact to those

[11:49] residences.

[11:52] And so staff is recommending approval of

[11:53] the use permit and design review for the

[11:55] permanent placement of the MRI trailer

[11:56] and alterations to the parking in

[11:58] accordance with the SQL section 15303.

[12:02] Oh, sorry, that's yeah, 15303 and 15311.

[12:06] So staff's available for any questions

[12:07] and the applicant is also available to

[12:09] ask uh to answer any questions as well.

[12:13] >> Great. Thank you very much. Are there

[12:14] » Great. Thank you very much. Are there

[12:14] any questions from Commissioner Barnett?

[12:17] Question.

[12:17] >> Um

[12:19] » Um

[12:19] I understand that the no noise abatement

[12:23] uh efforts that have been made have

[12:25] brought it down to a threshold that's

[12:27] acceptable. Um my question is is the

[12:32] operation of this and the noise

[12:34] attenuation something that's only going

[12:37] to be um present during

[12:41] portions of the day or is this a 24-hour

[12:45] noise producer?

[12:47] >> I believe the applicant uh would be

[12:49] » I believe the applicant uh would be

[12:49] prepared to speak on that.

[12:55] » Good evening, commissioners. Uh my name

[12:57] is Brian B R Yan.

[13:00] Uh and this is Ryan Es with me. R Y Y an

[13:04] um so to answer your question, the noise

[13:06] abatement is a permanent exterior grade

[13:09] blanket which be installed on the fence

[13:11] and would be there for the rest of time.

[13:14] >> That's not my question. My question is

[13:17] » That's not my question. My question is

[13:17] um is is the unit that's producing the

[13:22] noise the MRI trailer and the equipment

[13:25] inside is that only producing the noise

[13:27] when it's in operation or is there a

[13:29] period of the day where it is not in

[13:31] operation and therefore producing no

[13:33] noise?

[13:34] >> Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units

[13:37] » Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units

[13:37] provide cooling for the actual MRI

[13:40] equipment. Yes. And there's a BART unit

[13:42] on the wall which provides um air

[13:44] conditioning for the occupants within

[13:46] the trailer.

[13:46] >> Yes.

[13:46] » Yes.

[13:46] >> But that trailer is only in operation

[13:48] » But that trailer is only in operation

[13:48] during regular day hours. So after hours

[13:51] it doesn't operate.

[13:52] >> Neither the chillers or the air

[13:54] » Neither the chillers or the air

[13:54] conditioner.

[13:54] >> Correct.

[13:55] » Correct.

[13:55] >> Thank you.

[13:57] » Thank you.

[13:57] >> Do any other members of the commission

[13:59] » Do any other members of the commission

[13:59] have questions for the applicant now

[14:00] that they are at the podium or for

[14:02] staff?

[14:05] >> I have a quick question. How long has

[14:06] » I have a quick question. How long has

[14:06] that trailer been in operation there

[14:08] with the HVAC equipment that it

[14:10] currently has?

[14:11] >> Uh, approximately two years.

[14:13] » Uh, approximately two years.

[14:13] >> Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only

[14:15] » Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only

[14:15] question.

[14:18] Any other questions of the applicant

[14:20] while they stand there? Okay. Thank you

[14:22] very much. Are there any members of the

[14:25] public that wish to comment on

[14:28] this agenda item?

[14:32] Okay.

[14:33] bring it back to the commission for

[14:36] discussion.

[14:40] It sure if you'd like to come up to the

[14:42] podium and uh address make got to

[14:45] address the commission but um happy to

[14:48] hear what you have to say.

[14:49] >> Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just

[14:51] » Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just

[14:51] wondering how many MRIs approximately a

[14:54] day. So how long would the sound be

[14:56] stopping starting stopping starting

[14:58] throughout the hours that it would be

[14:59] working?

[15:01] >> Okay, thank you. Thank you for the

[15:03] » Okay, thank you. Thank you for the

[15:03] question. Uh if the applicant is

[15:05] willing, they they're welcome to come

[15:07] forward and um address that question if

[15:10] you did you hear the question?

[15:12] >> Okay.

[15:13] » Okay.

[15:13] >> I heard the question is how many MRIs

[15:15] » I heard the question is how many MRIs

[15:16] per day? It's 10 to 11.

[15:18] >> Okay, great. Thank you.

[15:23] » Okay. Are there any other members of the

[15:24] public wishing to comment on this agenda

[15:26] item?

[15:28] Great. I'll close public comment and

[15:29] bring it back to the commission for

[15:30] commission comments and analysis.

[15:34] >> Yes, Commissioner Dbach.

[15:36] » Yes, Commissioner Dbach.

[15:36] >> Um I just uh want to comment that I

[15:37] » Um I just uh want to comment that I

[15:38] appreciate uh the applicant working with

[15:40] the staff um with regard to the

[15:43] improvements that we requested. Um and

[15:46] based on what has been uh achieved, I'm

[15:49] I'm comfortable proving this.

[15:51] >> Great. Any other commissioner comments?

[15:55] » Great. Any other commissioner comments?

[15:55] Commissioner Bernett?

[15:57] Well, perhaps it's a function of getting

[15:59] older, but I'm sorry to see our world

[16:04] becoming so noisy.

[16:06] And um uh I hope that at some point in

[16:09] the future um

[16:12] in some future generations expansion of

[16:15] this hospital

[16:17] uh if it continues to succeed which I

[16:19] sincerely hope it does that uh functions

[16:23] like this are entirely enclosed within

[16:26] the building and the need for noise

[16:29] attenuation and or the other things

[16:32] necessary to to prevent

[16:36] the

[16:37] I'll use the word degradation of

[16:39] ordinary everyday life because of the

[16:42] increase in sound um ambient sound

[16:46] mechanical ambient sound um uh can be uh

[16:53] ameliorated and changed in the future. I

[16:55] just uh uh I'm finding the world to be

[16:58] an increasingly noisy place and I don't

[17:01] find it pleasant.

[17:03] But that said, I appreciate the efforts

[17:05] that's being made on this and I

[17:07] certainly will approve the application.

[17:10] >> Thank you. Any other commission

[17:12] » Thank you. Any other commission

[17:12] comments?

[17:14] >> I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[17:17] » I'd like to make a motion to approve.

[17:17] >> Second.

[17:19] » Second.

[17:19] >> All right. Roll call, please.

[17:21] » All right. Roll call, please.

[17:22] >> Commissioner Willers,

[17:23] » Commissioner Willers,

[17:23] >> yes.

[17:23] » yes.

[17:23] >> Commissioner Barnett,

[17:24] » Commissioner Barnett,

[17:24] >> I.

[17:25] » I.

[17:25] >> Commissioner Dbach,

[17:26] » Commissioner Dbach,

[17:26] >> yes.

[17:27] » yes.

[17:27] >> Commissioner O'Neal,

[17:28] » Commissioner O'Neal,

[17:28] >> yes.

[17:28] » yes.

[17:28] >> Vice Chair Nent,

[17:30] » Vice Chair Nent,

[17:30] >> I.

[17:30] » I.

[17:30] >> Chair Hyrick,

[17:31] » Chair Hyrick,

[17:31] >> I. The motion passes 6001.

[17:36] » Excellent.

[17:38] Moving on to item 4.2.

[17:43] I'll give Commissioner Aorman just a

[17:45] second to walk back here.

[18:01] All right, we'll continue now with item

[18:04] 4.2 of tonight's public hearing

[18:06] discussion, consideration and possible

[18:08] action to approve a signed permit for

[18:11] two uh new illuminated signs on a

[18:14] residential property at 383 First Street

[18:17] West.

[18:19] Is there a staff report?

[18:20] >> Absolutely. So, this is for a sign

[18:23] » Absolutely. So, this is for a sign

[18:23] permit for two new eliminated wall signs

[18:25] um for a uh non-conforming wine tasting

[18:31] facility that has been grandfathered and

[18:32] improved with the zoning clearance. Uh

[18:35] the property is located in the downtown

[18:36] district and is zone medium red

[18:38] residential medium density. The use of

[18:40] the site um was determined as

[18:43] grandfathered and was approved for the

[18:45] zoning clearance back in a April of

[18:48] 2025. The property is 5,473 square feet

[18:52] and surrounded by commercial and

[18:53] residentially zoned properties. The

[18:56] project proposes one illuminated wall

[18:58] sign to advertise the business name

[19:00] which includes a halo lit backing above

[19:03] that front window. And it also proposes

[19:05] one externally illuminated logo sign

[19:07] next to the front entryway.

[19:10] The flat vineyard sign will be a total

[19:12] of 6.25 square ft and the logo sign will

[19:15] be four square feet. The business name

[19:17] and logo are proposed in satin black

[19:19] with the aluminum faces colored perfect

[19:21] khaki and slumber uh slumber sloth to

[19:24] match the color of the current

[19:25] structure.

[19:27] And then this gives you an idea of the

[19:30] um street view looking down the um down

[19:33] this roadway. So there was a comment

[19:35] from the public uh in concern to um

[19:41] how the entry to this street looks in

[19:43] regard to the residences and um the use

[19:46] of these residential sites as commercial

[19:48] businesses. Um so I put this site photo

[19:51] here to show uh there's three wineries

[19:54] here. One is the Hawk Winery on the left

[19:56] that you see was the previous winery

[19:59] wine tasting facility which is now going

[20:01] to be um Plat Vineyard. And then there's

[20:03] Walts on the right and there's I believe

[20:06] it's atrium on the left. You can't

[20:08] really see the signage there, but this

[20:09] is to kind of give you an idea of that.

[20:12] So, the property has f uh 53.25 ft of

[20:16] frontage on First Street West. So, an

[20:18] aggregate of 27.3 square feet is allowed

[20:21] um for signage. An additional 13 square

[20:24] feet is allowed due to the distance

[20:25] between the center of the road line and

[20:27] the front of the u the building. The

[20:30] total area of the proposed signage is

[20:31] 10.25 25 ft and the proposed eliminated

[20:34] wall sign is not going to exceed the 27

[20:36] ft maximum.

[20:39] So in accordance with the sign permit

[20:41] findings, we found that the proposed use

[20:44] is consistent with the general plan by

[20:45] providing uh ground flooror retail use

[20:47] on a small lot without imposing

[20:49] stylistic restrictions. uh the proposed

[20:53] signage is consistent with the intent of

[20:54] the code and it doesn't negatively

[20:56] impact the surrounding character and

[20:58] matches the look of the current

[21:00] structure without causing a max like a

[21:03] large visual impairment. Um the signage

[21:06] is consistent with the signage in

[21:07] surrounding area. Uh it has small

[21:09] lettering and uh colors that are also

[21:13] matching the structure as it is. And the

[21:16] signage is limited to a small portion of

[21:17] the structure and isn't um isn't going

[21:20] to impact for character and it intends

[21:24] to preserve the quality of the property

[21:25] as a whole. So staff recommends planning

[21:28] commission approval of the sign permit

[21:29] to install the two new wall signs um and

[21:33] sorry two new illuminated wall signs at

[21:35] 383 First Street West and um

[21:40] staff is available for any questions. I

[21:41] I'm not sure if the applicant is here.

[21:43] So if they are they may you may ask them

[21:46] as well.

[21:47] >> Great. Thank you for your presentation,

[21:50] » Great. Thank you for your presentation,

[21:50] associate planner done. Are there any

[21:53] members of the commission that wish to

[21:54] ask staff questions of staff? I saw

[21:58] Commissioner Donbox.

[21:59] >> You know, I always have a question. Um

[22:02] » You know, I always have a question. Um

[22:02] uh my question pertains um to when the

[22:06] applicant plans to illuminate and or not

[22:08] illuminate. Um so I know that there's uh

[22:12] permitting allowing to 11 p.m. Most wine

[22:15] tasting rooms don't go that late. So, do

[22:17] we have any idea of whether the

[22:19] illuminated signs will be turned off in

[22:22] the evening versus left on?

[22:25] >> That I don't know for sure. Um, but it

[22:27] » That I don't know for sure. Um, but it

[22:27] is up to your discretion to set a

[22:29] standard for when the eliminated sign

[22:31] should be turned off or if it should be

[22:33] dimmed at any point um as part of the

[22:35] lighting standard in the ordinance um

[22:37] which is part of the conditions

[22:38] approval. We can also add additional

[22:41] conditions for a timing.

[22:43] >> Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if

[22:45] » Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if

[22:45] anyone if the applicant's present

[22:48] tonight or an agent of the applicant is

[22:50] present?

[22:53] >> Would you like to come up and uh address

[22:55] » Would you like to come up and uh address

[22:55] the commission or you don't have to?

[22:58] >> I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat

[23:01] » I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat

[23:01] Vineyards. Uh our signed vendor that put

[23:04] everything together was going to be

[23:07] here.

[23:08] They took care of more of this. Um, I I

[23:11] I can't really uh answer the question

[23:15] directly, but I can say uh we're willing

[23:17] to to follow whatever rules you deem

[23:20] appropriate for the neighborhood.

[23:23] >> Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.

[23:27] » Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.

[23:27] >> Okay. Thank you.

[23:28] » Okay. Thank you.

[23:28] >> Great. Thank you very much. Or are there

[23:31] » Great. Thank you very much. Or are there

[23:31] any other questions from the commission

[23:32] of staff or of the applicant?

[23:34] >> Yes. Vice Chair,

[23:36] » Yes. Vice Chair,

[23:36] >> Jacob, could you go back to the previous

[23:39] » Jacob, could you go back to the previous

[23:39] slide? It really flashed by me quickly.

[23:41] That next one,

[23:43] >> I mean,

[23:45] » I mean,

[23:45] >> go forward.

[23:46] » go forward.

[23:46] >> Forward one.

[23:47] » Forward one.

[23:47] >> So, I'm um we talked about the size of

[23:50] » So, I'm um we talked about the size of

[23:50] the sign. Um

[23:55] I just have I just wanted to read this.

[23:58] Um so, the illumination is it's in

[24:01] compliance

[24:02] and we really need to determine. Um,

[24:05] what I'm hearing is that they're in

[24:06] business till 6 PM. Um,

[24:10] is there a reason why we would would it

[24:13] be necessary to extend it beyond um,

[24:17] business hours? And are there other

[24:20] illuminated signs

[24:22] uh, in and around this area for other

[24:25] retail businesses or wine tasting rooms?

[24:29] So, in regard to the wine tasting rooms

[24:31] that are directly surrounding it, they

[24:33] do not have illumination on those signs.

[24:35] Um, I believe I keep forgetting the name

[24:37] of it, but I believe it's atrium. The

[24:39] one next door, it has a up lighting on

[24:41] our tour.

[24:42] >> Artur, that's what it's called. Um,

[24:44] » Artur, that's what it's called. Um,

[24:44] there is an up there's an up light on a

[24:47] tree and that's what they have there. I

[24:48] don't know that they turned it on, but

[24:49] that's the only lighting I was able to

[24:51] see when I went by. Um, other than that,

[24:54] there has been approval of lighting uh

[24:57] sign lit lit signs in the plaza. So,

[25:00] that's the only other thing I'd have as

[25:02] a comparison.

[25:04] >> Thank you.

[25:05] » Thank you.

[25:05] >> Any other questions of staff or the

[25:07] » Any other questions of staff or the

[25:07] applicant?

[25:09] Okay.

[25:11] At this time, I would ask commissioners

[25:15] to disclose any experte communications

[25:16] they've had with interested parties to

[25:18] this agenda item.

[25:22] I have spoken with one of the neighbors,

[25:24] Jim Bohar.

[25:25] >> Okay. Thank you.

[25:26] » Okay. Thank you.

[25:26] >> I have spoken with a neighbor.

[25:29] » I have spoken with a neighbor.

[25:29] >> Thank you. Anybody else? All right.

[25:36] Um,

[25:37] Mr. Applicant, would you like to come up

[25:38] and address the commission further or

[25:40] are you satisfied?

[25:43] Okay. Thank you. Uh, at this time, I

[25:45] will open up this item for public

[25:47] comment.

[25:49] Please come forward. State your name.

[25:50] Mr.

[25:50] >> Bohar.

[26:24] Jim, I hate to interrupt. Would you

[26:26] would you mind just speaking into the

[26:27] microphone? I'm sorry. That way it's

[26:30] >> spoken into the record.

[26:31] » spoken into the record.

[26:31] >> I understand.

[26:32] » I understand.

[26:32] >> Thank you very much. Got it. Um,

[26:38] my understanding is the general plan and

[26:40] code discourages non-conforming uses and

[26:43] will not allow commercial uses within or

[26:45] abuing residential areas that changes

[26:48] the historic nature or character of the

[26:50] residential neighborhood context or

[26:52] other impacts of that nature. Um

[26:56] this is a not on a is not a sign on a

[26:59] residential property as it indicates in

[27:01] the first paragraph. It in fact is is on

[27:04] a structure which is a non-conforming

[27:06] use a wine tasting facility and the

[27:09] reason it's non legal non-conforming is

[27:12] that there are certain limitations on

[27:13] that use in terms of time and intensity.

[27:17] Um

[27:21] the description of it is overridden by

[27:23] the fact that um it has limitations on

[27:26] it. And

[27:32] the U applicant states that the reason

[27:35] for the illuminated signs is to increase

[27:37] foot traffic. Um

[27:41] this is the only wine tasting room that

[27:43] would have an illuminated sign as far as

[27:45] I can see. and having uh an

[27:48] encouragement of foot traffic sounds

[27:50] like an intensity of of use over what we

[27:52] have right now. the only um

[27:56] the the uh city discourages

[28:00] uh lit signs on the plaza and the only

[28:02] wine tasting facility that I understand

[28:04] is that uh something or other suppressor

[28:08] on the u on the east side and there's

[28:11] some question about whether that's going

[28:12] to remain there.

[28:18] Neither of the two tasting rooms have

[28:20] illumination that was uh talked about

[28:23] under the community development element.

[28:25] It says it's to coordinate development

[28:28] on small lots. There's no development

[28:30] here to coordinate. It's finished. It's

[28:31] been done years ago. Preserving the

[28:34] heritage of the community. It violates

[28:36] the heritage of the community as far as

[28:37] the neighbors are concerned.

[28:40] Um

[28:43] accessory structures allows on

[28:45] premisage. This is not an accessory

[28:47] structure. It is the main structure on

[28:50] the site, the subject of the site.

[28:56] Our

[29:01] position is and the neighbor's position

[29:02] is that it violates the uh general plan

[29:05] and code in the sense that having

[29:08] commercial uses abudding uh residential

[29:12] is is not allowed and also one that

[29:14] affects the historic value or the uh uh

[29:18] continuity of it is is May I have about

[29:20] 20 seconds left?

[29:23] >> Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully

[29:25] » Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully

[29:25] request that the commission reject this

[29:27] application, direct the applicant to

[29:30] return the front yard to residential

[29:31] garden, install no signs on the actual

[29:34] building, except modest in ground signs

[29:37] and no elimination. Thank you.

[29:40] >> Thank you very much, Jim.

[29:42] » Thank you very much, Jim.

[29:42] Are there any other members of the

[29:44] public who wish to address the

[29:45] commission on this agenda item? Okay,

[29:48] we'll close public comment. I'll bring

[29:50] it back to the commission for

[29:51] discussion. Any commissioners wish to

[29:55] opine on this agenda item? Uh,

[29:58] Commissioner O'Neal,

[29:59] >> I have a question. I'm not sure if it's

[30:01] » I have a question. I'm not sure if it's

[30:01] for staff for the applicant, but Jacob,

[30:03] I'll start with you. Um, so currently or

[30:06] previously, Hawk had that monument sign

[30:09] out front and what is the plan for that

[30:12] monument sign going forward?

[30:14] >> That sign's no longer there.

[30:15] » That sign's no longer there.

[30:15] >> So, there's nothing in replacement and

[30:17] » So, there's nothing in replacement and

[30:17] the monument sign has gone away.

[30:19] >> That is correct.

[30:19] » That is correct.

[30:20] >> Okay. Thank you.

[30:25] Commissioner,

[30:26] >> thank you. Um, I will direct this to

[30:29] » thank you. Um, I will direct this to

[30:29] staff. Um, hopefully you can answer. So,

[30:31] in terms of of I think the question was

[30:34] already asked about the the lighting in

[30:37] terms of the plaza itself, do we have

[30:40] any code or any ordinance pertaining to

[30:44] the lighting of buildings on the plaza?

[30:46] Even even the the lights in the park,

[30:49] what what time do those go off?

[30:51] I wouldn't be able to speak on the

[30:53] lighting in the park, but in terms of

[30:56] the plaza, I'm not aware of any specific

[30:58] regulations for that. We've talked about

[31:00] that as a potential new regulation with

[31:03] the upcoming sign ordinance.

[31:04] >> Um, so that's something to consider in

[31:07] » Um, so that's something to consider in

[31:07] how we address uh new lighting that's

[31:09] around the plaza.

[31:13] » Anyone else have questions for staff? I

[31:16] have a question.

[31:18] Have we, to your knowledge, have we

[31:20] placed any um restrictions on any other

[31:24] lit signage around the plaza?

[31:26] >> Okay.

[31:27] » Okay.

[31:27] >> Yes.

[31:28] » Yes.

[31:28] >> On Bank of America, it's the most recent

[31:30] » On Bank of America, it's the most recent

[31:30] one.

[31:30] >> I remember I recall that one. Is there

[31:33] » I remember I recall that one. Is there

[31:33] any other I mean, is it

[31:36] >> Yes. Um we've done another um wine

[31:39] » Yes. Um we've done another um wine

[31:39] tasting room that

[31:42] um I'm trying to remember.

[31:45] It's on this side of the plaza as well

[31:48] where we limited the lighting um for

[31:50] their sign to just be within the

[31:53] business hours and so after business

[31:55] hours it was to be turned off. I see. So

[32:00] fair to say that limiting the period of

[32:03] elimination for this lit sign to

[32:04] business hours would be in keeping with

[32:06] precedent.

[32:08] Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Any

[32:11] other questions?

[32:13] uh comments.

[32:17] » Um let's see. I'm gonna address the

[32:20] illumination of the sign. First of all,

[32:22] the I was the advocate for the reduction

[32:26] of the illumination of the Bank of

[32:28] America sign, but that sign is an

[32:30] internally

[32:32] there was one not internally

[32:33] illuminated. There were others that were

[32:35] internally illuminated and they had come

[32:38] to us wanting to keep that those signs

[32:41] illuminated 24 hours um a day. Um

[32:46] my feeling about this sign and its

[32:49] illumination is one it's not truly an

[32:52] internally illuminated sign. It's a sign

[32:55] that's lit from the back so that it um

[32:58] is accented off the wall. And and I also

[33:03] feel like the sign itself

[33:07] is a

[33:08] um is less of an imposition in the

[33:11] residential neighborhood than the

[33:13] monument signs of the wineries that are

[33:14] across the street from. It's not a big

[33:17] placard that's facing you as you're

[33:18] driving down the street. It's a

[33:20] relatively modest more than just a

[33:23] little more than a third of the allowed

[33:25] area or a little less than a third of

[33:27] the allowed area. Um and

[33:31] um I don't really find it objectionable

[33:34] in terms of the encroachment of the

[33:35] commercial district into that

[33:36] residential neighborhood. I know for the

[33:39] 35 years that I've lived here, that's

[33:41] those buildings have been occupied by

[33:44] businesses forever. One of one of them

[33:46] used to be um the adjacent Greyhound bus

[33:51] station. Um, so, you know, I I don't

[33:55] have any problem um making a motion to

[34:00] approve this. I I think it's a really

[34:02] modest improvement on the property. I

[34:04] think that the hours of illumination

[34:07] should be restricted to the hours of

[34:09] business. Um, so that when they're gone,

[34:12] the neighborhood doesn't have to deal

[34:13] with the illumination.

[34:15] >> Thank you. Any other comments,

[34:18] » Thank you. Any other comments,

[34:18] Commissioner Da?

[34:18] >> Thank you. First, I I appreciate the

[34:20] » Thank you. First, I I appreciate the

[34:20] comments from the public and their

[34:22] concerns. Um so um with regard to the um

[34:27] the businesses, my understanding is that

[34:30] that business not only has been there

[34:32] that uh business establishments have not

[34:34] only been there for a while, but it's

[34:36] actually in the retail overlay, I

[34:37] believe. And so technically, it is kind

[34:40] of in the business area. Um but

[34:43] secondly, with regard to the

[34:44] illumination, you know, that was my

[34:46] concern. And I went back and looked at

[34:48] our existing ordinance. Um, and

[34:51] basically it it does say that, you know,

[34:54] it would be inappropriate unless unless

[34:56] a business is operating in the evening

[34:58] hours and that we should um consider it

[35:00] carefully and and I feel that we have

[35:02] considered it carefully. I I would agree

[35:04] with Commissioner Willer's assessment. I

[35:07] think it's a modest backlit sign similar

[35:09] to Moon Mountain which is on the east

[35:11] side and Capoetta on the on the east

[35:13] side and Moon Mountain on the west side.

[35:15] Um, and I I would approve this with the

[35:19] condition of approval that we limit it

[35:21] to business hours.

[35:24] » Any other comments? Commissioner

[35:26] Bernett?

[35:27] >> Well, um, my concern about this

[35:31] » Well, um, my concern about this

[35:32] application has little to do with the

[35:33] design and plans for the sign itself. I

[35:36] certainly would support its use the of

[35:39] the illumination only during business

[35:41] hours. Um, I guess that my concern, and

[35:46] it's not something we can hold against

[35:48] this applicant, is that is this going to

[35:52] begin the process of the other wine

[35:56] tasting operations wanting illuminated

[35:58] signs, too? And are we then going to

[36:02] face, you know, additional applications

[36:07] for illuminated signs in this on this

[36:10] street? And um I can't answer that

[36:13] question, but but business being what it

[36:18] is, I think the likelihood of that

[36:20] happening is probably pretty good. So I

[36:24] throw that in there only as a

[36:26] consideration. The only other thing I

[36:28] will add is that legal non-conforming

[36:32] uses are subject to all kinds of

[36:35] limitations.

[36:36] For example, the footprint of the

[36:39] building cannot be enlarged.

[36:42] Um, and uh, and there may be other

[36:45] conditions that apply to legal

[36:47] non-conforming uses. Um,

[36:51] uh, I don't know if the other

[36:54] commercial uses of residentially zoned

[36:57] properties. Um, uh, is true of all the

[37:03] other commercial uses on that section of

[37:06] the block.

[37:08] Um, I suspect it probably is that they

[37:10] are grandfathered in and uh, as legal

[37:14] non-conforming uses. Um, so I I think

[37:20] imposing a condition such as the

[37:22] illumination be turned off when the

[37:25] property is not in operation as the

[37:28] business is is appropriate and um and in

[37:33] accordance with the typical kinds of

[37:35] limitations that are placed on legal

[37:38] non-conforming uses. Thank you.

[37:42] >> Thank you very much. Are there any other

[37:44] » Thank you very much. Are there any other

[37:44] comments?

[37:47] Commissioner O'Neal.

[37:48] >> Um, I do think that the elimination of

[37:49] » Um, I do think that the elimination of

[37:49] the monument sign is an improvement to

[37:51] the street view and I do think it's um

[37:54] I'd like to go on record saying that I

[37:56] would really be objecting to a

[37:59] illuminated sign that was a monument

[38:01] because I think it's too distracting for

[38:02] people driving up and down the street.

[38:04] Um, the fact that it's placed um back

[38:08] against the structure, even if this is

[38:10] the main structure, I think it's um way

[38:13] more subtle and I I like that. I think

[38:16] it's just a little bit more elegant for

[38:18] the approach to that neighborhood. Um, I

[38:20] also think that visibility of the

[38:22] business is an important thing and using

[38:23] the illuminated sign against the

[38:25] building as opposed to a monument is

[38:27] just um keeping that streetscape nicer.

[38:30] So, I do I like that.

[38:35] >> Any other comments?

[38:39] » All right.

[38:41] I'll make a motion to approve a sign

[38:43] permit for two new illuminated wall

[38:45] signs on a residential property at 383

[38:50] First Street West with the condition of

[38:52] approval that the sign be only

[38:54] illuminated during business hours.

[38:57] >> Is there a second?

[38:58] » Is there a second?

[38:58] >> Second.

[39:00] » Second.

[39:00] >> Roll call, please.

[39:02] » Roll call, please.

[39:02] >> Commissioner Willers,

[39:03] » Commissioner Willers,

[39:03] >> yes.

[39:03] » yes.

[39:03] >> Commissioner Barnett,

[39:04] » Commissioner Barnett,

[39:04] >> I.

[39:05] » I.

[39:05] >> Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.

[39:06] » Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.

[39:06] >> Hi.

[39:07] » Hi.

[39:07] >> Commissioner Donbach,

[39:09] » Commissioner Donbach,

[39:09] >> yes. Commissioner O'Neal.

[39:10] » yes. Commissioner O'Neal.

[39:10] >> Yes.

[39:11] » Yes.

[39:11] >> Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.

[39:13] » Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.

[39:13] >> Hi.

[39:14] » Hi.

[39:14] >> The motion passes unanimously.

[39:16] » The motion passes unanimously.

[39:16] >> Thank you. Congratulations to the

[39:17] » Thank you. Congratulations to the

[39:17] applicant. Thank you very much for your

[39:19] time, Mr. Bohar, and your thoughtful

[39:21] comments. Appreciate it.

[39:25] Okay.

[39:26] Moving along to item 4.3 of tonight's

[39:30] public hearing. discussion,

[39:32] consideration, and possible action to

[39:34] approve a modification to a use permit,

[39:36] design review, and variance, including a

[39:39] new variance for the approval of a

[39:41] renovation of the second floor, an

[39:43] increase in the structure height of a

[39:44] duplex built over 45 years ago. This is

[39:47] located at 310

[39:50] 2nd Street East.

[39:53] Is there a staff report? Absolutely. So,

[39:56] I'll clarify as we go through this. Um

[39:59] but yes, this item's for a new variance

[40:01] as well as a modification to the um use

[40:06] permit design review and variance that

[40:08] was previously approved uh at a hearing

[40:11] in May of 2025 and specifically address

[40:14] the remodel and expansion of the duplex

[40:16] which is technically a non-conforming

[40:19] structure due to its setbacks.

[40:21] The property is developed with a 2,829

[40:25] foot duplex on a 6,672

[40:28] foot lot. The property is located in the

[40:30] northeast planning area and is within

[40:32] the historic overlay in its own medium

[40:34] density.

[40:36] So this project will be proposing an

[40:39] increase in the height of the duplex by

[40:41] one foot on the second floor and

[40:43] replacing all of the exterior walls on

[40:45] the second floor so that uh larger

[40:48] flaming sorry flaming framing can be

[40:51] added for support. Um the modification

[40:54] to the design review is necessary due to

[40:57] the enlargement of the windows on that

[40:59] second floor with the increase in height

[41:01] so that there's compatibility with the

[41:02] new height. And the proposal requires

[41:05] the new variance because the demolition

[41:07] of the second floor, the walls on the

[41:09] second floor, uh makes it makes the

[41:12] total change in exterior walls greater

[41:14] than the 50% that's allowed for

[41:16] non-conforming structures. So this would

[41:17] be considered a new structure and needs

[41:20] to be uh reviewed as such.

[41:23] So this is the existing floor plans with

[41:25] the demolition. You can see the first

[41:27] floor is on the right and the second

[41:29] floor is on the left. the second floor

[41:32] with the dotted lines shows you where

[41:34] that demolition will be occurring as

[41:35] well as the first floor um which is what

[41:38] has triggered the new variance to be

[41:40] required.

[41:42] Uh this is an image of the west

[41:45] elevation with the proposed modification

[41:47] along with the previous approval from

[41:49] May. So you can see the height

[41:51] difference along with the change in

[41:54] window height and those entry uh

[41:56] entryway heights.

[41:59] This is the east elevation.

[42:03] Here's the north elevation.

[42:06] Oh, sorry, that was the south. And this

[42:08] is the north elevation. And just to be

[42:10] clear, none of the other additions or

[42:12] changes from the previous approval are

[42:14] being added. There's no uh increase in

[42:17] the in the floor area or anything like

[42:20] that. This is specifically for the

[42:21] height of the structure.

[42:24] So in the analysis uh was found that the

[42:26] project's compliant with all development

[42:28] standards in northeast signing area

[42:29] except for those site setbacks. The

[42:31] changes proposed would not further

[42:33] expand on the non-conformities and is

[42:35] still compliant with the height

[42:36] standards as it will be below 30 ft.

[42:40] The project is compliant with the

[42:41] development code and general plan uh by

[42:43] promoting higher density infill without

[42:45] imposing rigid sty stylistic

[42:47] restrictions and the proposal promotes

[42:50] innovative designs uh to make the duplex

[42:53] more livable for the tenants.

[42:55] The historic resource evaluation that

[42:57] was done previously determined that the

[42:59] duplex didn't qualify as historic and

[43:02] the proposal is consistent with the

[43:03] design standards and doesn't have a

[43:06] historical character characteristic that

[43:07] will be altered and it's not expected

[43:10] that it will be impacting historic

[43:12] characters of the adjacent properties.

[43:15] So the adjustment is consistent with the

[43:17] intent of the zoning uh zoning district

[43:19] for higher density infill and the

[43:21] variance will treat the development as

[43:23] the new construction and intends to

[43:25] continue maintaining its existing

[43:26] setbacks as they were approved in the

[43:28] previous hearing and the increase to the

[43:31] height of structure um is within the

[43:34] height limit that's consistent with the

[43:35] zoning. So the approval of the variance

[43:38] would allow for the property owner to

[43:39] use the existing duplex footprint as is

[43:42] as it is now whereas the current

[43:44] development standards would require them

[43:45] to partially demolish some of that

[43:47] residence to be able to meet those side

[43:49] setbacks.

[43:50] The approval doesn't grant special

[43:53] privileges in our uh in our findings and

[43:56] uh gives the property owner an

[43:58] opportunity to design the duplex in a

[44:00] way that improves that livability

[44:02] overall. So should the planning

[44:04] commission determine that the findings

[44:05] can be met, staff recommends approval of

[44:07] the modification to the design review

[44:09] and variance uh sorry and the new

[44:12] variance including the new variance to

[44:14] allow the reconstruction of the

[44:15] sidewalls within the required setback

[44:17] and increase the height of the duplex

[44:18] and staff's available for any questions.

[44:20] I believe the applicant is available as

[44:22] well.

[44:24] >> Thank you very much. I'll first ask if

[44:27] » Thank you very much. I'll first ask if

[44:27] any commissioners need to disclose any

[44:28] exparte communication with any

[44:30] interested parties to this application.

[44:35] No.

[44:36] Okay. There questions of staff from the

[44:41] commission. Commissioner

[44:43] >> Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the

[44:45] » Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the

[44:45] first is I'm confused as to why this was

[44:49] this extra foot of height wasn't

[44:50] included in the original application for

[44:52] the variance back in May. That's my

[44:54] first question. The second, this

[44:56] property has already been demolished and

[45:00] is under construction now.

[45:03] So why are we getting it now when

[45:04] they're already under construction?

[45:08] So to answer the first question, u from

[45:10] my understanding is they had an

[45:12] architect who passed away prior to the

[45:14] hearing at the previous hearing. Um and

[45:17] so they went forward with what was drawn

[45:19] out in that at that time. Um when they

[45:22] were going into construction, they

[45:24] realized that there was some changes

[45:26] that they wanted to make for the height

[45:28] that felt appropriate for the structure.

[45:30] Um and in doing that, they determined

[45:33] that better framing was going to be

[45:34] needed. So they wanted to request that

[45:37] um that we review that. When it comes to

[45:41] the work that's already been conducted,

[45:44] um that was part of what was previously

[45:47] approved. So they started the work for

[45:49] what was previously approved and then

[45:52] stopped that work once they were from my

[45:54] understanding they stopped that work

[45:56] before uh to get the approval and then

[45:58] they could continue.

[46:02] » Okay. Any any follow-up questions to

[46:03] that or Okay. Any other members of the

[46:06] commission have questions for city

[46:07] staff?

[46:10] I guess my question uh Jacob would be

[46:14] whether a specific reason was provided

[46:16] to you for the request for the um

[46:20] additional elevation. Was it structural?

[46:23] Was it aesthetic? I I recognize that the

[46:25] applicant's here and will come and

[46:26] address us, but I'm I'm wondering

[46:28] specifically if

[46:29] >> it may be better for the applicant to

[46:31] » it may be better for the applicant to

[46:31] address just because I didn't I didn't

[46:33] receive a specific one besides u

[46:35] potentially aesthetic value.

[46:37] >> Okay, great. Thank you. Any

[46:40] » Okay, great. Thank you. Any

[46:40] other questions? Okay. I would invite

[46:42] the applicant to come forward

[46:45] and

[46:47] speak or present. Sir, if you could

[46:49] state your name for the record.

[46:52] Glenn Kamoto. I reside at 324 Second

[46:55] Street East, which is next door to this

[46:57] property. Uh your question about why

[47:00] this hadn't come before the commission

[47:02] initially. Uh the architects

[47:06] initially thought that we would redo the

[47:09] roof using scissor truss and get the

[47:11] height uh as we address the roof and the

[47:15] roof height wouldn't change. But as we

[47:17] started construction, did the

[47:19] demolition, it became very clear that um

[47:22] that we needed to lift the roof and the

[47:24] existing second the whole second story

[47:26] to get the new floor joist in because

[47:29] the first floor has been approved for an

[47:32] addition of one foot to bring it to 9

[47:35] ft. And we're also putting in two inches

[47:38] of of concrete so that you don't catch

[47:41] footfalls between the floors. So, we had

[47:44] a plan and as Jacob said, we lost our

[47:48] architect um unexpectedly

[47:51] and as we st got into construction, we

[47:53] said, "Oh, this this doesn't make

[47:55] sense." And in addition, it's it's 2x4

[47:58] framing. It's not in very good shape.

[48:00] The building was poorly constructed and

[48:02] the contractor's strong preference and

[48:04] my preference is, "Hey, let's demo the

[48:06] thing." And under the code, we can demo

[48:08] everything but 12 feet. and the planner

[48:12] said just demo the whole thing and

[48:14] that's the right way to do it. So the

[48:16] 2x4 framing is going to be replaced by 2

[48:18] by six framing much stronger. It's going

[48:21] to take a lot more insulation. It's

[48:23] going to be warmer and a 9- foot ceiling

[48:26] in these days is

[48:28] considered more livable. It's just just

[48:30] going to be a nicer space. But it's the

[48:32] same square footage. It's just got more

[48:34] volume.

[48:37] >> Was the original plan for an 8ft

[48:39] » Was the original plan for an 8ft

[48:39] ceiling? The original plan was for a 9

[48:41] foot ceiling internally use without

[48:44] changing the exterior structure at all.

[48:46] >> I see.

[48:47] » I see.

[48:47] >> So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we

[48:48] » So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we

[48:48] can just leave it the way it is. Bad

[48:50] idea. Turned out to be a very bad idea.

[48:53] >> Understood.

[48:55] » Understood.

[48:55] While the applicants at the podium, do

[48:56] any members of the commission wish to

[48:58] ask any questions? Okay.

[49:01] Thank you very much, sir.

[49:04] Okay. At this point, I would open this

[49:06] item to public comment. Any members of

[49:08] the public present who wish to come and

[49:09] address the commission on this item can

[49:11] come forward and state their name.

[49:15] >> Claudia Raniker.

[49:18] » Claudia Raniker.

[49:18] >> Okay. The first floor uh walls were

[49:22] » Okay. The first floor uh walls were

[49:22] originally 8 feet. They got they

[49:25] increased that by one foot and there was

[49:28] 20 in of insulation. If you'll look at

[49:30] the plan, a space of 20 in for

[49:34] insulation between the two floors. So

[49:37] that makes the first that makes an

[49:40] increase all of 32 inches.

[49:43] On the application that I've read the

[49:46] from the staff said they wanted to

[49:48] increase that second story another 12 in

[49:53] because they feel that that makes things

[49:56] much more livable another foot. But most

[50:00] of the people in the world live under 8

[50:02] foot ceilings and I don't believe that's

[50:04] going to increase any comfort. So also

[50:07] in that report it says they also wanted

[50:09] to put another two inches for in for uh

[50:12] soundproofing.

[50:14] This all of this together with the t 32

[50:16] in that are approved will bring that

[50:19] total height increase to 46 in

[50:24] the the building is suspended. The top

[50:28] floor is suspended over the first and

[50:30] it's set at 48 in. So there's a 48 inch

[50:33] gap that 48 that

[50:37] and being okay. The variance has allowed

[50:43] Okay. So that the variance from last

[50:45] year has allowed the allowed the

[50:47] building to sit five feet from the fence

[50:49] line under rule of the old code.

[50:54] But the height allowance is being

[50:56] controlled by what code allows today.

[51:02] Today's code holds a 7 and 1/2 ft

[51:06] setback

[51:07] and a 30foot height allowance.

[51:10] But because the building is being held

[51:13] at five feet, two and a half feet closer

[51:17] to the fence line, any height increases

[51:21] will only intensify the force on

[51:24] boundaries.

[51:29] The original building was not aggressive

[51:34] because the setback and height allowance

[51:37] were in sync to prevent that. Height

[51:40] allowances are concerned with the height

[51:42] of the roof.

[51:44] This building has a very low pitched

[51:46] roof of six feet. So very little of the

[51:50] height increase is absorbed by the roof

[51:54] height. It is a sheer wall like Villa

[51:57] Cheese, but the building does not bear

[52:00] down on you because there's space around

[52:04] it. This is overbearing.

[52:09] And because of all that, I am asking you

[52:13] to re-evaluate

[52:15] this current request for more height

[52:19] increases

[52:20] because that will make the building

[52:23] excessively overbearing and excessively

[52:26] dominating

[52:28] and to make a more mutually and I'm

[52:30] asking you if you can

[52:33] to make a more mutually respecting

[52:36] decision for both of us.

[52:40] But before you do that, I would like you

[52:43] to ask the property owners in private

[52:50] if that is okay with them because I

[52:53] think they deserve a decent amount of

[52:55] respect.

[52:56] >> Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your

[52:58] » Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your

[52:58] comments.

[52:58] >> Thank you.

[53:03] » Okay. Are any other members of the

[53:05] public wishing to address the commission

[53:08] on this matter tonight?

[53:10] Okay, seeing none, I will close public

[53:12] comment. I will bring it back to the

[53:14] commission for discussion.

[53:17] Any members of the commission wish to

[53:20] >> Yes.

[53:20] » Yes.

[53:20] >> Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the

[53:24] » Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the

[53:24] um drawings. Can you um between the

[53:28] previous approval and the proposed

[53:30] modification, what is that height

[53:32] difference?

[53:35] the overall height. Is that what you're

[53:36] asking?

[53:38] >> Well, what is the previous approval?

[53:40] » Well, what is the previous approval?

[53:40] What's the height on that one?

[53:41] >> 24 feet and one inch.

[53:44] » 24 feet and one inch.

[53:44] >> Okay. And we're only we're increasing it

[53:46] » Okay. And we're only we're increasing it

[53:46] one foot

[53:47] >> to 25 ft and one inch.

[53:49] » to 25 ft and one inch.

[53:49] >> What is Claudia's comments about the 48

[53:53] » What is Claudia's comments about the 48

[53:53] in increase? My understanding was since

[53:57] she's no longer here is a deviation from

[53:59] baseline from the initial what was the

[54:02] initial the height of the initial

[54:03] structure prior to consider.

[54:04] >> Okay. Not between the first to the

[54:06] » Okay. Not between the first to the

[54:06] second the first approval and what's

[54:10] being considered here.

[54:11] >> Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh

[54:15] » Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh

[54:15] one point and it had to do I think part

[54:18] of it had to do with the spacing between

[54:20] the first and the second floor um and

[54:24] the difference there. I I'm not fully

[54:26] understanding it, but um I think that

[54:29] was part of where the height difference

[54:31] was um was between that insulation

[54:34] between those two floors.

[54:38] » Thank you. Any other commissioners

[54:43] wish to apply?

[54:46] >> Mr. Na,

[54:47] » Mr. Na,

[54:47] >> I'll make a comment. Um, again, I

[54:49] » I'll make a comment. Um, again, I

[54:49] appreciate the public's comments. Um,

[54:51] but reading through the report, my

[54:53] understanding is the difference between

[54:55] what was approved in May and now is this

[54:58] 1 inch um increase um one foot. Thank

[55:02] you. More than one inch. Um and that

[55:05] that there's also the same setback issue

[55:08] of not seven feet but 5.3.

[55:11] >> Yeah. Which was approved at that time.

[55:13] » Yeah. Which was approved at that time.

[55:13] >> Right.

[55:14] » Right.

[55:14] >> Um and so when I look at the overall

[55:16] » Um and so when I look at the overall

[55:16] there no there's no change in other

[55:17] aspects F or site coverage. Um and that

[55:22] the 25 ft is within the maximum that's

[55:24] allowable. Um,

[55:27] I would I would say that I'm supportive

[55:30] of the change because it it really

[55:32] doesn't change the overall structure.

[55:34] The only change here is one foot of

[55:36] height, which is within the the code

[55:38] norm. Um, and it is improving the house

[55:42] and improving the structure. Um, and

[55:45] what I heard tonight was also that it's

[55:46] improving the safety and the foundation

[55:48] of the structure. So, I I would be

[55:50] inclined to approve it.

[55:53] >> Thank you. Any other members of the

[55:54] » Thank you. Any other members of the

[55:54] commission have comments?

[55:58] >> Commissioner Bernett,

[55:59] » Commissioner Bernett,

[55:59] >> um what is the um

[56:02] » um what is the um

[56:02] what is the height of the finished

[56:04] building as proposed and what is the

[56:09] permittable or permissible height of a

[56:12] building in that particular situation

[56:16] according to the code?

[56:17] >> So the maximum height for the zoning uh

[56:19] » So the maximum height for the zoning uh

[56:20] for this planning area is 30 feet. The

[56:22] maximum height of this structure will be

[56:24] 25 feet and one inch.

[56:25] >> Thank you.

[56:28] » Thank you.

[56:28] >> Other members of the commission have

[56:29] » Other members of the commission have

[56:29] comments.

[56:32] I will join in the comments of my fellow

[56:34] commissioners and that I support the

[56:36] approval of this application that on

[56:38] balance the additional uh 1 foot in

[56:41] height um doesn't negate any of the

[56:45] findings that were previously made.

[56:47] We're not here to relitigate um the

[56:50] findings of um

[56:53] what was uh what was discussed in May

[56:55] and approved. And uh for that reason and

[56:58] all the reasons previously mentioned, I

[57:00] would be supportive of approving this

[57:02] application.

[57:03] With that said, is there a motion?

[57:07] >> Motion to approve.

[57:10] » Motion to approve.

[57:10] Um you can find it here. the um

[57:17] the variance, including a new variance

[57:19] in the approval of a renovation of the

[57:22] second floor and increase in the

[57:23] structure height of a duplex built over

[57:26] 45 years ago located at 310

[57:29] Second Street East, including the action

[57:32] to approve the categorical exemption.

[57:36] >> A second.

[57:39] » A second.

[57:39] >> Roll call, please.

[57:41] » Roll call, please.

[57:41] Commissioner Willers,

[57:42] >> yes.

[57:43] » yes.

[57:43] >> Commissioner Barnett,

[57:44] » Commissioner Barnett,

[57:44] >> hi.

[57:45] » hi.

[57:45] >> Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,

[57:46] » Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,

[57:46] >> hi.

[57:46] » hi.

[57:46] >> Commissioner Donach,

[57:47] » Commissioner Donach,

[57:48] >> yes.

[57:48] » yes.

[57:48] >> Commissioner O'Neal,

[57:49] » Commissioner O'Neal,

[57:49] >> yes.

[57:50] » yes.

[57:50] >> Vice Chair Nent,

[57:51] » Vice Chair Nent,

[57:51] >> I.

[57:51] » I.

[57:51] >> Chair Wyrick,

[57:52] » Chair Wyrick,

[57:52] >> I.

[57:52] » I.

[57:52] >> The motion passes unanimously.

[57:55] » The motion passes unanimously.

[57:55] >> Thank you very much. Thank you to the

[57:56] » Thank you very much. Thank you to the

[57:56] applicant for his presence tonight and

[57:59] uh to the members of the public who came

[58:02] to participate in the discourse.

[58:06] Moving on to item 4.4 four of tonight's

[58:09] public hearing discussion,

[58:10] consideration, and possible action to

[58:12] approve design review and use permit

[58:15] amendment

[58:16] for

[58:22] » may I

[58:26] discuss item 44, discussion,

[58:28] consideration, and possible action to

[58:29] approve design review and use permit

[58:31] amendment for exterior modifications to

[58:33] the front facade and operational

[58:35] conditions located at 9 East Napa

[58:38] Street. If there's a staff report,

[58:41] please.

[58:42] >> Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate

[58:44] » Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate

[58:44] planner. Good evening, commissioners,

[58:46] chair Wyrick, and Vice Chair Nent. Nice

[58:48] to see you.

[58:52] So the item before you uh in summary as

[58:56] Hayrick um chair Hyrick described is for

[58:59] design review for exterior modifications

[59:01] to the front facade located at 9 East

[59:04] Napa Street uh at OSO. It is has a

[59:08] general plan designation of commercial

[59:10] zoning uh commercial. It is within the

[59:14] historic overlay and the plaza retail

[59:16] overlay and it is within the downtown

[59:19] district planning area and there was a

[59:23] previous historical resource evaluation

[59:25] done on it and uh it was determined to

[59:28] not be eligible as a historic resource.

[59:33] So on the right is the exterior of OSO

[59:37] as it is now and then on the left is a

[59:40] rendering of the proposed changes

[59:44] and we can visit back if we need to.

[59:48] So the the proposed changes include uh

[59:51] insetting the front facade to make it

[59:53] flush. Right now it's sort of at an odd

[59:55] angle as you're you're probably aware

[59:57] of. Um it would go from four smaller

[1:00:00] windows to three larger windows. Uh and

[1:00:05] perhaps most notably um moving the the

[1:00:09] entrance from the west side to the east

[1:00:11] side of the front facade. The wood

[1:00:14] awning uh for lack of a better term

[1:00:16] would be removed as well as the um dark

[1:00:20] ac uh wood accents and dark tiling. And

[1:00:24] the a color change would occur and the

[1:00:27] replacement of the existing metal

[1:00:29] windows and door would be replaced with

[1:00:32] um as you can see a green color in that

[1:00:34] same um material. And throughout the

[1:00:38] plan set you you may have noticed um

[1:00:43] alluding to signage and sidewalk seating

[1:00:46] and both of those items will be handled

[1:00:48] uh under separate permit. So, we're just

[1:00:50] sort of focusing on the the changes to

[1:00:52] the front facade and the amendments to

[1:00:54] the existing use permit.

[1:00:59] So, again, here is just providing a bit

[1:01:01] more detail on the materials in color

[1:01:03] and lighting. Um the existing material

[1:01:06] is stucco, so it but you almost can't

[1:01:08] tell due to the dark color that's

[1:01:10] currently on the building. Um, so it' be

[1:01:13] a bit more not noticeable when they go

[1:01:15] to this lighter sort of off green color.

[1:01:18] Um, and then the darker green for the

[1:01:20] windows and doors and um there's just a

[1:01:24] closeup of the the lighting features

[1:01:26] there that would be down lit. Um, and

[1:01:29] there is a time schedule in the lighting

[1:01:31] schedule that's in the plan set. I would

[1:01:34] also like to note um that the you may

[1:01:36] have also noticed that I mentioned in

[1:01:38] the staff report that the location of

[1:01:41] the gas meter was called out to be on

[1:01:43] the front facade of the the building and

[1:01:47] the applicant definitely acted in the

[1:01:50] best interest of the city in regard to

[1:01:53] um operating on the plaza and worked

[1:01:55] with P Gen to apply for an exception in

[1:01:58] order to be able to do the upgrades that

[1:02:01] they're wanting on the interior for

[1:02:03] their tenant improvements with uh while

[1:02:06] still being able to use the existing

[1:02:08] location which is um in the sidewalk

[1:02:10] there.

[1:02:15] So the moving on to the amendments quite

[1:02:18] minor really um and actually a reduction

[1:02:22] in hours for the exterior on Fridays and

[1:02:25] Saturdays. Um so generally staying the

[1:02:28] same um and all the other applicable

[1:02:32] uh conditions that were that are in the

[1:02:35] existing use permit would remain. Um and

[1:02:38] then really it's just a change in the

[1:02:40] arrangement of seating. So they would go

[1:02:43] from 29 interior seats to I I'm sorry uh

[1:02:47] 26 indoor seats to 29 and eight outdoor

[1:02:51] seats to 14 in the rear patio. And

[1:02:55] although the number of employees per

[1:02:58] shift was not um specifically expressed

[1:03:01] previously um that would not go beyond

[1:03:05] six employees uh maximum per shift and

[1:03:09] as in the the existing use permit uh

[1:03:12] with the total occupancy not to exceed

[1:03:14] 49 and that would not change.

[1:03:19] So there are a number of findings

[1:03:21] including the design review findings,

[1:03:23] the use permit findings and then um

[1:03:27] design review within the historic

[1:03:29] overlay um staff does feel that it meets

[1:03:32] all of the findings and we are

[1:03:36] recommending approval of the design

[1:03:38] review and the use permit amendment to

[1:03:40] the front facade and operational

[1:03:42] conditions. and and also asked that the

[1:03:46] project um be considered uh

[1:03:49] categorically exempt pursuant to section

[1:03:52] 15301

[1:03:53] um which is existing facilities. Thank

[1:03:56] you. Oh, I'm sorry. And we do have that

[1:03:58] the owners here should there be any

[1:04:01] questions that should be directed at

[1:04:03] them. We have uh David and Kelly Bush. I

[1:04:05] meant to mention that in the beginning.

[1:04:08] >> Miss Levine, thank you for your report.

[1:04:10] » Miss Levine, thank you for your report.

[1:04:10] Commissioner comments. Commissioner

[1:04:12] Barnett.

[1:04:14] questions. Excuse me.

[1:04:15] >> I noticed on one of the renderings there

[1:04:17] » I noticed on one of the renderings there

[1:04:17] were looked like three tables. I'm not

[1:04:22] sure if it's been proposed formally that

[1:04:25] these become part of the application,

[1:04:29] but um this obviously if if uh approved

[1:04:34] this way and if the drawing indicates a

[1:04:38] change in seating capacity, would this

[1:04:40] not increase the outdoor seating

[1:04:43] capacity by six seats?

[1:04:46] So, uh, that's why I mentioned in the

[1:04:48] beginning the sidewalk permits are, um,

[1:04:51] applied for under a separate permit. So,

[1:04:54] that won't be part of that's not part of

[1:04:57] this application. The 49 is the 49 is in

[1:05:02] reference to an interior occupancy. Um,

[1:05:05] that just they would have to stay under

[1:05:07] 49 on the interior in order to not

[1:05:10] trigger other, you know, fire

[1:05:11] requirements or what have you.

[1:05:13] >> No, I understand, but go back. There was

[1:05:15] » No, I understand, but go back. There was

[1:05:15] one that had to to talked about seating

[1:05:17] in the garden

[1:05:20] and uh there was a change

[1:05:24] uh interior

[1:05:26] 14 rear patio seats from eight outdoor

[1:05:30] seats.

[1:05:32] So that just has to do with the

[1:05:36] >> I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's

[1:05:39] » I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's

[1:05:39] in the rear.

[1:05:40] >> So that just has to do with the rear.

[1:05:42] » So that just has to do with the rear.

[1:05:42] >> Yes. And but it's not changing their

[1:05:44] » Yes. And but it's not changing their

[1:05:44] total number of occats.

[1:05:47] >> Correct.

[1:05:47] » Correct.

[1:05:47] >> And so if I understand you correctly, if

[1:05:51] » And so if I understand you correctly, if

[1:05:51] they do want to go forward and apply for

[1:05:55] some seating in the front, they're going

[1:05:57] to have to make a separate application

[1:05:59] to do that.

[1:06:00] >> Yes, that would be done through the

[1:06:01] » Yes, that would be done through the

[1:06:01] sidewalk seating permit.

[1:06:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:06:04] » Okay. Thank you.

[1:06:04] >> You're welcome.

[1:06:08] » Thank you. Any other questions?

[1:06:09] Commissioner Dela.

[1:06:10] >> Thank you. I have a clarifying question.

[1:06:12] » Thank you. I have a clarifying question.

[1:06:12] I just want to make sure I understand um

[1:06:14] about the gas meter and and whether we

[1:06:18] have to make that a condition of

[1:06:20] approval. There's there was some

[1:06:21] language in the staff report that

[1:06:23] suggested that. So I just want to make

[1:06:25] sure I understand. So there is a front

[1:06:28] there is a gas meter. It's just not a

[1:06:30] new gas meter. Is that correct?

[1:06:33] >> So the existing gas meter is actually

[1:06:36] » So the existing gas meter is actually

[1:06:36] under the sidewalk there. Um it's not on

[1:06:39] the front. And so I actually did include

[1:06:41] it in the conditions of approval just

[1:06:44] because I really like to have the plans

[1:06:46] match exactly what what's what we see

[1:06:49] come in as a building permit or or

[1:06:52] whatnot. Um and so I didn't have them

[1:06:55] refresh revise the plan set. Um so

[1:06:58] that's why I called it out but it would

[1:07:00] remain as such. They had originally P

[1:07:02] Gen now wants um when certain um

[1:07:06] upgrades are triggered. They want the

[1:07:08] gas meters on the front of the building.

[1:07:11] And um so we had an internal discussion

[1:07:13] because we hadn't heard this come up

[1:07:16] before and there was concern over the

[1:07:19] impact that that would have

[1:07:20] aesthetically on the plaza. Um and so we

[1:07:24] spoke internally and then uh we spoke

[1:07:26] with the applicant and they were um

[1:07:29] willing to apply for an exception with

[1:07:32] PG& to maintain um the location where it

[1:07:36] is now which is not visible. Okay. So

[1:07:38] just two follow-up questions. Um

[1:07:41] so um just a process question. So since

[1:07:45] you already have it in the conditions

[1:07:47] the we if we were to uh recommend a

[1:07:51] motion we wouldn't have to include it.

[1:07:53] >> Correct.

[1:07:53] » Correct.

[1:07:53] >> Okay. The second question I have is

[1:07:55] » Okay. The second question I have is

[1:07:55] around safety and what happened to

[1:07:58] corner 103 with the underground gas

[1:08:00] line. And I I'm do we have any insight

[1:08:05] into whether even though PG& approved

[1:08:08] that that they really refortified that?

[1:08:12] >> That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.

[1:08:15] » That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.

[1:08:15] That it was power. It was

[1:08:16] >> I apologize. I thought it was gas.

[1:08:18] » I apologize. I thought it was gas.

[1:08:18] >> No, it's electricity.

[1:08:19] » No, it's electricity.

[1:08:19] >> Okay. But again, the an underground the

[1:08:22] » Okay. But again, the an underground the

[1:08:22] underground.

[1:08:23] >> So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.

[1:08:25] » So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.

[1:08:25] Okay. So, um after that occurred, um PG&

[1:08:29] did come out, reassess um all of the

[1:08:32] vaults, looked for that specific type of

[1:08:35] electric fault and identified those that

[1:08:39] may be within our sidewalks that are of

[1:08:42] that age and type and have already

[1:08:45] looked into updating all of those. And

[1:08:48] so, it's already in process for all of

[1:08:50] that. Um the um the reason why they want

[1:08:54] them up is really just to read meters

[1:08:57] and accessibility purposes more than

[1:09:00] anything. It's not

[1:09:02] um because of safety.

[1:09:04] >> Okay.

[1:09:04] » Okay.

[1:09:04] >> Thank you so much.

[1:09:06] » Thank you so much.

[1:09:06] >> Great. Any other commissioner questions?

[1:09:08] » Great. Any other commissioner questions?

[1:09:08] Commissioner Bernett?

[1:09:10] >> Um are we being asked to consider the uh

[1:09:14] » Um are we being asked to consider the uh

[1:09:14] color scheme for this in this

[1:09:17] application?

[1:09:18] >> That is within your privy. Yes.

[1:09:20] » That is within your privy. Yes.

[1:09:20] And so were there any I would have liked

[1:09:24] to have seen

[1:09:26] um this color scheme in context with the

[1:09:31] other adjacent properties.

[1:09:35] >> Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can

[1:09:37] » Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can

[1:09:37] see a glimpse of it here or and I can

[1:09:39] also so we have soul desire on the left

[1:09:42] which is the lighter cream and then also

[1:09:46] in the center and then parkside to the

[1:09:49] right. So it would be a tone may perhaps

[1:09:52] it could be referred to as in between

[1:09:54] the two. Um, but I can also we can pull

[1:09:58] up um Google or uh Google Maps right now

[1:10:01] too if if that's something that you want

[1:10:03] >> Well, you know, normally um

[1:10:07] » Well, you know, normally um

[1:10:08] even just a color change on the plaza

[1:10:10] would trigger a robust discussion.

[1:10:14] Uh not to mention a change in the actual

[1:10:18] structure of the facade, which is this

[1:10:20] what this includes. I'm not in love with

[1:10:22] their wooden um uh canopy or whatever

[1:10:27] you want to call it today. Um and they

[1:10:30] haven't indicated

[1:10:32] what kind of signage.

[1:10:35] Uh OSO does have one of those. We were

[1:10:38] discussing them earlier backlit

[1:10:41] type illuminated signs but there's no

[1:10:44] indication on this as to what kind of

[1:10:46] signage they want to do.

[1:10:48] >> Right. So that was the other component

[1:10:50] » Right. So that was the other component

[1:10:50] that will be they wanted to defer that

[1:10:52] to another application.

[1:10:54] >> Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little

[1:10:57] » Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little

[1:10:57] concerned about considering each of

[1:10:59] these pieces in isolation when the

[1:11:02] reality is that um we'll be dealing with

[1:11:07] uh a comprehensive change in the context

[1:11:11] of whatever gets approved as the final

[1:11:14] approval for this particular location.

[1:11:17] and I'm not seeing a a submittal

[1:11:20] application that

[1:11:23] um reflects the totality of those

[1:11:26] changes. So, I'm having a little I'm

[1:11:28] finding myself resisting a little bit

[1:11:30] going ahead without more information to

[1:11:34] put this all of these changes in

[1:11:36] context.

[1:11:37] >> Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,

[1:11:41] » Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,

[1:11:41] the sidewalk seating wouldn't be

[1:11:44] something that would come before you. We

[1:11:45] those do get processed administratively,

[1:11:48] but I understand um your concern in in

[1:11:51] regard to the signage. Um if you'd like

[1:11:55] me to pull up the street view, I can do

[1:11:57] that or whatever you prefer.

[1:12:00] Well, I I wouldn't mind seeing it, and

[1:12:03] I'll have to use my imagination for what

[1:12:06] it would look like with these green

[1:12:07] colors rather than a mocked up composite

[1:12:11] of of how the uh final would look. I

[1:12:15] just I'm just surprised there isn't a

[1:12:17] more complete visual presentation on

[1:12:20] this.

[1:12:31] Do you want to ask if there's any more

[1:12:33] questions and then we can pull it up

[1:12:35] while we're

[1:12:36] >> It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na

[1:12:40] » It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na

[1:12:40] >> uh just clarifying question is OSO and

[1:12:44] » uh just clarifying question is OSO and

[1:12:44] uh is it park side are they related? Are

[1:12:46] they the are they in the same Thank you.

[1:12:50] >> We have questions of staff while we're

[1:12:53] » We have questions of staff while we're

[1:12:53] pulling that up.

[1:12:56] Might this be an opportunity to invite

[1:12:58] the applicant to come forward and

[1:12:59] address the commission if they so

[1:13:01] choose? There's no requirement.

[1:13:08] » Great. And if you just say your name for

[1:13:09] the record, I appreciate it.

[1:13:10] >> David Bush ush.

[1:13:13] » David Bush ush.

[1:13:13] >> Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple

[1:13:15] » Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple

[1:13:15] remodel. It's a restaurant now. It's

[1:13:17] going to remain a restaurant. We're just

[1:13:19] improving the space, making it more

[1:13:21] comfortable. Um,

[1:13:23] improving the facade, I believe. Looks a

[1:13:26] little outdated and a little drab. Um,

[1:13:30] and we really just want to create more

[1:13:31] of a neighborhood restaurant on the

[1:13:34] square, casual place, um, and a much

[1:13:37] more comfortable place. The backyard

[1:13:39] obviously needs improvements. Um, and we

[1:13:41] would love to get some sidewalk seating.

[1:13:44] We just think it makes the place more

[1:13:45] vibrant and, um,

[1:13:48] really attracts people more to the

[1:13:50] square. I think people want to sit

[1:13:52] outside. We hardly ever fill up inside

[1:13:54] when it's nice outside and having tables

[1:13:57] out front like when we had the parklets

[1:13:59] really gave us a lot more life,

[1:14:01] especially on that side of the square

[1:14:02] where it's pretty slow sometimes,

[1:14:05] especially as far as foot traffic goes.

[1:14:07] So, you know, that's the goal for the

[1:14:09] project. Um,

[1:14:11] we're just a small family business

[1:14:14] doing our best.

[1:14:16] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.

[1:14:22] Uh, thank you for pulling this up. That

[1:14:26] helps me.

[1:14:32] As I say, I wish um it'd been a mockup

[1:14:34] of the colors

[1:14:37] in a, you know, wouldn't be hard to do

[1:14:40] in Photoshop. And uh so I would have

[1:14:45] hoped and expected and I guess my

[1:14:48] position is that

[1:14:50] any changes to the plaza to me

[1:14:55] um demand an extra level of scrutiny and

[1:15:00] consideration. It's just it's just the

[1:15:04] way I'm built. And I'm not opposed to

[1:15:07] change. I happen to enjoy Oso as a

[1:15:10] restaurant. I've eaten there many many

[1:15:12] times and um um but I think that uh

[1:15:18] going forward at least when we have

[1:15:21] changes to a facade of any

[1:15:26] uh plaza business. Uh I would like to

[1:15:30] see those changes rendered in the

[1:15:33] context of where they are their

[1:15:36] neighbors. And I know it'll be extra

[1:15:39] work for applicants. I'm sorry about

[1:15:41] that. But, you know, I uh having worked

[1:15:44] with Photoshop myself for 35 years, it's

[1:15:47] not that hard to do. So, I'll see where

[1:15:51] the rest of the commissioners.

[1:15:54] >> Thank you very much. Any other

[1:15:55] » Thank you very much. Any other

[1:15:55] commissioner comments? Questions? Excuse

[1:15:58] me. Questions? Any more questions?

[1:16:02] No more questions?

[1:16:04] Um, any comments? Excuse me. I need to

[1:16:08] open public comment on this matter. Are

[1:16:10] there any members of the public wishing

[1:16:12] to address the commission on this agenda

[1:16:13] item

[1:16:17] and see? Oh, Mr. Abadilly, state your

[1:16:20] name, please.

[1:16:20] >> JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state

[1:16:23] » JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state

[1:16:23] that uh I think OSO is a real gem of

[1:16:26] restaurant to have on the plaza. It has

[1:16:28] unique offering um different than most

[1:16:30] any other place. It's one of the rare

[1:16:32] places we can still get a bite at 8:59

[1:16:34] p.m., which I really appreciate. And I

[1:16:37] think we all know how hard it is to run

[1:16:38] a restaurant. I I hope the commission

[1:16:40] can help make it a little easier for a

[1:16:44] business owner to run the business the

[1:16:45] way he wants. And from the looks of it,

[1:16:47] I'm not much of a color guy, but I think

[1:16:49] I can I think I can picture like a dark

[1:16:51] dark green, and I think it'll look well

[1:16:52] look good in the context. So, I

[1:16:54] appreciate that. Thank you.

[1:16:56] >> Thank you very much. Any other members

[1:16:58] » Thank you very much. Any other members

[1:16:58] of the public wishing to come address

[1:17:01] the commission?

[1:17:03] Okay, seeing none, I will close the

[1:17:05] public comment and bring it back to the

[1:17:06] commission for comments.

[1:17:08] Commissioners have comments.

[1:17:10] Commissioner O'Neal.

[1:17:12] >> Um, I like the new design. I think that

[1:17:15] » Um, I like the new design. I think that

[1:17:15] that angle is um awkward and I think

[1:17:19] that this is a really clever way to make

[1:17:21] it a little bit more comfortable there.

[1:17:23] And I do really encourage the outdoor

[1:17:25] seating. I think it makes the look more

[1:17:28] vibrant. I think the plaza would look

[1:17:29] more vibrant. I think that the dated

[1:17:32] reclaimed wood um worked 12 years ago

[1:17:36] about when you guys put it in and a

[1:17:38] refresh is a great way to have people

[1:17:40] remember. Oh, Oso. Yeah, I haven't been

[1:17:42] there in a while. So, I actually am

[1:17:44] fully in support of this. I think it's a

[1:17:46] really nice design and I look forward to

[1:17:48] enjoying it.

[1:17:50] >> Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.

[1:17:52] » Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.

[1:17:52] >> Yes. I I also um really like the design

[1:17:56] » Yes. I I also um really like the design

[1:17:56] and I really appreciate Oso as a

[1:17:58] business in Soma um and as a community

[1:18:01] member. Um one thing I hope is that

[1:18:04] somewhere you'll keep the pig the pig

[1:18:06] bear.

[1:18:10] » Thank you. Any other comments?

[1:18:13] Commissioner Willers. Um, Jacob, can you

[1:18:16] pull up or can you pull up the color

[1:18:18] chart that the colors are were actually

[1:18:20] applied for that you have up in the

[1:18:22] corner of the one slide? So I I think

[1:18:25] this is

[1:18:26] to me this is a failing of SketchUp and

[1:18:30] a and the thing we should be paying

[1:18:32] attention to is are these colors because

[1:18:35] I think that the stucco color the paint

[1:18:37] color of the stucco is actually um very

[1:18:40] close a little bit more vibrant than the

[1:18:43] next door neighbor um to the to the

[1:18:46] west. Um, and is it correct that the

[1:18:50] tile is the internal area?

[1:18:56] » Yes. But that that's how it was labeled

[1:18:58] on the plan set.

[1:19:01] >> So does is it the entire al cove?

[1:19:04] » So does is it the entire al cove?

[1:19:04] >> Here we have Sarah who was the applicant

[1:19:06] » Here we have Sarah who was the applicant

[1:19:06] on on behalf of the owners if you don't

[1:19:08] mind.

[1:19:08] >> I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the

[1:19:11] » I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the

[1:19:11] tile would be right behind where the

[1:19:12] seating is and the rest would be painted

[1:19:15] >> to match the tile color.

[1:19:17] » to match the tile color.

[1:19:17] >> Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are

[1:19:19] » Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are

[1:19:19] kind of difficult. It's a notoriously

[1:19:22] tricky program with the colors. The top

[1:19:24] right is the best representation of the

[1:19:25] actual colors. So it's darker the

[1:19:28] stuckle color and the tile as well are

[1:19:31] darker than the rendering is showing.

[1:19:34] >> Thank you.

[1:19:36] » Thank you.

[1:19:36] Yeah, I I I think that the you know the

[1:19:39] image that you see of the opening is

[1:19:41] much different than what the final

[1:19:43] appearance is going to be. And so I have

[1:19:45] no trouble with the color selections as

[1:19:47] a design.

[1:19:49] >> Any other comments,

[1:19:51] » Any other comments,

[1:19:52] >> Mr. Bernard?

[1:19:52] » Mr. Bernard?

[1:19:52] >> Okay. So I want to I want to understand

[1:19:55] » Okay. So I want to I want to understand

[1:19:55] the picture we're looking at now with

[1:19:57] the little tables in the front and those

[1:19:59] two versions of greens. These are not

[1:20:01] the accurate colors. Is that what you're

[1:20:03] telling me? So, the colors on the right

[1:20:06] are the accurate colors, which are far

[1:20:08] less

[1:20:10] um

[1:20:12] uh

[1:20:14] >> well, they're they're they're more

[1:20:16] » well, they're they're they're more

[1:20:16] compatible with the neighboring

[1:20:18] properties, but I'm using my imagination

[1:20:20] at this point in order to fill it in,

[1:20:23] which is why I'm concerned that that in

[1:20:26] future applications like this on the

[1:20:28] plaza, we get more detail

[1:20:32] before it comes to this commission.

[1:20:34] because I don't you know I was a graphic

[1:20:36] designer professionally for for 20 years

[1:20:41] uh before I changed careers and um the

[1:20:45] one lesson I learned

[1:20:47] in that craft was don't leave much up to

[1:20:50] the client's imagination because

[1:20:53] everybody imagines things somewhat

[1:20:55] differently. the better that you can

[1:20:57] show in a rendering precisely what it is

[1:21:00] you're intending, the better off you

[1:21:02] are. Otherwise, you run into the

[1:21:03] individual taste of a client that has to

[1:21:06] do with a color that may not be what's

[1:21:08] intended. So going forward, I would I

[1:21:12] would recommend to staff that, you know,

[1:21:15] we not we not have a variation as

[1:21:18] significant as this in terms of

[1:21:20] representation representation of how

[1:21:23] something's going to look when it

[1:21:24] actually is going to look quite

[1:21:26] different. So that being said, um I

[1:21:29] think now that I understand the actual

[1:21:32] colors that are going to be used, I have

[1:21:35] far less concern. And in terms of the

[1:21:38] design and the layout and the removal of

[1:21:40] the existing structures, those are all

[1:21:42] fine with me and I agree with the

[1:21:45] sentiments of the audience. I think the

[1:21:47] that so is a wonderful restaurant to

[1:21:50] have in town and I want to have them

[1:21:52] want to see them continue to succeed.

[1:21:56] >> Great. Thank you. Any other comments?

[1:21:59] » Great. Thank you. Any other comments?

[1:21:59] >> Okay. I will just join in saying that

[1:22:00] » Okay. I will just join in saying that

[1:22:00] I'm supportive of the the changes that

[1:22:02] are proposed in this application. I I I

[1:22:05] will actually joined Commissioner

[1:22:07] Barnett in his comments that I I believe

[1:22:09] that the um plaza facade is deserving of

[1:22:12] a maybe a little higher scrutiny than

[1:22:14] other not as prominently displayed areas

[1:22:18] of our city. But uh what's proposed here

[1:22:20] isn't anything that can't be uh you know

[1:22:23] remedied by a different painkiller in

[1:22:24] the future. So with that I would be

[1:22:26] supportive of uh approving this

[1:22:28] application.

[1:22:31] And with that, there any motions on the

[1:22:34] floor?

[1:22:37] >> A motion to approve.

[1:22:39] » A motion to approve.

[1:22:39] >> Second. Roll call, please.

[1:22:43] » Second. Roll call, please.

[1:22:43] >> Commissioner Willers,

[1:22:44] » Commissioner Willers,

[1:22:44] >> yes.

[1:22:44] » yes.

[1:22:44] >> Commissioner Barnett,

[1:22:45] » Commissioner Barnett,

[1:22:45] >> I.

[1:22:46] » I.

[1:22:46] >> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,

[1:22:47] » Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,

[1:22:47] >> I.

[1:22:48] » I.

[1:22:48] >> Commissioner Donbach,

[1:22:49] » Commissioner Donbach,

[1:22:49] >> yes.

[1:22:49] » yes.

[1:22:49] >> Commissioner O'Neal,

[1:22:50] » Commissioner O'Neal,

[1:22:50] >> yes.

[1:22:51] » yes.

[1:22:51] >> Vice Chair Nent,

[1:22:52] » Vice Chair Nent,

[1:22:52] >> I.

[1:22:53] » I.

[1:22:53] >> Chair Wyrick,

[1:22:54] » Chair Wyrick,

[1:22:54] >> I.

[1:22:54] » I.

[1:22:54] >> The motion passes unanimously.

[1:22:57] » The motion passes unanimously.

[1:22:57] >> Thank you very much. At this time, I

[1:22:59] » Thank you very much. At this time, I

[1:22:59] would call for a fivem minute recess. I

[1:23:01] want to be respectful of the the time

[1:23:03] that uh the members of the audience have

[1:23:05] spent thus far tonight and uh would call

[1:23:09] for a five strict fivem minute recess at

[1:23:11] this time. Thank you.

[1:29:01] members of the public,

[1:29:03] if I can encourage you to take your

[1:29:05] seats, please.

[1:29:12] Director Gates, are you close to being

[1:29:15] prepared?

[1:29:30] Okay. At this point, I will reconvene

[1:29:32] the planning commission meeting and go

[1:29:34] back on the record in item uh 5.2, which

[1:29:38] based on the action earlier will be

[1:29:40] moved to the top of the items for

[1:29:42] discussion portion of our agenda

[1:29:44] tonight. I want to begin by just

[1:29:45] thanking the members of the public who

[1:29:47] have remained here and who have obliged

[1:29:49] us uh after an hour and a half of other

[1:29:52] regular uh calendar agenda items. Um the

[1:29:56] fact that you're here speaks a lot to

[1:29:58] the fact that you believe in this

[1:30:00] process and that you believe in your

[1:30:03] city and uh the fact that there is um a

[1:30:07] pathway forward where I think uh you

[1:30:10] know that there's going to be a there

[1:30:13] can be a happy medium and that uh people

[1:30:16] can be um proud of where we live and um

[1:30:19] so I will reiterate thank you very much

[1:30:22] for being here and being involved. With

[1:30:24] that said,

[1:30:26] we will move forward with 5.2, which is

[1:30:29] discussion of the general plan ad hoc

[1:30:31] committee comments on available draft

[1:30:33] general plan elements. And I will turn

[1:30:35] it over to director Gates.

[1:30:39] >> Thank you. And also based on that

[1:30:42] » Thank you. And also based on that

[1:30:42] reorganization, my understanding is that

[1:30:44] we are going to first focus on the

[1:30:47] discussion around the Soma mixed um

[1:30:50] description. Correct.

[1:30:52] >> That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,

[1:30:55] » That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,

[1:30:55] um, to start there, um, and I can bring

[1:30:59] up things that you may request at any

[1:31:02] time, but just to kick it off the

[1:31:05] discussion. So, just as a reminder, on

[1:31:07] January 14th of this year, um, a

[1:31:10] community meeting was held at the

[1:31:11] Vintage House that many of you did

[1:31:13] participate in. It was an agenda

[1:31:16] planning commission um, meeting.

[1:31:19] Um and at that meeting um the goal of

[1:31:22] that was to gather input on what a Soma

[1:31:26] mixuse could look like on the Sebastiani

[1:31:29] property. So participants were asked to

[1:31:32] um participate in a roundt format to

[1:31:34] work together to discuss that potential

[1:31:36] uh uses.

[1:31:38] So each table did color in um different

[1:31:40] land uses on the map and completed a

[1:31:43] land use table to identify the specific

[1:31:46] uses that they would prefer to see in a

[1:31:48] future if a future development was to

[1:31:50] occur. Um at the end each table did

[1:31:52] present their maps to the group and

[1:31:55] those results um for each table were

[1:31:57] uploaded to our general plan website and

[1:31:59] then they were also attached to your um

[1:32:01] staff report. In addition to the maps

[1:32:04] and tables from that meeting, the

[1:32:05] community members were that were unable

[1:32:07] to attend as well as those that did um

[1:32:09] were offered the opportunity to also

[1:32:11] participate in that same exercise. So

[1:32:14] those also um were provided to you and

[1:32:17] attached to the staff report and they

[1:32:18] were available um online um on our

[1:32:22] general plan website.

[1:32:24] So based on the input um and all the

[1:32:27] comments that have been uploaded um

[1:32:29] specifically to the Sebastiani folder um

[1:32:32] we've created one folder in our general

[1:32:33] plan comments just for this purpose um

[1:32:36] based on um just so that we could allow

[1:32:38] for more focused um separation of the

[1:32:42] comments. Um while there were a lot of

[1:32:46] those that participated that would

[1:32:48] rather not see change at all um if the

[1:32:52] change was going to happen that's what

[1:32:54] those maps represented. um the

[1:32:56] Sebastiani, the future land uses that we

[1:32:59] saw the really the focus um and this is

[1:33:02] me summarizing so people may have taken

[1:33:04] different things but um really focusing

[1:33:07] on preserving agriculture and or open

[1:33:09] space where it exists today and to

[1:33:12] increase or create more buffers um using

[1:33:14] landscaping between existing and any

[1:33:16] other commercial or higher density

[1:33:18] housing to preserve the history of the

[1:33:21] Sebastiani Winery.

[1:33:24] um to um if change was to occur. Well,

[1:33:29] again, no change is preferred that the

[1:33:31] commercial hotel or multif family

[1:33:32] development was preferred to be tucked

[1:33:34] away on the sites away from the streets

[1:33:37] and again buffered um from the

[1:33:40] neighboring properties.

[1:33:42] Um also to maintain a small building

[1:33:45] character especially along the street

[1:33:46] edge. And then concerns um were raised

[1:33:49] around noise, traffic, and safety um

[1:33:53] with a new development if that was to

[1:33:55] occur there.

[1:33:57] So based on the input and direction, um

[1:34:01] staff is looking for direction on any

[1:34:02] edits to the proposed cinema mixuse

[1:34:04] description, including the name. Um I

[1:34:07] know a lot of people don't like the

[1:34:08] name, and that's fine, too. Um it's just

[1:34:10] a placeholder. Um but if there's any

[1:34:13] changes at this point, um that's what

[1:34:16] staff is looking for direction from the

[1:34:18] planning commission on. And um again,

[1:34:22] some of the level of detail that um is

[1:34:27] um really would form any future

[1:34:29] development would be part of the zoning

[1:34:31] code. Um which also is um something that

[1:34:35] the general plan ad hoc um group is um

[1:34:39] discussing as well. and that input from

[1:34:41] tonight could also feed that uh

[1:34:44] discussion

[1:34:46] around that future zoning code. So that

[1:34:49] concludes my brief presentation on the

[1:34:53] item. Again, I can bring up anything

[1:34:56] specific that you may want to look at um

[1:35:00] or some of the things that were

[1:35:02] presented. Um there were a number of

[1:35:05] submitts after um so hopefully you had a

[1:35:09] chance to at all of those that were

[1:35:11] uploaded

[1:35:13] um to get different kinds of feedback.

[1:35:15] So with that

[1:35:17] um did want we do have a number of

[1:35:20] people here. I didn't know if you wanted

[1:35:22] to ask me questions and and then do

[1:35:26] public comment before getting into

[1:35:27] discussion or not.

[1:35:31] >> Yes,

[1:35:32] » Yes,

[1:35:32] we can go. Would would there be an

[1:35:35] objection to fielding public comment

[1:35:37] first

[1:35:39] prior to entertaining questions? Yes.

[1:35:47] Yes.

[1:35:50] Has there been a historic resto resource

[1:35:53] evaluation of this site?

[1:35:55] >> Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but

[1:35:57] » Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but

[1:35:57] that would be required with any

[1:35:58] potential development.

[1:35:59] >> Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having

[1:36:03] » Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having

[1:36:03] that completed before we even look at

[1:36:06] the potential of resoning?

[1:36:10] Um,

[1:36:12] so

[1:36:14] even though something is historic

[1:36:17] doesn't mean that development can't

[1:36:19] occur. Correct. Right. So there's an

[1:36:21] environmental process with that. So

[1:36:25] if

[1:36:28] um if anything was proposed on that site

[1:36:31] to change anything, we would require it.

[1:36:33] We're currently in the process of doing

[1:36:35] our uh citywide survey

[1:36:38] >> um for historic resources um to

[1:36:40] » um for historic resources um to

[1:36:40] determine if there are other resources

[1:36:43] in town that haven't been uh identified.

[1:36:46] This is an early California landmark,

[1:36:50] but it's so early that it actually

[1:36:52] doesn't it's not automatically uh on the

[1:36:55] California register.

[1:36:57] Um, so it would need to be actually

[1:36:59] assessed.

[1:37:01] >> Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm

[1:37:04] » Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm

[1:37:04] I'm thinking that a lot of the property

[1:37:07] is not historic, but certain parts of it

[1:37:09] are truly historic, and it would be I

[1:37:14] would find it very helpful to get

[1:37:15] clarity as to what the different pieces

[1:37:18] are and how we would want to respect

[1:37:21] those going forward. So that's where I

[1:37:23] was coming from. Okay. Thank you.

[1:37:28] questions from the commission.

[1:37:31] >> Mr. Millers,

[1:37:32] » Mr. Millers,

[1:37:32] >> um I just have a general questions for

[1:37:34] » um I just have a general questions for

[1:37:34] for the commission as well as for the

[1:37:36] public so they understand what what are

[1:37:38] the ground rules so to speak in our

[1:37:41] discussion of this item tonight given

[1:37:44] the fact that it's a um general

[1:37:47] discussion of a general plan potential

[1:37:51] zoning change.

[1:37:55] Um,

[1:37:56] so it's not a public hearing for an

[1:37:59] item. It is a discussion, but we're at

[1:38:02] the point in these discussions where

[1:38:04] we're making edits to um the document or

[1:38:09] potentially even the land use map. The

[1:38:12] planning commission is not the deciding

[1:38:14] factor. Um, and again, we would look to

[1:38:19] city council to provide any final

[1:38:21] direction on how we would want to move

[1:38:23] forward on uh any discussion that's

[1:38:26] being had. Um we um staff has just

[1:38:30] scheduled a um item for the city council

[1:38:35] on March the 4th to provide a general

[1:38:38] plan update um with a couple of these

[1:38:41] changes that are presented not um not

[1:38:44] just this but also um the two uh

[1:38:48] requested land use changes that would

[1:38:50] affect the map would be presented as

[1:38:52] well to city council on March 4th for

[1:38:55] final direction so that the EIR studies

[1:38:58] can be finalized um along with that

[1:39:00] draft general plan.

[1:39:03] >> Just a follow-up question to that. So

[1:39:05] » Just a follow-up question to that. So

[1:39:05] fair to say that the planning commission

[1:39:07] in this sense has a acts an advisory

[1:39:10] capacity.

[1:39:11] >> That's correct.

[1:39:11] » That's correct.

[1:39:12] >> And it helps to inform the city council

[1:39:13] » And it helps to inform the city council

[1:39:13] on the direction that they ultimately

[1:39:15] take. Correct.

[1:39:16] >> Correct.

[1:39:16] » Correct.

[1:39:16] >> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.

[1:39:19] » Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.

[1:39:19] Would it be of value and is it our task

[1:39:24] tonight to

[1:39:27] uh edit or modify the language of the

[1:39:30] proposed

[1:39:32] new

[1:39:34] uh land use category?

[1:39:37] >> Yes, that would be within your purview

[1:39:40] » Yes, that would be within your purview

[1:39:40] tonight. That is um part of that

[1:39:42] discussion is what does that how does

[1:39:44] that read? um and um if there's certain

[1:39:48] things missing from it or other edits to

[1:39:52] anything within the land use element

[1:39:53] that we want to have addressed. There's

[1:39:55] the ad hoc has provided some additional

[1:39:57] comments not just on this but in general

[1:40:00] on the land use element specific to

[1:40:02] Sebastiani mixed use. There's been a

[1:40:05] number of questions around

[1:40:08] um a level of specificity that is um not

[1:40:12] typically seen necessarily in a general

[1:40:14] plan. Um and then concerns raised about

[1:40:17] the unknown um about a future

[1:40:19] development project and what would that

[1:40:21] look like? Um, in this case, a general

[1:40:24] plan again sets kind of the higher level

[1:40:27] policy. The zoning code sets um the

[1:40:30] limitations and the box as well as the

[1:40:32] uses that go inside that box. Um but um

[1:40:38] the uh uh I know that there's some

[1:40:42] concern around mixed use and not you

[1:40:46] know having one use or another use um on

[1:40:49] the site um and things like that. So,

[1:40:53] >> so, um, just to further clarify that,

[1:40:58] » so, um, just to further clarify that,

[1:40:58] um, we're talking about

[1:41:01] to we we can talk about tonight the

[1:41:04] specific words included in the

[1:41:07] definition of a new land use

[1:41:09] designation,

[1:41:10] which which specifically isn't a general

[1:41:14] plan land use designation. and it's a

[1:41:17] zoning map designation, but the two have

[1:41:20] become conflated

[1:41:22] in my mind in that u in that the

[1:41:28] new Soma mixed use designation as it's

[1:41:31] been called um has certain allowances in

[1:41:35] it in terms of what it is

[1:41:39] um permitting as possible uses within

[1:41:43] that designation. So, is that on the

[1:41:46] table tonight? A discussion of that

[1:41:48] specific language?

[1:41:51] >> Yes.

[1:41:51] » Yes.

[1:41:51] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:41:55] » Yeah. Thanks. I I just want to make sure

[1:41:57] I understand. Um, on page 197, you have

[1:42:00] a summary that says Sonoma Sebastian

[1:42:03] property targeted land use framework. Is

[1:42:06] is that is that language from staff

[1:42:10] as a proposed

[1:42:14] I I'm not sure.

[1:42:15] >> Sorry. What page are you on?

[1:42:16] » Sorry. What page are you on?

[1:42:16] >> I think it's 197.

[1:42:19] » I think it's 197.

[1:42:20] >> It says summary Sebastian property

[1:42:22] » It says summary Sebastian property

[1:42:22] targeted land use framework.

[1:42:25] >> I'm looking at the agenda.

[1:42:30] » Okay. I on your computer

[1:42:32] >> page 197 of 286.

[1:42:35] » page 197 of 286.

[1:42:35] >> It's not something that's on the screen

[1:42:36] » It's not something that's on the screen

[1:42:36] though.

[1:42:37] >> No,

[1:42:37] » No,

[1:42:37] >> I don't see anything on the screen.

[1:42:39] » I don't see anything on the screen.

[1:42:39] >> Yeah.

[1:42:39] » Yeah.

[1:42:39] >> Okay. I don't know what it is you're

[1:42:41] » Okay. I don't know what it is you're

[1:42:41] looking at. I'm looking at the agenda,

[1:42:43] page 197, and there's a thing there's a

[1:42:46] there's a under item 5.2 and it says

[1:42:50] summary

[1:42:52] Sebastiani property targeted land use

[1:42:55] framework. That's how it's entitled.

[1:42:56] >> Page 199.

[1:42:58] » Page 199.

[1:42:58] >> Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.

[1:43:01] » Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.

[1:43:01] >> Oh, on mine it says 199.

[1:43:03] » Oh, on mine it says 199.

[1:43:03] >> Okay. Okay. Apologies.

[1:43:06] » Okay. Okay. Apologies.

[1:43:06] >> This one?

[1:43:07] » This one?

[1:43:07] >> Yeah.

[1:43:07] » Yeah.

[1:43:07] >> Yes, that is a public comment.

[1:43:09] » Yes, that is a public comment.

[1:43:09] >> So, the summary is a public comment.

[1:43:11] » So, the summary is a public comment.

[1:43:11] Yes.

[1:43:11] >> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to

[1:43:13] » Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to

[1:43:13] understand where that language came

[1:43:14] from. Thank you.

[1:43:18] » Yes. So, it ends. So, the me the the one

[1:43:24] that's right above is our summary of the

[1:43:26] land use tables,

[1:43:28] >> right?

[1:43:29] » right?

[1:43:29] >> Um and then where that ends uh ends that

[1:43:32] » Um and then where that ends uh ends that

[1:43:32] um that item,

[1:43:34] >> okay,

[1:43:34] » okay,

[1:43:34] >> that portion of it. and then the rest

[1:43:37] » that portion of it. and then the rest

[1:43:37] are going to be the public comments

[1:43:40] suggestions.

[1:43:42] >> I would also add that this would also be

[1:43:44] » I would also add that this would also be

[1:43:44] the appropriate time to discuss the

[1:43:46] merits of whether a new land use

[1:43:48] designation is appropriate at all. Am I

[1:43:52] correct?

[1:43:55] >> If that is um

[1:43:58] » If that is um

[1:43:58] going to be that's a possibility so it

[1:44:01] can be removed. Um so any changes to the

[1:44:04] land use um map or descriptions are on

[1:44:08] the table.

[1:44:09] >> Okay.

[1:44:10] » Okay.

[1:44:10] >> Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think

[1:44:12] » Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think

[1:44:12] one of one of the things that came up in

[1:44:15] the ad hoc is is whether to call this a

[1:44:18] specific plan because of the site size

[1:44:22] or versus um just adopting zoning. So I

[1:44:26] just adopting the land use by the zoning

[1:44:29] code. And I just wanted to bring that up

[1:44:31] and ask if that's still an opportunity

[1:44:34] for discussion.

[1:44:36] >> Um, everything is open for discussion.

[1:44:39] » Um, everything is open for discussion.

[1:44:39] So, just as a reminder, a specific plan

[1:44:42] is a zoning code. It's just um includes

[1:44:45] more things than just the zoning code.

[1:44:51] » Any other questions?

[1:44:56] » Okay, I have some questions.

[1:45:02] Uh, Jennifer, could you speak to how

[1:45:05] housing laws like, for example, SB35,

[1:45:11] AB 2011, AB130 could potentially be used

[1:45:16] to maximize residential development at

[1:45:18] this site under a mixeduse

[1:45:23] uh designation as it is reflected in the

[1:45:25] proposed language currently.

[1:45:28] So um

[1:45:30] those are actually not about maximizing

[1:45:33] those are just more about um creating a

[1:45:35] ministerial process um around housing

[1:45:38] developments um

[1:45:41] um and they have to meet certain

[1:45:43] standards um don't typically see SB35

[1:45:46] because they actually require um the um

[1:45:52] the

[1:45:53] wage that the word just escaped me. Amy,

[1:45:56] help me here. um

[1:45:58] >> prevailing wage

[1:45:58] » prevailing wage

[1:45:58] >> prevailing thank you um the prevailing

[1:46:01] » prevailing thank you um the prevailing

[1:46:01] wage requirements um and I can't

[1:46:04] remember 2011 is the same way um the one

[1:46:08] that maximizes and what you're thinking

[1:46:12] about when you say maximize is going to

[1:46:14] be density bonus law so any property

[1:46:17] that um is of a certain size and we

[1:46:21] allow a certain density that gets a

[1:46:23] minimum of five units um is allowed a

[1:46:27] density bonus just by law if they

[1:46:31] provide a certain percentage affordable.

[1:46:33] Um they don't have to use the actual

[1:46:36] density increase but they do get

[1:46:38] incentives um a certain number of

[1:46:40] incentives and then unlimited

[1:46:42] concessions and waivers. Um and the idea

[1:46:45] behind that is that by providing that

[1:46:47] affordable you're reducing your ability

[1:46:49] to get your rate. And so, um, sometimes

[1:46:54] you need those waiverss and concessions.

[1:46:56] Um, maybe it's F, maybe it's setback,

[1:46:59] maybe it's height. Uh, it just depends

[1:47:01] on the project itself and what they're

[1:47:03] looking for um to meet that. So,

[1:47:06] anything that has housing pretty much in

[1:47:10] this town that can have five units can

[1:47:12] have a density bonus project.

[1:47:15] Um, so that's really the only law and

[1:47:18] that is a state law and a state

[1:47:20] requirement and it's an uh code as well.

[1:47:23] >> Okay, thank you.

[1:47:26] » Okay, thank you.

[1:47:26] Um

[1:47:28] kind of on that note,

[1:47:31] um

[1:47:33] how could

[1:47:37] h how could a potential developer of

[1:47:39] that site use a concession or one of

[1:47:42] these incentives um to devel could they

[1:47:45] potentially develop 100% housing a

[1:47:48] residential project at at that location?

[1:47:52] So

[1:47:54] 50% they could have 50% um density bonus

[1:47:59] but they perhap um I can't remember what

[1:48:01] the percentage is. It depends on what

[1:48:03] level of affordability it is. Um then

[1:48:05] yes they could have a 50% um increase

[1:48:09] um in their density. Um

[1:48:13] typically um

[1:48:15] this city's never seen that. Um I

[1:48:18] personally have never seen that um in my

[1:48:21] other jurisdictions but yeah anything's

[1:48:23] possible

[1:48:24] >> and it's all about what the project is

[1:48:25] » and it's all about what the project is

[1:48:25] and what they need to

[1:48:27] >> to get their project.

[1:48:29] » to get their project.

[1:48:29] >> So

[1:48:31] » So

[1:48:31] thank you for obliging me helping me to

[1:48:33] understand. So waiverss and concessions

[1:48:35] could include things like not having a

[1:48:38] parking standard for example.

[1:48:42] So density bonus automatically

[1:48:45] identifies the parking standards that go

[1:48:47] along with density bonus and we actually

[1:48:50] are consistent with that already in our

[1:48:52] code. Um what you're thinking of is um

[1:48:56] the project that we just approved on

[1:48:57] Montalo their density bonus request was

[1:49:00] um to an increase in their F. Um we've

[1:49:04] seen setback reductions.

[1:49:07] um we see typically um sometimes you see

[1:49:12] height increases

[1:49:14] um

[1:49:16] uh site coverage. Um so they just range

[1:49:19] and basically the idea is that those

[1:49:21] development standards um the standard

[1:49:24] that has to be met is that the

[1:49:25] development standard

[1:49:27] um reduction is allowing the

[1:49:29] affordability of the project to move

[1:49:31] forward in the sense that they're

[1:49:33] providing these affordable units. So,

[1:49:35] it's helping helping them either

[1:49:37] increase that density, get more on the

[1:49:40] site, um maybe spread out across the

[1:49:44] site a little bit differently.

[1:49:45] >> Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my

[1:49:47] » Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my

[1:49:47] arms around, you know, for I think it's

[1:49:49] 20. Is it 20? We're calling it 22 acres,

[1:49:51] right?

[1:49:52] >> 20.

[1:49:52] » 20.

[1:49:52] >> Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a

[1:49:56] » Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a

[1:49:56] residential component in the

[1:49:58] description. That's what mixed use

[1:50:00] intends.

[1:50:02] I'm trying to get my arms around the

[1:50:04] scope of what could be there if a

[1:50:07] developer utilized the tools that are

[1:50:09] available to them to maximize density,

[1:50:13] to maximize

[1:50:15] development.

[1:50:17] Um,

[1:50:20] and that that's where my that's where my

[1:50:22] questions are coming from. I'm trying to

[1:50:23] get my arms around that. I'm trying to

[1:50:25] get a a solid understanding around what

[1:50:28] could potentially be there if they

[1:50:31] potential developer met or crossed the

[1:50:34] threshold that would allow them the

[1:50:36] highest density bonus and the highest uh

[1:50:41] or the the greatest amount of waiverss

[1:50:43] and concessions. What would that look

[1:50:45] like?

[1:50:47] >> Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't

[1:50:49] » Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't

[1:50:49] go there. Okay.

[1:50:50] >> No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's

[1:50:51] » No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's

[1:50:52] all going to come down to what the

[1:50:54] project is and what's being proposed,

[1:50:56] right?

[1:50:57] um what is um that goal of that project

[1:51:02] um every project that I've worked on in

[1:51:05] my other jurisdictions with multif

[1:51:07] family development every single one was

[1:51:09] very different and it all comes down to

[1:51:11] the developer themselves and how they

[1:51:14] develop their properties. Um

[1:51:18] the developers are very different on

[1:51:20] what they're looking for. Um they also

[1:51:22] have different returns on investment,

[1:51:24] right? um depending on what their

[1:51:25] funding streams are. So all those things

[1:51:27] play into what they at the end of the

[1:51:29] day they're going to be asking for. Um

[1:51:33] the aspect of the zoning code too is you

[1:51:37] know what we're trying to do is um

[1:51:42] around this is also

[1:51:44] define the boundaries but also how do we

[1:51:48] incentivize to get what we want out of

[1:51:50] that project.

[1:51:52] Um, is there a way to do that? Maybe,

[1:51:54] maybe not. Um, in that sense of waiverss

[1:51:58] and concessions, but

[1:52:01] um, I'll let developers speak for

[1:52:02] themselves. But, um,

[1:52:06] there are obviously certain cases where

[1:52:08] developers will don't care about

[1:52:10] community um, and just come in for their

[1:52:12] product, but in other cases, some work,

[1:52:16] you know, with that and understand what

[1:52:18] the needs of that community. um at the

[1:52:21] end of the day their project has to be

[1:52:22] marketable to the community.

[1:52:24] >> Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much

[1:52:27] » Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much

[1:52:27] broader question and what tools do we

[1:52:29] have to get what we do want to see? Uh

[1:52:33] we I feel like we've seen this model um

[1:52:37] where

[1:52:39] a developer or an entrepreneur comes and

[1:52:41] they they get a project entitled right

[1:52:44] or a conceptual project entitled and

[1:52:46] then they sell it.

[1:52:49] What mechanisms do we have to tie?

[1:52:54] Maybe that's too broad a question, but

[1:52:57] um I'm trying to understand and I'm

[1:53:01] trying to help the public and my

[1:53:03] commission understand what uh what the

[1:53:07] upsides of this are and what the

[1:53:08] downsides of a reszone are or arts. Um

[1:53:15] fair to say that a reszone

[1:53:19] to what's currently titled as Sonoma

[1:53:23] mixed use commercial

[1:53:26] would open door

[1:53:29] to

[1:53:32] uh state the the impacts of state laws

[1:53:36] that reduces local control over what

[1:53:38] happens there.

[1:53:41] >> Is that is that fair or is that unfair?

[1:53:45] » Is that is that fair or is that unfair?

[1:53:45] So, I'm going to go with it's going to

[1:53:46] be a depends situation. Um, if this was

[1:53:51] a full-on housing reszone to just

[1:53:53] housing, I would say yes. Clearly, yes.

[1:53:57] Um, just because of the way that the

[1:53:59] laws are are now. um the um you know if

[1:54:05] there was only 10 acres or something

[1:54:07] like we have specific regulations and

[1:54:10] there's new ministerial processes um for

[1:54:12] housing multif family housing

[1:54:14] developments in certain instances. Um

[1:54:18] there are also other things um on each

[1:54:21] site that may be different that affect

[1:54:23] that ability to develop. um

[1:54:27] mixed use. The way that we have it

[1:54:29] written is that it's not just a housing

[1:54:32] project. It's housing and commercial,

[1:54:35] >> right?

[1:54:36] » right?

[1:54:36] >> Um there is um a mixed use in density

[1:54:39] » Um there is um a mixed use in density

[1:54:40] bonus that has specific um uh ratios um

[1:54:45] as well as other um aspects of that. Um

[1:54:50] so is it there? Yes. Is it always going

[1:54:54] to be there? Yes. Um at this time frame

[1:54:57] in the foreseeable future uh the state

[1:55:00] is going to continue to move in this

[1:55:01] motion. Um they've already I mean it's

[1:55:05] already been said that even shopping

[1:55:07] centers um can be changed to housing. Um

[1:55:10] so

[1:55:12] in this case the

[1:55:16] the city can take the the front end of

[1:55:20] it and say okay this is what we want

[1:55:23] with change. Um or you don't have change

[1:55:28] and maybe in the future somebody wants

[1:55:31] to come and make that change and then

[1:55:34] then you're getting a proposal of

[1:55:36] something that you would then be

[1:55:37] reviewing as a proposal. Would

[1:55:42] the elimination of a residential

[1:55:44] component

[1:55:46] in what's allowed in the zone

[1:55:51] help to

[1:55:53] protect I'll use the word protect our

[1:55:56] community from the impacts of what I

[1:55:59] consider overreaching state laws?

[1:56:03] >> So

[1:56:05] » So

[1:56:05] if you have no housing and you just

[1:56:09] continue to allow commercial or expanded

[1:56:11] commercial potential. Um then yeah, you

[1:56:14] wouldn't have

[1:56:17] per se those I'd have to look

[1:56:20] specifically at that commercial uh

[1:56:23] process, but

[1:56:25] >> Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone

[1:56:27] » Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone

[1:56:27] for a long time. I'm willing to uh let

[1:56:30] anybody else get in here who's

[1:56:31] interested in Commissioner Don.

[1:56:33] >> Yeah. I have a couple follow-up

[1:56:34] » Yeah. I have a couple follow-up

[1:56:34] questions to that. I mean um the first

[1:56:36] question is even if it's a commercially

[1:56:38] zoned property, you can still build

[1:56:40] residential property on that. Correct.

[1:56:43] >> Unless we spec specifically state in

[1:56:46] » Unless we spec specifically state in

[1:56:46] this zone type that there's no housing

[1:56:49] allowed in our commercial zone. So let's

[1:56:53] say we just in the same sense that here

[1:56:56] we've identified it to be a special

[1:56:57] zone. Right now it is a wine production

[1:57:00] zone and it has its only one uh in the

[1:57:03] city. um and it has its specific uses

[1:57:06] that are allowed. So if you added

[1:57:08] additional commercial types to that then

[1:57:13] and didn't include residential, our res

[1:57:16] our commercial and our mixed use zones

[1:57:18] do allow multifamily residential in them

[1:57:21] and have identified a density. That

[1:57:24] doesn't mean that

[1:57:26] um you didn't you have to.

[1:57:30] >> Okay. And and the second question, you

[1:57:32] » Okay. And and the second question, you

[1:57:32] know, um the public came and they and

[1:57:35] I've looked at the tables and they've

[1:57:37] put their preferences down and in other

[1:57:40] of our um our uh municipal code for

[1:57:44] other designations of land use, we have

[1:57:46] these tables that we allow things to be

[1:57:49] permitted or use permit or not

[1:57:51] permitted. And I think that that's

[1:57:53] something that um we use, we understand,

[1:57:59] and seems like um a lever that the city

[1:58:02] can use to really designate

[1:58:05] like other land use um parcels what we

[1:58:10] what we accept and don't accept. So with

[1:58:13] the input that we've received from the

[1:58:15] public around that kind of use table

[1:58:18] is that one mechanism where we can

[1:58:20] actually kind of construct what's

[1:58:23] allowed and not allowed on the parcels

[1:58:24] and um along that line there are several

[1:58:29] small parcels in the 20 acres. Correct.

[1:58:32] And we talked about it there's some that

[1:58:33] are more agg and some that have a winery

[1:58:35] and and um there was a request for

[1:58:38] preservation of that winery the the

[1:58:40] historic portion. So,

[1:58:43] how do we how do we craft that into a

[1:58:48] code? Um, you know, there's a table of

[1:58:51] use, but how do we craft the subparcals?

[1:58:56] Sorry. Is your is your question is there

[1:58:59] a way to modify allowable or allowed

[1:59:02] uses in the existing zone to achieve

[1:59:06] what we see as the will of the

[1:59:09] community? Well, that's I I that's why,

[1:59:11] you know, I brought up kind of a a sight

[1:59:14] specific plan because this is a unique

[1:59:16] property. It's 20 acres. It has multiple

[1:59:19] components to it. And um we've heard the

[1:59:23] summary from the public that some areas

[1:59:26] want to be buffered. We want, you know,

[1:59:28] we want to have some A. I saw that there

[1:59:31] was residential that people were okay

[1:59:33] with and certain kinds of commercial. So

[1:59:36] I think that from my perspective reading

[1:59:37] all of that, we do have a framework and

[1:59:41] I'm just wondering how we put that

[1:59:43] framework into this unique parcel um by

[1:59:47] designating different areas if we can do

[1:59:50] that as part of this um unique

[1:59:55] code. You know, because what we have

[1:59:57] here is like I'm not sure if somebody

[2:00:00] could bulldoze the Sebastiani

[2:00:02] building or they could take that

[2:00:04] building and make a m a multi- uh family

[2:00:07] unit. That that's what I'm not clear

[2:00:09] about. So, are there ways that part of

[2:00:12] the part of the area would be uh

[2:00:15] designated commercial or residential,

[2:00:17] part would be designated open space?

[2:00:20] That's what I'm I'm not clear of what

[2:00:22] what levers we have as um a city to help

[2:00:26] direct that.

[2:00:27] >> Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of

[2:00:30] » Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of

[2:00:30] commissioner.

[2:00:32] Um are you basically asking whether or

[2:00:35] not it's possible to have multiple land

[2:00:39] use designations applied to this overall

[2:00:43] 20 acres rather than a single

[2:00:45] designation? Is that the question you're

[2:00:47] asking? I guess my question is since

[2:00:49] we're this is a new designation, are

[2:00:51] there ways that we can specify just like

[2:00:54] we did with four corners, are there ways

[2:00:55] that we can have a a a specific

[2:00:58] specification of what can be in that

[2:01:01] parcel?

[2:01:02] >> Well, no parcels. Yeah.

[2:01:04] » Well, no parcels. Yeah.

[2:01:04] >> No, I understand we're we're that that

[2:01:07] » No, I understand we're we're that that

[2:01:07] was related to the issue I brought up

[2:01:09] earlier about, you know, modifying the

[2:01:12] language of the proposed designation.

[2:01:14] But I hear underlying your question, the

[2:01:17] question is rather than having one

[2:01:20] designation apply to the 20 acres,

[2:01:24] can we instead is there an option to

[2:01:28] create multiple land use designation

[2:01:32] within those 20 acres? I guess that's an

[2:01:35] alternative way to do it. So,

[2:01:44] » it's probably not ideal, but

[2:01:45] >> it is not ideal. Um, it's not good

[2:01:47] » it is not ideal. Um, it's not good

[2:01:47] planning practice. Um, we actually have

[2:01:50] an area of town where we have two land

[2:01:52] uses on same parcels. Per law, those

[2:01:56] zoning, those setbacks and things have

[2:01:58] to occur um from the actual location of

[2:02:03] this arbitrary line that's not actually

[2:02:05] a parcel line. Um and it doesn't quite

[2:02:10] work the way you would think. The other

[2:02:13] aspect is we cannot down zone.

[2:02:18] So you can't take away the development

[2:02:21] rights of these parcels that already

[2:02:24] have development rights to make them

[2:02:27] open space. Um the aspect that is

[2:02:34] more difficult in the conversation has

[2:02:36] been because of the variety I would say

[2:02:41] of uh parcel sizes, shapes

[2:02:46] um historic uses. Um the railroad

[2:02:48] corridor went through here, right? So

[2:02:50] that's why we have little slivers um of

[2:02:52] parcels.

[2:02:54] Um and so

[2:02:58] there's

[2:03:00] the idea behind a mixed use and having

[2:03:03] one is that when somebody comes forward

[2:03:06] with the um a subdivision or new parcel

[2:03:11] map and reorganizes all the lines or

[2:03:14] reduces the number of lines

[2:03:16] that you have one zone already. When you

[2:03:19] have two zones, the fun begins. Um, and

[2:03:24] where those lines are.

[2:03:26] Um,

[2:03:28] so that is the reasoning behind applying

[2:03:33] a broader um zone criteria to such a

[2:03:38] variety of parcels at this point.

[2:03:42] Um,

[2:03:45] I in my head cannot envision how we

[2:03:48] would separate

[2:03:51] the parcels

[2:03:54] by use type.

[2:03:57] >> Mr. Millers,

[2:03:58] » Mr. Millers,

[2:03:58] >> therein lies the rub.

[2:04:01] » therein lies the rub.

[2:04:01] >> We live in a community that is exactly

[2:04:03] » We live in a community that is exactly

[2:04:03] what you're talking about. And yet law

[2:04:06] wants us to create a community where

[2:04:08] everything's perfect.

[2:04:09] >> All one color here, all one color there.

[2:04:12] » All one color here, all one color there.

[2:04:12] And we live in a tapestry. We don't live

[2:04:15] in the one color there, one color here.

[2:04:18] And so compatibility

[2:04:20] is the tapestry.

[2:04:22] Law is the one color. And we're

[2:04:25] struggling because we have a we have one

[2:04:27] of the largest parcels aggregated, one

[2:04:30] of the largest parcels in our community

[2:04:32] to deal with. and it doesn't feel right

[2:04:36] to put one thing on it that allows all

[2:04:40] kinds of things because we don't know

[2:04:41] what that future is. And and so that to

[2:04:46] me is the real issue on on this parcel

[2:04:50] or these parcels I should say and we

[2:04:53] should continue to save these parcels

[2:04:55] even though it's one zone as a as a wine

[2:04:58] production zone zone primarily because

[2:05:02] that's what was happening on the at the

[2:05:04] time and made it conforming.

[2:05:07] Um, it's difficult because all of those

[2:05:10] issues that are raised by taking the

[2:05:15] taking what would normally be a series

[2:05:17] of small parcels and allowing something

[2:05:20] to happen on the 20 acre parcel in our

[2:05:22] community is not the tapestry that we

[2:05:25] live in. And so, um, I've been

[2:05:28] struggling with this and it's the first

[2:05:30] opportunity we have to talk about it,

[2:05:32] but there's so many external forces on

[2:05:34] it that it really takes, in my opinion,

[2:05:37] it's going to take very careful

[2:05:39] consideration and applying a single zone

[2:05:42] to all of the parcels doesn't feel

[2:05:45] right. And I think it needs more study

[2:05:47] to do it correctly. Um, and

[2:05:53] >> yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I

[2:05:55] » yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I

[2:05:55] mean, I'll put it out there. I'm a

[2:05:56] Strong Towns fan, and I really do think

[2:06:00] that this that, you know, that infill um

[2:06:03] that we had in the early part of last

[2:06:06] century, it is more compatible with with

[2:06:09] this town. And if there's a way that we

[2:06:11] can really roll up our sleeves and

[2:06:14] figure out how to I know it's hard, but

[2:06:17] the current design standards, good

[2:06:20] planning may not be good planning. you

[2:06:22] know, it's just kind of what we've all

[2:06:24] accepted over the last century. So, I I

[2:06:28] would um I want to solve this problem. I

[2:06:31] I want it to be good for this community.

[2:06:33] H want housing, want commercial that's

[2:06:35] compatible,

[2:06:37] open space. So, I I really would love us

[2:06:40] to to be able to do what's practical and

[2:06:43] what's feasible for this 20 acres um of

[2:06:48] land that we have. Um, and I I I

[2:06:52] still would like it to be a very

[2:06:54] specific kind of zoning.

[2:06:59] >> So, seems like we're kind of getting

[2:07:01] » So, seems like we're kind of getting

[2:07:01] away from questions, which is okay. But,

[2:07:03] um, do right. I want to give I want to

[2:07:06] start a good round of of uh of public

[2:07:09] comment here. Are there any final um

[2:07:12] maybe broader questions from the

[2:07:14] commission of of Director Gates before

[2:07:16] we jump into public comment?

[2:07:19] Commissioner Millers.

[2:07:20] >> So if we left it as wine production

[2:07:23] » So if we left it as wine production

[2:07:23] and made no change to the parcel parcels

[2:07:27] um and a

[2:07:34] uh I can say a developer, we'll just put

[2:07:38] it that way. The developer decided that

[2:07:40] they wanted to take on the 20 20 acres

[2:07:43] of land and come forward with a project.

[2:07:48] It would simply require if it included

[2:07:51] things that are not in the wine

[2:07:52] production zone, it would require a

[2:07:55] general plan amendment to allow a

[2:08:00] project that is acceptable at the

[2:08:03] community level if it met those

[2:08:06] standards to make the general plan

[2:08:09] amendment.

[2:08:11] So you would probably do a general plan

[2:08:15] amendment with either

[2:08:18] specific plan that you want or a new

[2:08:22] designation with that zoning.

[2:08:25] >> But the evaluation of that project

[2:08:27] » But the evaluation of that project

[2:08:27] wouldn't be dependent on the zoning. It

[2:08:29] would be dependent on the application.

[2:08:31] >> Correct.

[2:08:31] » Correct.

[2:08:31] >> And the review.

[2:08:32] » And the review.

[2:08:32] >> Correct.

[2:08:33] » Correct.

[2:08:33] >> So

[2:08:33] » So

[2:08:33] >> as one total project. as one total

[2:08:36] » as one total project. as one total

[2:08:36] project

[2:08:37] >> including subdivision yards.

[2:08:40] » including subdivision yards.

[2:08:40] >> But the but the city at that point would

[2:08:42] » But the but the city at that point would

[2:08:42] not be setting the precedent for the

[2:08:45] development of the property and thereby

[2:08:48] wouldn't be um

[2:08:53] wouldn't have to accept an application

[2:08:55] if it was non-conforming.

[2:08:58] >> Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming

[2:08:59] » Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming

[2:08:59] because it didn't exist. Well,

[2:09:01] non-conforming being that it isn't wine

[2:09:03] production and doesn't you and it

[2:09:04] doesn't meet the uses of the land that

[2:09:06] way. You know, it's, you know, people

[2:09:10] can propose whatever they'd like to

[2:09:12] propose and the community can come out

[2:09:14] and say yes, we like that or no, we

[2:09:15] don't, but we don't have to define our

[2:09:18] laws on on proposals. And so, so in my

[2:09:22] mind is if we don't change the zoning,

[2:09:25] we have a quasi derelict land use.

[2:09:30] Um but it doesn't have the a potential

[2:09:34] negative impact of

[2:09:37] of all of the things that you chair have

[2:09:41] brought up and that is we have a very

[2:09:42] aggressive state housing law. We have

[2:09:45] very aggressive state housing laws right

[2:09:47] now that don't allow very much community

[2:09:50] input and and while we all want housing,

[2:09:54] we all want to be able to also know what

[2:09:56] that's going to be and how to control

[2:09:57] it. and we don't have a lot of

[2:09:59] discretion as soon as we open that box.

[2:10:03] So, you know, I I'm just asking that

[2:10:06] because in some ways the protective

[2:10:08] thing is to leave it as it is.

[2:10:16] » Did I have a question mark on the end?

[2:10:21] » I said yes.

[2:10:22] >> Oh, you said yes. Okay.

[2:10:25] » Oh, you said yes. Okay.

[2:10:25] At this point, I would like to give the

[2:10:27] public a stab at coming and addressing

[2:10:30] this issue. There's enough hot air up

[2:10:31] here as it is. So, we'll turn that down

[2:10:33] for a minute and uh turn it over to the

[2:10:35] public. And I'll just remind everyone if

[2:10:38] uh we're tonight because of the uh the

[2:10:41] audience members here in attendance,

[2:10:43] we're going to try to abide by our three

[2:10:45] minute maximum. And um another way to

[2:10:49] show support for the comments of someone

[2:10:51] who's at the podium is to raise your

[2:10:53] hand. Um, we I pay attention to that and

[2:10:57] um we'll go ahead and move forward. So,

[2:11:00] if you could state your name, please.

[2:11:01] Thank you.

[2:11:02] >> Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good

[2:11:04] » Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good

[2:11:04] thing I talk fast. Even though my blood

[2:11:06] sugar is dropping, I'm going to talk in

[2:11:07] faster. Um, unlimited concessions and

[2:11:10] waivers. Scares the heck out of me. Um,

[2:11:12] and it is five parcels. We shouldn't

[2:11:14] have to treat it all as one. Uh, I like

[2:11:16] tapestry. That is the world. So, okay.

[2:11:19] Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole

[2:11:21] and I'm here to provide comment on the

[2:11:22] proposed land use change for Sebastian

[2:11:23] parcels. After attending the January

[2:11:26] 14th public meeting, it is clear that

[2:11:28] many engaged residents have serious

[2:11:30] concerns about redesating this site in

[2:11:32] total. So as Sonoma mixeduse, the

[2:11:35] consistent theme was that the

[2:11:36] designation feels too broad, too

[2:11:38] undefined for a property with this level

[2:11:40] of historic significance and community

[2:11:42] impact. For that reason, I respectfully

[2:11:46] urge the city to designate the Spastiani

[2:11:48] site as a special planning area rather

[2:11:50] than applying this newly created

[2:11:51] mixeduse category before any specific

[2:11:53] project has been proposed. We're getting

[2:11:55] the cart before the horse. A special

[2:11:56] planning or area would allow the city to

[2:11:59] evaluate actual sight specific proposals

[2:12:01] when they are submitted instead of

[2:12:03] pre-approving a wide range of uses in

[2:12:05] advance. This is not an unusual request.

[2:12:08] Across California, sensitive and

[2:12:10] historic sites are commonly governed

[2:12:12] through sight specific planning

[2:12:13] frameworks rather than broad mixeduse

[2:12:16] designations.

[2:12:17] My concern is practical. Under current

[2:12:20] state housing laws, once zoning and land

[2:12:22] use standards are adopted, cities are

[2:12:24] often required to approve projects with

[2:12:26] very li limited ability to deny or

[2:12:28] modify them. We just saw this play out

[2:12:30] last week in St. Helina. The city

[2:12:32] attorney explained that once they their

[2:12:33] zoning was changed, the city had to

[2:12:35] approve the project. In fact, the mayor

[2:12:37] expressed in quotes

[2:12:40] quote deeply he was deeply

[2:12:41] disappointment that this project was not

[2:12:43] really delivering what our community

[2:12:45] needed. However, he had to approve it.

[2:12:47] Um, we all know the Sebastiani property

[2:12:49] is special. A special planning area

[2:12:51] designation would allow the city to

[2:12:52] define sub areas, preserve agricultural

[2:12:55] and historic elements, establish clear

[2:12:57] limits, and ensure the development

[2:12:59] aligns with infrastructure and fire and

[2:13:01] evacuation realities. Just like what

[2:13:03] happened last week in St. in Helina once

[2:13:05] a broad designation is adopted that

[2:13:07] prudent management may be lost. There is

[2:13:10] a broader uh uh implication if this

[2:13:13] precedent is set here in the city. Think

[2:13:15] about 27 acres at Cherry Block. If we

[2:13:19] approve this this if the city classifies

[2:13:22] this land use as a proposal, the county

[2:13:24] could follow suit. I met I took the

[2:13:25] initiative. I met with our supervisor

[2:13:27] Hermaceia and she was not able to assure

[2:13:29] me that such an expansion is unlikely.

[2:13:32] So current, think about it. 50 acres in

[2:13:35] our backyard could be all development.

[2:13:38] This is a slippery slope. Let's wait

[2:13:39] till the proposal is presented. I got 22

[2:13:42] seconds. Okay. We currently have over

[2:13:43] 1,200 signatures on petition calling for

[2:13:45] responsible land use. Responsible land

[2:13:48] use does not mean no. It means

[2:13:49] evaluating each proposal carefully,

[2:13:51] transparently, and on merits when it is

[2:13:53] actually before us. Therefore, I

[2:13:55] respectfully request that we designate

[2:13:57] the bastion as a special area planning.

[2:14:00] Thank you,

[2:14:00] >> Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to

[2:14:03] » Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to

[2:14:03] spare.

[2:14:05] Sir, if you come forward, please, and

[2:14:07] state your name. Thank you.

[2:14:08] >> Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank

[2:14:09] » Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank

[2:14:09] you for letting me speak to you tonight.

[2:14:11] So, I'm going to be brief. I've

[2:14:12] submitted this before, but I want to to

[2:14:14] you in writing, but I'm going to read it

[2:14:16] to you. So, a case against the proposed

[2:14:19] uh mixeduse changes to the Sebastian

[2:14:21] property. Uh the proposed general land

[2:14:23] use plan changes allow mixeduse

[2:14:25] development on historic Seab Sebastian

[2:14:27] properties to represent a fundamental

[2:14:29] departure from Sonoma's adopted planning

[2:14:31] principles community values and public

[2:14:33] safety obligations while exposing

[2:14:35] taxpayers to unknown and potentially

[2:14:37] substantial infrastructure costs and

[2:14:39] insurance related costs. Framed as an

[2:14:42] economic solution, the proposal rests as

[2:14:44] an optimistic assumptions that are

[2:14:46] unlikely to materialize and would

[2:14:48] instead produce irreversible harm.

[2:14:50] increased wildfire risk, evacuation

[2:14:52] failures, loss of agricultural land,

[2:14:54] historic resources, erosion of Sonoma's

[2:14:57] identity and the sense of place, retail

[2:14:59] bleed possibly from the historic core

[2:15:02] and a precedent that undermines

[2:15:03] integrity of the uh general land use

[2:15:05] plan itself and all goals uh uh LU 2,

[2:15:09] three, four, and five when you read

[2:15:11] them. Apply it. Applying a single

[2:15:13] mixeduse designation as we just spoke

[2:15:15] and everybody in the room did with a

[2:15:17] wide residential density range to

[2:15:18] Sebastian properties departs from common

[2:15:21] California planning practice for

[2:15:23] historically significant fire

[2:15:25] constrained and partially operational

[2:15:27] sites. Um comparable jurisdictions

[2:15:29] typically rely on sight specific

[2:15:31] planning thank you um tools to manage

[2:15:34] sensitive properties, limit residential

[2:15:37] intensity and preserve historic and

[2:15:38] agricultural assets. uh blanket zoning

[2:15:41] approach risks irreversible impacts on a

[2:15:44] site that functions as a historic winery

[2:15:46] and agricultural campus. Uh it offers

[2:15:49] the current owners and potential futures

[2:15:50] investors a vacant redevelopment

[2:15:52] opportunity. Do we want to do that is

[2:15:54] the real question. Uh, critically, the

[2:15:57] proposal ignores viable and safer

[2:15:59] alternatives already available to the

[2:16:01] city, including vacant parcels along

[2:16:03] established commercial corridors and the

[2:16:05] adaptive reuse or repurposing of

[2:16:07] outdated commercial buildings for

[2:16:08] residential and mixed residential uses.

[2:16:11] It also fails to account for the likely

[2:16:13] bleeding of the retail and uh visitor

[2:16:15] serving uses away from the plaza

[2:16:17] Broadway and existing commercial

[2:16:18] districts, weakening Sonoma's historic

[2:16:21] commercial core. The treatise sort of

[2:16:24] consolidates the principal arguments

[2:16:26] raised by citizens, experts, and

[2:16:28] community stakeholders and sets forth a

[2:16:30] clear alternative path. So I that's what

[2:16:32] I would say is a clear alternative path

[2:16:35] to recognizing development,

[2:16:36] preservation, transparency and adherence

[2:16:39] of the adopted plan that you already

[2:16:41] have. Um risks of a pro profit

[2:16:45] extraction by out of area development

[2:16:47] interests is a a real reason. the

[2:16:50] permanent loss of historic buildings,

[2:16:51] the agricultural land loss, and the

[2:16:53] Sonoma way of life. So, I urge you to

[2:16:56] reconsider this blanket mixeduse plan

[2:16:59] and let a developer come forward with a

[2:17:01] plan that's acceptable for the community

[2:17:02] and propose it here in front of you all.

[2:17:05] Thank you for your time.

[2:17:06] >> Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your

[2:17:08] » Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your

[2:17:08] comments.

[2:17:10] Sir,

[2:17:13] » good evening. Uh, my name is Marty

[2:17:15] Bennett Bennett TT. I'm a longtime

[2:17:20] consultant for the hotel workers

[2:17:21] unionite here local too. I've lived in

[2:17:25] the city for more than 30 years.

[2:17:28] I urge that the general plan draft land

[2:17:31] use element conditionally permit any new

[2:17:34] hotels and that you require a study

[2:17:37] demonstrating that the hotel would not

[2:17:40] increase the demand for affordable

[2:17:42] housing.

[2:17:43] Hotels can increase demand for

[2:17:45] affordable housing because they often

[2:17:48] pay workers low wages, few benefits, and

[2:17:52] these are not sufficient to live in the

[2:17:54] valley. In 2025, the California

[2:17:57] Employment Development Department

[2:18:00] reported that entrylevel Sonoma County

[2:18:03] hotel housekeepers earn 1832 an hour and

[2:18:07] an annual income of about 38,000.

[2:18:11] However, MIT economists calculate that

[2:18:14] in Soma County, two full-time working

[2:18:17] parents with two children each need to

[2:18:21] earn $33 an hour or an annual income of

[2:18:24] $108,000

[2:18:26] before taxes to cover basic expenses,

[2:18:29] food, housing, health care,

[2:18:31] transportation, and child care. In 2025,

[2:18:35] United Ways of California reported that

[2:18:38] nearly onethird of households in Sonoma

[2:18:40] County are working poor, meaning at

[2:18:43] least one member earns income from work

[2:18:46] but still can't cover basic expenses.

[2:18:49] Most hotel workers and their families

[2:18:51] are working poor, struggling to make

[2:18:53] ends meet. The UC Berkeley Labor Center

[2:18:57] studies revealed that if service sector

[2:18:59] workers wages are so low, many will be

[2:19:02] forced to commute to less expensive

[2:19:05] housing markets in Solano, Lake

[2:19:07] Mendescino counties, particularly given

[2:19:10] the long-term trend of stagnant wages

[2:19:13] and raising rents.

[2:19:16] Commutes roughly double for costburden

[2:19:18] renters who move to more affordable

[2:19:20] housing markets. If hotel workers rent

[2:19:24] locally, many will live in overcrowded

[2:19:27] housing, impacting family health and

[2:19:29] their children's educational

[2:19:31] achievement.

[2:19:32] In addition, many low-wage hotel workers

[2:19:36] will be forced to rely on public

[2:19:38] subsidies like medical, cow works, and

[2:19:41] food stamps because of low wages. Thank

[2:19:44] you very much.

[2:19:47] >> Thank you, Mr. Bennett.

[2:19:52] Hello, I'm Sonia Caribel. I'm also with

[2:19:54] the hotel workers union, Unite Here

[2:19:56] Local 2. Um, I submitted a letter and

[2:19:58] I'm going to read from that. Um,

[2:19:59] although maybe condense it a tiny bit.

[2:20:01] Um, so, uh, again, my name is Sonia

[2:20:04] Carabel and I'm with Here Local 2, the

[2:20:06] hotel workers union for the Bay Area

[2:20:08] including Sonoma County. We represent

[2:20:10] workers at the Fairmont Sonoma Mission

[2:20:12] Inn, Hyatt Regency Santa Rosa, AC Hotel

[2:20:14] Santa Rosa, and Pedaluma Sherin. Our

[2:20:16] sister local, Unite Here at 49, rep

[2:20:18] represents workers at the Great and

[2:20:20] Casino and Resort. Together, we

[2:20:22] represent around 1500 hospitality

[2:20:23] workers in Sonoma County. Our mission is

[2:20:26] to improve working conditions and build

[2:20:27] worker power in the hospitality

[2:20:29] industry. Uh, this draft used land

[2:20:32] element, draft land use element creates

[2:20:33] the new Sonoma mixed commercial use

[2:20:35] designation on the Sebastian Winery

[2:20:37] site, permitting mixeduse housing and

[2:20:39] commercial development. We have no

[2:20:40] problem with denser mixeduse

[2:20:42] development. Our members struggle to

[2:20:43] find affordable housing and we support

[2:20:45] building housing particularly when it is

[2:20:47] affordable to hotel workers. However, we

[2:20:50] are skeptical about permitting hotels as

[2:20:52] part of this new zoning designation. We

[2:20:54] are in a housing crisis, not a hotel's

[2:20:56] crisis. A mixeduse development with

[2:20:58] housing and groundf flooror commercial

[2:21:00] could help to alleviate the housing

[2:21:01] crisis in Soma. However, a hotel could

[2:21:04] make the problem worse if it creates

[2:21:05] low-wage jobs without creating enough

[2:21:07] affordable housing to offset demand.

[2:21:10] Hotel jobs in the Sonoma Valley usually

[2:21:12] pay low wages, which means workers

[2:21:14] generally cannot afford decent housing

[2:21:16] nearby. Soma's economy is already very

[2:21:19] tourism focused, and this has led to

[2:21:21] extreme inequality. We don't need more

[2:21:23] bad tourism jobs. We need more housing

[2:21:25] for workers. The draft land use element

[2:21:28] says of the Soma mixeduse commercial

[2:21:30] designation, allowed uses may include

[2:21:32] wine production, agricultural uses,

[2:21:34] hotels, and other visitor serving uses.

[2:21:37] Um, we suggest that hotels, if they are

[2:21:39] permitted at all, be conditionally

[2:21:41] permitted so that the specific impacts

[2:21:43] of the hotel on the local economy can be

[2:21:45] evaluated. If they are simply permitted

[2:21:48] by right, there will be no opportunity

[2:21:50] for the public and local officials to

[2:21:51] weigh in other than potentially on the

[2:21:53] design of the hotel. Uh we have a

[2:21:56] suggested amendment uh which says

[2:21:57] allowed uses may include wine

[2:21:59] production, agricultural uses, hotels

[2:22:01] and other visiting serving uses with the

[2:22:03] addition hotels will be a conditionally

[2:22:05] permitted use with a required study that

[2:22:08] demonstrates that the hotel would not

[2:22:10] increase overall demand for affordable

[2:22:11] housing in Soma. Thank you.

[2:22:14] >> Thank you very much.

[2:22:20] » Hi. Hi commissioners. My name is Becky

[2:22:22] Sager. It's s a g- e r. Um I'm going to

[2:22:25] assume as they often do in these

[2:22:26] meetings that you've read the

[2:22:27] submissions and I could I I I've sent

[2:22:31] one in. I've sent many in and I couldn't

[2:22:33] say it better than my friend Janet did

[2:22:35] tonight. We share the same concerns. Um,

[2:22:38] I want to make one small point, maybe

[2:22:40] not so small before I say what I came up

[2:22:42] here to say, and that is I'm looking at

[2:22:44] the land use map before and after from

[2:22:46] the current general plan to the

[2:22:48] proposed. And there are two sections of

[2:22:50] the Sebastian property that are

[2:22:52] agricultural. It's not all wine

[2:22:54] production. So there are two land uses

[2:22:56] there now, as far as I understand.

[2:22:58] Three. Yeah, there's one tiny

[2:22:59] commercial, right? Mixed use. So we we

[2:23:02] do have existing and to your point, if

[2:23:05] we left it, we do have agriculture and

[2:23:08] wine production. And the one thing I've

[2:23:10] heard so consistently from everyone who

[2:23:12] gives feedback is keep the green space

[2:23:15] green. But what I really want to say

[2:23:17] tonight is thank you. Um this is the

[2:23:20] first time um in this whole excruciating

[2:23:24] process that I've felt like we've been

[2:23:25] heard and that we share concerns that

[2:23:29] are real and based on common sense and

[2:23:32] reasonable and critical to this

[2:23:34] community that we all love. And that's

[2:23:36] why we're here. We're not here because

[2:23:37] we don't want housing for people. We're

[2:23:39] here because you think about the last

[2:23:41] five or six years in this town and in

[2:23:43] this country. You can't predict what's

[2:23:45] going to happen five years from now,

[2:23:47] right? You can't predict that somebody

[2:23:50] might not come in here and say, "I want

[2:23:51] to take advantage of the bonus density

[2:23:53] laws and build a thousand housing units

[2:23:56] there." And then what do we do when we

[2:23:57] have a fire? We're already sleeping with

[2:24:00] our go bags, folks. We've seen the

[2:24:02] studies. We don't need the studies. This

[2:24:04] is basic common sense. So, I am getting

[2:24:08] all worked up here, not because I

[2:24:10] disagree with you, but because I love

[2:24:12] the conversation that's happening. I

[2:24:14] appreciate it. As someone who cares

[2:24:16] deeply about this along with my

[2:24:18] neighbors, please continue to listen to

[2:24:20] your constituents. We've got,270 people

[2:24:23] so far signing a petition for

[2:24:25] responsible land use. Read it. It's what

[2:24:28] we keep saying. Readsoma.org.

[2:24:31] We are not against development. We just

[2:24:33] want it to make sense and we wanted to

[2:24:35] keep this town as wonderful as it is.

[2:24:38] Um, so thank you for listening to us and

[2:24:41] let's keep this dialogue going because

[2:24:43] we got to come to a solution that works

[2:24:44] for Sonoma. Thank you.

[2:24:56] Hi, my name's Jeannie ShraMM and Sm

[2:25:02] um on the January 14th uh community

[2:25:07] planning session. Uh it was an excellent

[2:25:10] beginning and I want to commend you for

[2:25:12] organizing it in the first place to

[2:25:14] stimulating creative input from the

[2:25:16] community. At that meeting, I met Mitch

[2:25:20] back there and a lot of us met other

[2:25:22] people that we never knew and it got the

[2:25:24] discussion going. The land use

[2:25:27] designation determines what the

[2:25:29] proposals are in the first place. So,

[2:25:30] I'm thrilled that we're having this

[2:25:32] conversation today and that you are, as

[2:25:36] uh the lady just as Miss Sager just

[2:25:38] said, listening to us. I think the issue

[2:25:41] here, the key issue for all of us is how

[2:25:44] can this property be best used to

[2:25:47] support community and civic priorities

[2:25:51] and values while also addressing the

[2:25:53] economic and sustainability issues.

[2:25:58] Mitch and I worked together with a

[2:26:01] couple of other people and we handed in

[2:26:03] a submission late today, a submission of

[2:26:06] ideas because anybody can't write a and

[2:26:09] especially inexperienced people in 40

[2:26:12] minutes. So we got together, we got some

[2:26:14] ideas and our priorities that under

[2:26:17] underpin these ideas were evacuation,

[2:26:20] safety, density, vehicle and foot

[2:26:23] traffic, maintaining the physical,

[2:26:25] functional and aesthetic integrity,

[2:26:27] transparent, visionary, and

[2:26:28] participative decision-making process

[2:26:31] and recognition that Sebastian winery

[2:26:34] property, though unique in size for the

[2:26:36] city of Soma, will set a precedent for

[2:26:38] how other agricultural properties in

[2:26:41] Soma County will be considered in the

[2:26:43] future. And that's a very important

[2:26:45] thing for all of you here to keep in

[2:26:47] mind. The property is boarded by county

[2:26:50] residents. And some of the things that

[2:26:53] I'd like to point out in the evacuation

[2:26:55] report, three of the seven uh reports

[2:26:59] that uh that dangerous areas, three of

[2:27:03] those seven border this property. Um

[2:27:06] there is a we want to

[2:27:11] any housing, senior housing, a third of

[2:27:14] our population is seniors. That is

[2:27:17] expected to grow, according to county

[2:27:19] statistics, countywide, 26%

[2:27:22] from that number by 2030.

[2:27:25] That would enable people who live in the

[2:27:27] area to age in place. and

[2:27:31] we want to see um

[2:27:35] the things that we love about Soma

[2:27:37] preserved and to have visionaries. We

[2:27:42] have a we are very lucky to have amazing

[2:27:44] professionals in our community who are

[2:27:47] extremely accomplished internationally

[2:27:49] renowned architects and others. So we

[2:27:52] would like to say let January 14th be

[2:27:54] the beginning not the end. We'd like to

[2:27:57] encourage you to form a community

[2:28:00] advisory board where we can have

[2:28:02] continue to have discussion like this.

[2:28:05] Thank you.

[2:28:11] » My name is David Dixon, DIX. I actually

[2:28:13] live in the county on Level Valley Road

[2:28:16] and uh I was looking at the agenda

[2:28:17] tonight and I saw a memorandum from

[2:28:20] Jennifer Gates about uh 577 and 511

[2:28:23] Level Valley Road which they wish to uh

[2:28:26] have a land use change to allow them to

[2:28:28] develop housing there. I I'm a big

[2:28:30] believer also of of I don't know if it's

[2:28:33] going to be housing I guess but change

[2:28:35] the land use from a to something else.

[2:28:37] And I know that we have what we call

[2:28:39] downgrading where you don't take a you

[2:28:41] don't take a commercial or residential

[2:28:42] area and downgrade it to uh rec space or

[2:28:45] agriculture. Is there a possibility that

[2:28:48] the city can look at the same rule of

[2:28:51] not downgrading a to make a mixeduse

[2:28:55] residential use or commercial use

[2:28:57] because you're losing all the a place

[2:29:00] about you can really make a difference

[2:29:02] if you think about it. I don't and also

[2:29:04] I don't know if 577 7-Eleven Valley Road

[2:29:08] is related at all to the Sebastian

[2:29:11] project or not. So, thank you.

[2:29:15] >> Thank you very much.

[2:29:18] » Thank you very much.

[2:29:18] >> Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is

[2:29:19] » Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is

[2:29:19] Mitchell Price. P R I C E. Uh, a lot's

[2:29:22] been said tonight, but I wrote this out

[2:29:24] earlier, so um, I'll just go from my

[2:29:26] script. Good evening, commissioners. My

[2:29:28] name is Mitchell Price. I am an

[2:29:30] architectural designer and a lifelong

[2:29:31] Sonoma resident. I've spent the last

[2:29:33] several weeks studying this site

[2:29:35] carefully, not just as a development

[2:29:37] opportunity, but as a civic

[2:29:39] responsibility and uh for the next

[2:29:41] generation of Sonoma residents. The

[2:29:44] Sebastian property sits within an

[2:29:46] established residential fabric with

[2:29:48] limited evacuation routes and

[2:29:50] circulation capacity. That physical

[2:29:52] reality should guide our land use

[2:29:55] decisions. The question before us is not

[2:29:58] whether this site should evolve, it's

[2:30:00] how.

[2:30:01] It's a fire constrained residential uh

[2:30:04] context. We should be deliberate about

[2:30:06] introducing higher intensity destination

[2:30:09] oriented uses that increase peak traffic

[2:30:11] and emergency complexity.

[2:30:14] This is also an opportunity for the city

[2:30:16] to think more broadly about economic

[2:30:18] resilience. A balanced revenue base, one

[2:30:20] that includes community serving and

[2:30:22] locally rooted uses can strengthen

[2:30:24] Sonoma over time.

[2:30:27] This 20 acre site is one of the uh last

[2:30:31] large centrallylo properties within the

[2:30:33] city. That makes it rare. Rare sites

[2:30:35] deserve long-term thinking.

[2:30:39] Uh this property could, excuse me, this

[2:30:42] property could support lower intensity

[2:30:43] uses that strengthen residents first and

[2:30:45] generate steady daytime activity without

[2:30:48] overwhelming the neighborhood. This

[2:30:50] approach allows us to reuse uh would

[2:30:54] allow us to reuse and thoughtfully adapt

[2:30:56] the existing structures to the greatest

[2:30:58] extent possible. We have an opportunity

[2:31:00] to demonstrate that economic vitality

[2:31:02] and stewardship are not opposites. The

[2:31:05] physical character of Soma, its

[2:31:07] walkability, its historic fabric, its

[2:31:10] human scale uh was created by restraint.

[2:31:13] I encourage you to approach this

[2:31:15] property not as a blank slate but as one

[2:31:17] act of stewardship for the next 50 years

[2:31:20] of Sonoma. Thank you very much.

[2:31:22] >> Thank you

[2:31:25] » Thank you

[2:31:25] Miss Cornwall.

[2:31:27] >> Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma

[2:31:30] » Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma

[2:31:30] Ecology Center. Um

[2:31:32] uh I am notly not sure if this is the

[2:31:35] right time to make this comment but

[2:31:36] other people are making comments about

[2:31:37] things that are not exactly their South

[2:31:38] Aian properties. So, just uh wanted to

[2:31:41] make a comment about 577 Level Valley

[2:31:43] Road. Um uh uh there have been a lot of

[2:31:49] public money spent over the last 10

[2:31:52] years or so looking for places um

[2:31:56] upstream of the city of Sonoma for uh

[2:31:59] water during storms to spread out and

[2:32:02] reduce flood risk in the city and also

[2:32:04] to recharge groundwater. and um Sonoma

[2:32:08] Water and the Ecology Center with

[2:32:10] various sources of public money have

[2:32:12] looked pretty hard in the Nathansson

[2:32:14] Creek wershed for opportunities to let

[2:32:16] water spread out in the winter. Um and

[2:32:20] uh it was very very hard to find places

[2:32:22] that where that's possible and the best

[2:32:25] the highest priority location for

[2:32:27] allowing that to happen is that

[2:32:28] property. And so um I think before the

[2:32:32] city decides to change its uh land use

[2:32:36] designation, there should be some

[2:32:38] thought given to whether there are parts

[2:32:40] of that parcel that should be um uh

[2:32:44] where future uses must allow the ability

[2:32:47] for water to spread out there. um and it

[2:32:48] connects hydraologically to uh parts of

[2:32:51] the Sebastian properties. The some of

[2:32:53] the topography is still there. So we

[2:32:56] haven't had major flooding in the city

[2:32:57] for a while, but we have had really

[2:32:59] major flooding in the city over the last

[2:33:02] 30 years and it will get worse in the

[2:33:03] future. So um that's one point and my

[2:33:06] other point is um about the Sebastian

[2:33:10] properties. Um, for the first time ever,

[2:33:13] uh, in my long time at the ecology

[2:33:14] center, I went last year to the Sonoma

[2:33:16] County A Summit. And, um, it is a time

[2:33:19] of real hand ringing in agriculture

[2:33:21] right now. And one of the big challenges

[2:33:25] that agriculture faces is the loss of

[2:33:28] agricultural processing facilities. Um,

[2:33:31] we have amazing food growers in Sonoma

[2:33:33] Valley and increasingly they don't have

[2:33:35] a place to make value added products or

[2:33:37] even to um, process and clean what

[2:33:40] they're harvesting. So, um, I'm sure a

[2:33:43] use like this would require some kind of

[2:33:45] public assistance or subsidy or

[2:33:48] something, but I think that's something

[2:33:49] to consider with a historic processing

[2:33:51] facility like the one at Sebastian that

[2:33:52] it could be used for food um, and local

[2:33:55] businesses uh, in the future. Thank you.

[2:33:58] >> Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.

[2:34:02] » Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.

[2:34:02] Grandy, come forward, please.

[2:34:07] » Evening, commission. Um, Art Grandandy,

[2:34:10] 1314th Street East of Gr.

[2:34:14] So, I live just up the street from the

[2:34:16] Sasiani uh main building and pass it

[2:34:19] regularly every day. And I'm not going

[2:34:21] to repeat a lot of the things that uh I

[2:34:24] agree with that have been said just to

[2:34:26] make this shorter. But um I wanted to

[2:34:29] express I think a couple of main things.

[2:34:32] If one is one of my suggestions and it's

[2:34:35] not just my idea but endorsing others is

[2:34:38] a special planning area allows the

[2:34:40] planning process to go forward but

[2:34:43] require

[2:34:45] um further detailed exploration of any

[2:34:47] proposal for the property without having

[2:34:50] to define upfront uh the the accepted

[2:34:53] uses and that's clearly something that

[2:34:55] that ought to be considered. I don't we

[2:34:57] don't need to debate it now, but I think

[2:34:58] it sounds like from what I read about

[2:35:00] it, it's it's a very useful thing. The

[2:35:02] second thing is if any changes are being

[2:35:06] made to this property, density is the

[2:35:09] key a key concern and it was just

[2:35:12] outrageous that we had seven to 25 in

[2:35:16] the proposed wording of of the document.

[2:35:19] I mean totally incompatible with the

[2:35:22] neighborhood on all sides of that

[2:35:24] property. Um we have in our zone in our

[2:35:29] coding zones uh the medium medium

[2:35:32] density residential which is 3 to eight

[2:35:35] density and even given the possibility

[2:35:37] that that might be doubled still would

[2:35:39] allow you to be uh within possible

[2:35:43] reasonable uh range. So there are

[2:35:46] choices within the current uh coding

[2:35:51] choices zone to uh

[2:35:54] uh control the risk.

[2:35:57] The an additional thought is we need to

[2:36:00] have an alternative some alternative

[2:36:02] uses as possible for that property if

[2:36:05] eventually there is some commercial uh

[2:36:10] aptitude

[2:36:11] or acceptance of of commercial and um a

[2:36:15] senior residential facility of which

[2:36:18] there are many types around uh stages of

[2:36:21] living uh CCRC

[2:36:24] profit nonprofit all of that is is

[2:36:26] details in the weed s of what is done.

[2:36:30] But um we did have some of a small group

[2:36:33] of neighbors there had a conversation

[2:36:36] with a major uh developer and operator

[2:36:39] of uh homes and uh he knows the site and

[2:36:43] they said this would be an ideal one to

[2:36:46] look at for a residential facility. And

[2:36:48] I'll just point out that uh these count

[2:36:52] as uh housing units for meeting the uh

[2:36:55] target target goal. And as addition uh

[2:36:59] res people who are residents in a

[2:37:01] community like that are members of a

[2:37:03] community, they will the the certainly

[2:37:06] the uh independent living ones will be

[2:37:08] able to be customers in town and join

[2:37:11] the community.

[2:37:13] And I think that's all I have to say.

[2:37:17] >> Thank you. All

[2:37:22] right. Uh JJ Abdily and um I think it

[2:37:25] may be helpful to have the description

[2:37:26] on and on on the screen because like

[2:37:28] that's what we're talking about. But I

[2:37:30] want to echo I I do also appreciate it

[2:37:32] seems like some like conversations that

[2:37:35] haven't been been able to be have in

[2:37:36] public form or being had. So I

[2:37:38] appreciate that. I also appreciate uh

[2:37:40] Commissioner Willer's consternation

[2:37:42] about the process of like trying to put

[2:37:46] together a single definition on what is

[2:37:48] actually 17 parcels, not five, that have

[2:37:50] three different zoning designations

[2:37:52] currently. Um I've kind of struggled

[2:37:54] with the same thing. I'd love to learn

[2:37:55] more about the specific plan process. I

[2:37:57] think the reason to have the

[2:37:59] conversation today and the reason that

[2:38:01] this general plan process which is now

[2:38:03] almost two years underway is it's an

[2:38:05] opportunity for the community to send a

[2:38:07] signal out on what it wants. And let's

[2:38:11] also be clear that that the description

[2:38:13] here is not talking about what is what

[2:38:16] is desired like it's not really talking

[2:38:18] about um you know what um should be done

[2:38:22] there or can't. It's what what you said

[2:38:24] this best. what is the community willing

[2:38:26] to accept or not accept? It's it's not a

[2:38:29] preapproval of any kind. It's it's quite

[2:38:32] the opposite. It's a it's an opening of

[2:38:34] a door that says bring a project that um

[2:38:39] can fit to meeting our goals in the

[2:38:41] general plan which are stated as

[2:38:42] housing, economic development, and

[2:38:44] maintaining community character and do

[2:38:46] it in a way that um that then this is

[2:38:50] the idea that I've had I think to maybe

[2:38:52] address Commissioner Willer's concern

[2:38:54] that I shared as well, which is use the

[2:38:56] development code to get specific about

[2:38:59] the restrictions. Nobody wants to tear

[2:39:01] up the vineyards that exist there.

[2:39:03] Nobody wants to remove the green space

[2:39:05] that exists there. So use the

[2:39:07] development code to put the

[2:39:08] restrictions. We have actually really

[2:39:09] great opportunity because

[2:39:12] I will call it heritage mixed use

[2:39:13] because I think it's much better because

[2:39:15] it also reminds us of how long it's been

[2:39:18] there and how important it is. But we

[2:39:20] have the opportunity to create specific

[2:39:23] restrictions, constraints in the

[2:39:25] development code that will be specific

[2:39:27] to Sebastiani and it won't apply

[2:39:29] anywhere else because it's the only

[2:39:30] place in town that has this zoning

[2:39:32] designation. So I would really urge us

[2:39:34] to keep the door open, send the signal

[2:39:37] that these parcels have a role to play

[2:39:40] in the asset base of the future of

[2:39:42] Sonoma, a very important role, one that

[2:39:44] is probably uniquely positioned to

[2:39:45] provide unlike any other. and let the

[2:39:50] development code guide the rest

[2:39:52] constraints that I think we all want to

[2:39:53] place on it regarding protecting certain

[2:39:56] aspects of it, maintaining residential

[2:39:58] feel in certain places. All of those

[2:40:01] things can be done in the development

[2:40:02] code and should be done in the

[2:40:03] development code. Um, and I agree with

[2:40:05] most of everything I've heard regarding

[2:40:08] um, the challenges with density bonus

[2:40:10] law and having too high of a zoning

[2:40:12] standard or sorry, too high of a zoning

[2:40:15] a a density range particularly on the

[2:40:18] upper end. And I I've looked at that

[2:40:21] site and you when you break it into

[2:40:22] parcels, you look at keeping the

[2:40:24] vineyards on the west side. Five acres

[2:40:26] is pretty much what you're left with on

[2:40:27] the west side and that's a lot of 15

[2:40:29] units per acre is plenty of units over

[2:40:31] there. You couldn't fit much more on

[2:40:32] there anyway. Thank you. Thank you very

[2:40:35] much.

[2:40:40] » Hi guys. Uh my name is Bill Couturier.

[2:40:43] Uh c u t u r i e. Um I live on loitus.

[2:40:50] My wife and uh we're right next to the

[2:40:54] place that we're talking about and they

[2:40:57] are thinking of putting a whole bunch of

[2:41:00] town houses right in our backyard. We're

[2:41:03] not happy about that. Maybe that'll

[2:41:05] change because I know nothing is

[2:41:07] concrete, but just the idea of having 50

[2:41:12] town houses right behind Los Cacitus

[2:41:14] would

[2:41:17] not be in keeping with GLU2, let's say.

[2:41:20] Um, but my other thing here is people

[2:41:24] are thinking, well, it's just is it a

[2:41:26] hotel? Is it a bunch of condos? Is it

[2:41:31] I think there's a we could take a little

[2:41:33] bit out of the box. And it seems to me

[2:41:36] everybody

[2:41:38] that I think is here um

[2:41:41] is worried about their house burning

[2:41:43] down. They're worried about being able

[2:41:45] to afford insurance because it's going

[2:41:48] up thousands of dollars every year and

[2:41:50] it's not sustainable. Um

[2:41:55] there's a bunch of water out there in

[2:41:58] this property. There's a giant well.

[2:42:00] There's there's a problem with much

[2:42:02] water coming in. Right.

[2:42:04] I'm

[2:42:06] was up in Portland for a while at the

[2:42:09] Washington Park there. They built a

[2:42:11] reservoir. Beautiful,

[2:42:14] bigger than we need, 12 million gallon,

[2:42:16] but it's it's hit and they have a little

[2:42:19] lake on top of it that's beautiful. And

[2:42:22] it's this charming place that people can

[2:42:24] walk around, dogs play. We could have

[2:42:27] something like that built and have

[2:42:33] a little place lost the side of it where

[2:42:35] there's like drones that carry water and

[2:42:40] could fight fires and this could be a

[2:42:42] central place where it would be both

[2:42:44] recreational.

[2:42:47] Uh

[2:42:50] >> you're good.

[2:42:51] » you're good.

[2:42:51] >> Okay. I'm just saying we could save

[2:42:54] » Okay. I'm just saying we could save

[2:42:54] SNOVA, create a beautiful recreational

[2:42:58] place

[2:42:59] and uh lower our insurance costs because

[2:43:03] we're in a high fire zone, right? So,

[2:43:06] good things could happen. It doesn't all

[2:43:08] have to be about

[2:43:10] housing and there's plenty of places to

[2:43:13] build houses.

[2:43:16] >> Thank you very much.

[2:43:23] I'm Richard Trant. You heard from my

[2:43:26] wife Bert earlier.

[2:43:28] I think if you think about what

[2:43:32] this town is,

[2:43:34] it becomes to me to be very vivid that

[2:43:37] this is an opportunity for people that

[2:43:40] live here that might want to stay here

[2:43:45] in their oldest oldest ages. Why can't

[2:43:48] this be

[2:43:49] a community for

[2:43:52] people that are here in this room and in

[2:43:55] the in the future. It would be so great

[2:43:57] to be able to be close to your your

[2:44:01] loved ones in a place where you know

[2:44:02] you're safe as the as the

[2:44:07] the

[2:44:10] as you get older.

[2:44:12] So I think it would be amazing for for

[2:44:15] Sonoma to have something like this to go

[2:44:19] to the next stage. It would be un it

[2:44:24] would be absolutely amazing. And I think

[2:44:27] it would I think it would just be for so

[2:44:31] many reasons the right thing to do. If

[2:44:34] you think about what it is, it's

[2:44:35] glorious. And um please don't let it go.

[2:44:40] Thank you very much.

[2:44:44] Okay.

[2:44:52] Thank you for everything tonight. I

[2:44:54] really appreciate all of what you've

[2:44:55] said and such a great deal of thought

[2:44:57] put into it. Um, which makes me feel

[2:45:00] relieved because I have felt like this

[2:45:02] was going towards mixed use and it was

[2:45:06] going to be like stopping a train. Um, I

[2:45:10] forgot I think I forgot to say my name.

[2:45:11] Pat Summers. Uh, su ms.

[2:45:14] Um, I was fresh out of knee surgery at

[2:45:17] the meeting in January, so I did not get

[2:45:19] to participate. But from what a few

[2:45:22] people told me, they felt like the map

[2:45:25] project was kind of putting the cart

[2:45:27] before the horse and they had to put on

[2:45:30] that map where a hotel should go, etc.

[2:45:33] Well, who says we need a hotel? And

[2:45:36] where did that even come from? Um, I

[2:45:39] happen to be in the hospitality industry

[2:45:42] and I've been dealing with the fact that

[2:45:46] we have a lot of changes going on in

[2:45:48] this county. We have um a wine industry

[2:45:51] that has a lot on their plate and a lot

[2:45:54] to deal with. We have a reduction in um

[2:45:57] hos in a hotel occupancy and

[2:46:03] it's not a thing that's going to be

[2:46:05] fixed in the immediate future. It's

[2:46:07] going to take time. Um, basically it is

[2:46:10] my firm belief that we do not need any

[2:46:12] more hotels. Occupancy is around 55% and

[2:46:16] we don't need them. Uh, I live on Geroke

[2:46:19] Road. I'm a board member of the Geroke

[2:46:21] Road Fire Safe Council. I'm extremely

[2:46:24] concerned about overpopulation

[2:46:26] and increased nonviability of of uh

[2:46:30] evacuation.

[2:46:32] We have a lot to deal with and we don't

[2:46:34] need hundreds of more people at the

[2:46:36] bottom of Gerokei Road. It's um not that

[2:46:40] I am opposed to very thoughtful

[2:46:43] development that can enhance the

[2:46:46] community, but we need to retain our

[2:46:47] pockets of agriculture and the beauty of

[2:46:50] of what we have here. It's very very

[2:46:52] special. It's irreplaceable and I don't

[2:46:55] want to see it go away. I want to see it

[2:46:57] continue and thrive. So, thank you for

[2:47:00] your good thoughts on all of that. Um,

[2:47:03] very much appreciated.

[2:47:05] >> Thank you very much for your comments,

[2:47:07] » Thank you very much for your comments,

[2:47:07] S.

[2:47:13] » Thanks to everyone and for all of your

[2:47:15] questions and insights uh from the

[2:47:17] commission and everyone who has already

[2:47:19] spoken. My name is Ray Shik. I live uh

[2:47:22] on uh East Napa Street uh with my wife

[2:47:26] Diane. And I think what uh was very

[2:47:28] interesting actually about your your uh

[2:47:31] question um Commissioner O'Neal is the

[2:47:34] idea of possibly

[2:47:37] um stepping back and thinking a little

[2:47:39] bit about the process differently

[2:47:41] because fundamentally the the notion of

[2:47:43] a land use plan is about setting the

[2:47:46] direction the vision of the the

[2:47:48] community that we're planning for and

[2:47:51] that's not simply a physical vision.

[2:47:53] It's the vision of what the economy

[2:47:55] should be. It's the vision of what the

[2:47:57] businesses should be here. It's the

[2:47:59] vision of how do we place properties in

[2:48:01] a way that it actually accentuates the

[2:48:03] current businesses and has plans for

[2:48:05] where new businesses and where new

[2:48:07] housing goes. But fundamentally, it's

[2:48:09] it's about defining the experience of

[2:48:12] the future of Sonoma. And I think

[2:48:14] there's an important conversation around

[2:48:16] that because Sonoma is a destination

[2:48:19] about experience. It's a destination for

[2:48:21] all of us moving here because of the

[2:48:24] experience of Sonoma. And this parcel

[2:48:26] has such a significant impact uh on the

[2:48:29] community in many ways. It was mentioned

[2:48:31] about the retail bleed, but you know, if

[2:48:33] we if we flip the plan and say, "No,

[2:48:35] let's think about this more holistically

[2:48:38] in the overall plan of the city, not as

[2:48:40] an isolated piece of property kind of at

[2:48:43] the edge of the city. Now, how do we

[2:48:45] really reinforce retail behavior in the

[2:48:47] downtown? What about putting more hotels

[2:48:49] downtown to drive uh the economy of the

[2:48:52] square which is struggling at times and

[2:48:55] the businesses are struggling there. So

[2:48:56] to me I think there's some steps that

[2:48:59] would be valuable in the process that

[2:49:01] maybe have happened and we may not have

[2:49:03] seen them already which is a true

[2:49:05] economic analysis uh of the potential

[2:49:08] uses of this property and their impact

[2:49:10] on the city. an analysis of the de the

[2:49:13] demographics of the city and where the

[2:49:15] city is going in terms of the population

[2:49:17] in terms of age in terms of economic

[2:49:20] strata. So that we're planning for the

[2:49:22] overall experience of the city and not

[2:49:25] just looking at this as a use plan but a

[2:49:27] plan that really defines where we

[2:49:29] believe the city should go uh overall as

[2:49:32] a as an integrated component of the city

[2:49:35] not as a separated uh parcel from the

[2:49:38] city. So everything from a historic uh

[2:49:41] analysis, an economic analysis to a

[2:49:43] certain degree the environmental

[2:49:44] analysis. It feels to me that those

[2:49:47] should be part of this conversation.

[2:49:49] Understanding that in typical uh

[2:49:51] planning there's sometimes the steps

[2:49:53] happen a little later but having those

[2:49:56] having that analysis done so that we can

[2:49:59] make the decisions properly around the

[2:50:02] land use having the the information and

[2:50:05] the data around what we've learned with

[2:50:07] that kind of analytics ahead of time the

[2:50:10] housing analytics ahead of time as an

[2:50:12] example would be extraordinarily

[2:50:14] valuable in this process.

[2:50:16] >> Thank you.

[2:50:17] » Thank you.

[2:50:17] >> Thank you very much.

[2:50:23] Mr. Barnett, state your name, please.

[2:50:28] Uh, Chair Hyrick, members of the

[2:50:30] commission. Um,

[2:50:32] Council Barnett, um, I have a few

[2:50:35] thoughts here, so I'm going to go

[2:50:36] through them as quickly as possible. Um,

[2:50:38] this is obviously a very important

[2:50:40] discussion. Um, I think we would all

[2:50:42] agree Soma's number one goal throughout

[2:50:44] this general plan process is to preserve

[2:50:46] community character and authenticity.

[2:50:48] And that means historic significance,

[2:50:50] our quality of life. Um, this is also

[2:50:52] people, making sure that Sonoma

[2:50:55] continues to be or, you know, continues

[2:50:57] to be what it used to be, a full

[2:50:59] spectrum community. And that means all

[2:51:00] different people, all different ages.

[2:51:02] Um, it also means securing our economic

[2:51:05] future. That means considering new

[2:51:06] sources of revenue and also housing.

[2:51:08] Housing is an economic issue as well and

[2:51:12] it also is preserving as much local

[2:51:14] control as possible in an era of new

[2:51:16] state housing laws and so there are

[2:51:18] smart strategies to make sure all of the

[2:51:20] above happen but some modifications need

[2:51:23] to be made in this general plan uh

[2:51:25] proposal and draft going forward. First

[2:51:28] I want to talk about the Sonoma mixeduse

[2:51:29] plan. Um, if we are updating the land

[2:51:32] use, if we are updating our general plan

[2:51:34] for the next 25 years, I really think

[2:51:36] now is the time to discuss this area and

[2:51:39] and honestly take the time to get it

[2:51:41] right. I mean, don't decide tonight.

[2:51:42] Don't decide next month. Take as much

[2:51:44] time as you need to get this right. Um,

[2:51:46] but in my view, status quo is not the

[2:51:48] option. I think that would be

[2:51:49] irresponsible. I think that would be a

[2:51:51] failure of your fiduciary duty and the

[2:51:54] city council's fiduciary duty. Um,

[2:51:57] uh, Commissioner Willer's proposal, you

[2:51:59] know, to, uh, accept applications as

[2:52:02] they come in and do a general plan

[2:52:03] amendment is not a bad idea. The reality

[2:52:06] is through that process, once the land

[2:52:08] is reszoned, that plan could change and

[2:52:10] those new state housing laws could apply

[2:52:12] anyway. Um, spe special planning areas

[2:52:14] are ideas as well, but state density

[2:52:16] bonus law, all the new state laws apply

[2:52:19] to special planning use areas as well.

[2:52:22] And so I think a hotel use should be

[2:52:24] considered. Of all the hotels that have

[2:52:26] been considered over the last tw since

[2:52:28] 1999, I think this is actually the most

[2:52:30] natural place for one instead of right

[2:52:32] on the plaza or on our public lands over

[2:52:34] the hill. When it comes to housing, um

[2:52:37] that has been the number one priority of

[2:52:38] the Sonoma Council for the last 10

[2:52:40] years. And I think it would be a little

[2:52:42] contradictory or hypocritical not to

[2:52:44] consider housing for these properties.

[2:52:46] Um, that said, neighbor concerns, all of

[2:52:48] our concerns about the new state housing

[2:52:50] laws are are real. Um, and that's why I

[2:52:54] think the current proposed densities are

[2:52:55] way too high, not just in the Sonoma

[2:52:57] mixed use zone, but every zone

[2:52:59] throughout Soma, because state density

[2:53:00] bonus law allows you not to just get

[2:53:02] 50%, but through AB1287, you can do a

[2:53:05] stackable density bonus, and you can

[2:53:07] double the maximum density. And when you

[2:53:10] double the maximum density, you often

[2:53:11] require the waiverss and concessions

[2:53:13] needed from the development code. And so

[2:53:15] in my view, we should be lowering all of

[2:53:17] the densities. And besides, we've had

[2:53:19] maximum densities of 20 units an acre

[2:53:21] over the last 25 years in Soma. And no

[2:53:25] project has been built. I don't think

[2:53:26] economics justify those higher densities

[2:53:29] in Soma. I think, you know, they sound

[2:53:31] good often, but they oftent times don't

[2:53:33] come to fruition for a variety of

[2:53:35] reasons, and the economics don't just

[2:53:37] pencil. And so I think there are, if I

[2:53:39] can just have a few few seconds. Chair

[2:53:41] Wy,

[2:53:42] >> 20 more seconds.

[2:53:43] » 20 more seconds.

[2:53:43] >> All right. I have three solutions. We

[2:53:45] » All right. I have three solutions. We

[2:53:45] have to lower the minimum and maximum

[2:53:47] densities, not just here, but throughout

[2:53:49] throughout the city. Um, and another uh

[2:53:52] potential solution is the historic

[2:53:54] district. I think the Sebastian um

[2:53:57] historic district along First Street

[2:53:59] East should expanded to include the

[2:54:00] entire property. A lot of the new state

[2:54:02] housing laws do not apply to sites that

[2:54:04] have historic structures or historic

[2:54:06] districts on them. And while the density

[2:54:08] bonus still does, it is much easier for

[2:54:10] the city and Jennifer over there to deny

[2:54:13] waiverss or concessions by making a

[2:54:15] finding that impairs the character of a

[2:54:17] historic district. So I think now is the

[2:54:19] time to do this, but there are solutions

[2:54:21] that we haven't been discussing that I

[2:54:23] think would make everyone happy with

[2:54:24] this process. Thank you.

[2:54:26] >> Thank you,

[2:54:33] » Mr. Woods. Step forward and state your

[2:54:35] name, please.

[2:54:37] Michael Woods, M chairman and members of

[2:54:39] the commission. Um I agree with Ko to

[2:54:42] the extent that the densities are are an

[2:54:45] issue. I also think that amending the

[2:54:48] general plan to accommodate a project

[2:54:51] that you don't have in front of you is

[2:54:54] challenging. It's challenging for the

[2:54:56] community. I'm usually here with

[2:54:58] developers as you know. Um so so so my

[2:55:02] view is sort of taken from lots of

[2:55:05] projects that I've been involved with

[2:55:06] and also working with cities over the

[2:55:08] years. Your general plan jurisdiction is

[2:55:13] one of the few tools in your bag of

[2:55:16] municipal tricks so to speak where

[2:55:18] you've still got some control. And I say

[2:55:21] that some control underscore some. Um, I

[2:55:25] don't think you can put it past the

[2:55:26] legislature to at some point in the next

[2:55:28] couple of years say that if you've got a

[2:55:30] mixeduse district that allows commercial

[2:55:32] and residential, thou shalt not prohibit

[2:55:34] a 100% residential project. And if

[2:55:37] you've got a 25 DU per density, you

[2:55:40] know, units per acre in your general

[2:55:43] plan, theoretically, you could have a

[2:55:46] very large project and theoretically it

[2:55:49] could be exempt from seeker review and a

[2:55:51] ministerial approval. And giving up that

[2:55:53] discretion to me is not advisable. You

[2:55:57] know, I'm used to seeing the planning

[2:55:58] commission exercise its discretion, use

[2:56:01] SQA as a tool, impose mitigation

[2:56:04] measures to reduce potentially

[2:56:06] significant environmental impacts to a

[2:56:08] level of insignificance. You know, we're

[2:56:10] used to those tools, but in the current

[2:56:12] environment, if you don't keep your

[2:56:15] discretion alive to control your general

[2:56:18] plan, I think you're giving up a lot.

[2:56:20] Um, and I'm I'm I would think that if if

[2:56:23] you have a binary choice of either to

[2:56:26] adopt Sonoma mixed use for this site

[2:56:28] with a lot of density involved or leave

[2:56:31] it at the status quo, I think you should

[2:56:33] leave it at the status quo. I don't know

[2:56:36] that that's a binary choice for you, but

[2:56:39] minimally the densities would have to go

[2:56:42] way way down. Thank you very much.

[2:56:44] >> Thank you very much for your comments.

[2:56:49] Okay. Are there any other members of the

[2:56:51] public who wish to come forward and

[2:56:53] address the commission on this topic?

[2:56:58] Okay. Seeing none, I will close public

[2:57:00] comment and I will bring back to the

[2:57:02] commission for discussion.

[2:57:05] Let me ask a process question.

[2:57:10] >> Um, what do we want to try to accomplish

[2:57:12] » Um, what do we want to try to accomplish

[2:57:12] going forward tonight on this topic?

[2:57:17] Garter Gates,

[2:57:19] do you what type of what what type of

[2:57:22] feedback or direction would be the most

[2:57:25] helpful for you in light of the public

[2:57:27] comment we heard and in light of the

[2:57:30] comments

[2:57:31] uh thus far by the commission.

[2:57:35] So, um

[2:57:38] I

[2:57:40] would like to hear

[2:57:43] kind of a straw vote of what um

[2:57:48] individually so I can get my straw vote

[2:57:52] um what they're your guys are thinking

[2:57:56] um individually um in regards to Sonoma

[2:58:00] mixed use um and then I can present that

[2:58:04] to city council.

[2:58:06] >> So the straw vote suggests that it is a

[2:58:08] » So the straw vote suggests that it is a

[2:58:08] binary choice. So

[2:58:11] >> well it's not necessar like straw vote

[2:58:13] » well it's not necessar like straw vote

[2:58:14] in the sense of continue to work on it.

[2:58:17] Let's just keep it the same or um you

[2:58:21] know we've have some edits some small

[2:58:24] edits being proposed. Um,

[2:58:28] so

[2:58:31] it's just going to depend on kind of

[2:58:32] where you're saying. And when I say

[2:58:34] straw, that's me going, okay, that's

[2:58:38] pause, you know, from this individual.

[2:58:41] Pause. Pause. Or no, I won't continue to

[2:58:45] work on it. It's still a goal on this

[2:58:48] general plan. Um

[2:58:51] the

[2:58:53] um so again March 4th is the meeting

[2:58:56] that we're going to city council and so

[2:58:58] I'll be preparing that staff report next

[2:59:01] week. So I'm going to give an update on

[2:59:04] all of the elements to them and where we

[2:59:07] are in the process. So tonight is the

[2:59:10] last bit of the elements. There's no

[2:59:12] more elements after tonight if we can

[2:59:14] get through them. Um

[2:59:17] I there's not a lot of on the other two.

[2:59:21] Um

[2:59:23] but in that in that sense so I will

[2:59:28] put that forward.

[2:59:29] >> Okay. So so to

[2:59:31] » Okay. So so to

[2:59:31] >> ask a clarifying followup.

[2:59:32] » ask a clarifying followup.

[2:59:32] >> Yes you can.

[2:59:34] » Yes you can.

[2:59:34] >> Okay. Just so just so I understand,

[2:59:38] » Okay. Just so just so I understand,

[2:59:38] are you saying that that you're going to

[2:59:44] uh I guess I'm a little concerned that

[2:59:48] that we're going to the city council at

[2:59:50] this point.

[2:59:53] I is it going to the city council for

[2:59:55] them to render a decision about anything

[2:59:58] or is this just information? So, um,

[3:00:01] based on the discussion tonight, any

[3:00:03] changes, right, we're making

[3:00:05] modifications to the different elements.

[3:00:07] Yeah. So that we can finalize these

[3:00:09] drafts to get them, um, get into the

[3:00:12] finish up the environmental review

[3:00:13] process. So that is the goal for

[3:00:17] tonight. And then the goal for the March

[3:00:19] 3rd is to kind of finalize these drafts.

[3:00:22] So in that sense it is a kind of

[3:00:26] direction I'm seeking um to move forward

[3:00:31] versus pause the general plan.

[3:00:36] >> Okay. So um um the this timetable

[3:00:42] » Okay. So um um the this timetable

[3:00:42] is this um

[3:00:46] uh is this something where that is a

[3:00:48] self-imposed timetable? In other words,

[3:00:51] what I'm what I'm sensing is that uh

[3:00:56] there are a lot of opinions out there

[3:01:00] about how to go forward and they range.

[3:01:05] And if I were asked tonight to render a

[3:01:10] final opinion as to what I think we

[3:01:12] should do, for example, with this land

[3:01:14] use designation we're talking about. Um,

[3:01:18] I would do it if I had to, but I hate to

[3:01:21] feel pushed to do it um without

[3:01:28] uh more opportunity for conversation and

[3:01:31] discussion. It's already 9:00. We're not

[3:01:34] going to go on for another two hours.

[3:01:36] At least I'm not.

[3:01:39] And and um I'm concerned that that we're

[3:01:44] moving ahead

[3:01:45] quickly,

[3:01:47] but I'm not sure what the what the

[3:01:50] timetable or the establishment of the

[3:01:53] deadlines for these timetables where

[3:01:56] they're coming from. Is this something

[3:01:58] we've self-imposed? Is something that

[3:02:00] you want to do? Is it something the city

[3:02:02] council has imposed? Is it the

[3:02:04] consultantism?

[3:02:05] Where are these where are these dates

[3:02:07] coming from?

[3:02:08] >> Um so it is um a goal to complete the

[3:02:15] » Um so it is um a goal to complete the

[3:02:15] process by the fall before the fall

[3:02:18] except September. And so working

[3:02:21] backwards within an EIR and another 60

[3:02:24] days of public comment still to occur.

[3:02:27] That's where we're kind of falling into

[3:02:30] it is that the edits and everything need

[3:02:34] to get to the consultant, finalize the

[3:02:37] EIR so that we can release it for that

[3:02:39] 60-day um time frame.

[3:02:43] >> Okay. And and the and the completion

[3:02:45] » Okay. And and the and the completion

[3:02:45] date that you've targeted in the fall

[3:02:48] and I don't know whether we're talking

[3:02:51] October.

[3:02:52] >> Okay. So, you've got a clear date in

[3:02:55] » Okay. So, you've got a clear date in

[3:02:55] mind. Is that once again is that

[3:02:57] something that is being imposed upon us

[3:03:00] by the consultant? Is it being imposed

[3:03:02] upon us by anybody?

[3:03:05] Or is it just simply what you would like

[3:03:08] to do so you can get on with business.

[3:03:12] Not to I'm not I'm not saying that in a

[3:03:15] in a derogatory way. And

[3:03:17] >> what are the what are the repercussions

[3:03:19] » what are the what are the repercussions

[3:03:19] of not meeting the goal?

[3:03:21] >> Um that we probably will delay for

[3:03:23] » Um that we probably will delay for

[3:03:23] another year.

[3:03:26] Why is that?

[3:03:27] >> Um just because of timing of what's um

[3:03:32] » Um just because of timing of what's um

[3:03:32] going to be occurring in the fall.

[3:03:34] >> Okay. And that that doesn't if let's

[3:03:38] » Okay. And that that doesn't if let's

[3:03:38] explore that just for a moment. If we

[3:03:41] delayed for another year, we're not

[3:03:42] violating state laws.

[3:03:44] >> I have two elements that do need to get

[3:03:46] » I have two elements that do need to get

[3:03:46] done. Yes.

[3:03:47] >> My safety element is already

[3:03:49] » My safety element is already

[3:03:49] >> Yes.

[3:03:50] » Yes.

[3:03:50] >> should have been done two years ago. Um

[3:03:53] » should have been done two years ago. Um

[3:03:53] and then I um one other element needs to

[3:03:57] get done. I think it was the circulation

[3:03:59] that's

[3:04:01] >> okay. But but the but the overall

[3:04:03] » okay. But but the but the overall

[3:04:03] general plan update accepting those

[3:04:05] elements that are that are overdue. Um

[3:04:09] uh there's no we're not in risk of

[3:04:13] violating some timetable of the state

[3:04:15] for the approval of the new general

[3:04:17] plan. Right.

[3:04:18] >> Not for the rest of it.

[3:04:19] » Not for the rest of it.

[3:04:19] >> Okay. Um, you know, for example, you

[3:04:22] » Okay. Um, you know, for example, you

[3:04:22] mentioned the safety element. I mean, we

[3:04:24] haven't had a robust discussion yet

[3:04:27] about the nexus of the safety element

[3:04:33] and where development ought to occur in

[3:04:35] the community based on the high fire

[3:04:38] risk zones. There may be that with a

[3:04:43] further exploration of a topic like

[3:04:45] that, the conclusion that would be drawn

[3:04:48] would be that if development or

[3:04:50] expansion of the city uh development

[3:04:54] should occur, it should occur

[3:04:58] in some place not adjacent to a high

[3:05:02] fire risk zone. I mean, that's that's a

[3:05:06] possible. I'm not saying that that

[3:05:08] that's what will happen, but that's a

[3:05:10] possibility that an analysis would say

[3:05:13] we'd be better off having development on

[3:05:15] the southern end of the city, which is

[3:05:17] not a fire high fire risk zone than on

[3:05:20] the northern end of the city, which is I

[3:05:22] mean, anything north of Napa Street, as

[3:05:24] I understand it, is high fire risk. So,

[3:05:28] um I'm just I just I I guess what I'm

[3:05:30] saying is I I feel like all of a sudden

[3:05:33] we're rushing, and I don't like feeling

[3:05:35] rushed. I hate to make decisions feeling

[3:05:43] » So I think in the straw poll, you know

[3:05:45] where Larry stands.

[3:05:50] » Would it be helpful to go commissioner

[3:05:52] by commissioner and have each give

[3:05:58] three minutes

[3:06:00] of where they stand on the issue? Is

[3:06:02] that how you like to frame a straw poll

[3:06:04] or would you like to frame it in a more

[3:06:07] um what would be the most helpful for

[3:06:09] you to say

[3:06:11] or go commissioner by commissioner and

[3:06:13] say

[3:06:16] give three options do nothing leave it

[3:06:19] as it exists adopt SMU as it's written

[3:06:24] or come back to the table is that

[3:06:26] helpful to simplify things or no

[3:06:30] >> I'd rather have more general eneral

[3:06:32] » I'd rather have more general eneral

[3:06:32] conversation around it than making it so

[3:06:36] strict because I don't think that's

[3:06:38] really quite as applicable. Um, I think

[3:06:42] I already have a general idea of where

[3:06:45] some people sit in that and I can re I

[3:06:49] can state to you all what I hear after

[3:06:51] you say it and then you can nod, shake,

[3:06:55] disagree

[3:06:58] >> um afterwards. But I think just getting

[3:07:00] » um afterwards. But I think just getting

[3:07:00] an understanding of the where you you

[3:07:04] sit on the topic of the Sonoma mixed

[3:07:06] juice. Um that would be helpful. We can

[3:07:10] go from there.

[3:07:11] >> Does everybody understand the

[3:07:15] » Does everybody understand the

[3:07:15] directions? Okay. Commissioner Willers,

[3:07:18] we'll start with you.

[3:07:20] >> Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three

[3:07:24] » Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three

[3:07:24] minute promise here. Uh where I stand is

[3:07:27] I don't think we're in a position to

[3:07:29] make a decision that I I've been

[3:07:32] through, you know, we've been dealing

[3:07:34] with this for over a year. We've been

[3:07:36] talking about it for over We haven't

[3:07:38] been talking about it for over a year.

[3:07:39] We've been able to think about it for

[3:07:41] over a year. Um

[3:07:45] there are too many external influences

[3:07:48] on this general area to responsibly make

[3:07:53] a decision without more information. But

[3:07:57] one piece of information that we do have

[3:07:59] that was the safe study that came along

[3:08:02] that was a very thorough document that I

[3:08:04] spent a lot of time reading and it

[3:08:07] essentially says no hotel

[3:08:10] low density housing

[3:08:12] and you can't do it without improving

[3:08:14] your infrastructure.

[3:08:16] So to me that says if I'm going to pay

[3:08:18] attention to what the study says which

[3:08:21] is an independently

[3:08:23] um you know financed study and has

[3:08:25] people behind it that that aren't a

[3:08:28] third party so to speak. Um what it says

[3:08:32] to me is we have to study the situation

[3:08:34] more before we start applying um uses to

[3:08:37] a property that we don't know enough

[3:08:39] about.

[3:08:41] Um and I and I also think that the

[3:08:46] The special study area is something that

[3:08:49] we could possibly use within the general

[3:08:53] plan context to say that we recognize

[3:08:56] that this is an important piece of

[3:08:58] property that we're going to have to

[3:08:59] deal with in the future and what we need

[3:09:02] to do it as a community via

[3:09:05] the typical process of implementation

[3:09:08] measure. we have to do this within a

[3:09:10] certain period of time to meet the goals

[3:09:12] of our general plan and give us

[3:09:14] ourselves the time to do it and agree

[3:09:17] that we're going to do it so that it

[3:09:19] meets the goals of the 45 general plan.

[3:09:24] So I I my personal opinion is we either

[3:09:28] leave the zoning as it is and let pro

[3:09:31] projects come forward or we take the

[3:09:34] tact of introducing this as a special

[3:09:36] plan area and doing the studies in the

[3:09:39] future so that we can make a reasonable

[3:09:41] decision.

[3:09:44] >> Okay.

[3:09:46] » Okay.

[3:09:46] Bernett.

[3:09:48] Well, I've already said that I I feel

[3:09:50] rushed and I don't like feeling rushed.

[3:09:53] And uh so if that implies that uh we

[3:09:58] just leave things as they are for now, I

[3:10:01] guess that's where I would have to lean

[3:10:04] that um I don't I wouldn't feel prepared

[3:10:07] tonight to highly define how we're going

[3:10:11] to use these this uh these parcels. um

[3:10:16] because I I I don't feel we've had a

[3:10:19] robust enough examination or discussion.

[3:10:21] This is really the first time we've had

[3:10:25] uh back and forth or the opportunity to

[3:10:27] respond to the concerns of the

[3:10:30] residents. And I will characterize

[3:10:32] myself as I always have in any public

[3:10:35] capacity as resident centric. Um and uh

[3:10:40] I believe that um all decisions that the

[3:10:44] city makes

[3:10:46] have to be considered in light of what

[3:10:48] does the community want. And it's only

[3:10:52] through forums like this and

[3:10:53] opportunities like this that you can get

[3:10:56] a sense of it unless you put something

[3:10:58] on the ballot and have a vote. I've done

[3:11:00] that too. Um so um I I would support um

[3:11:07] Commissioner Willer's point of view in

[3:11:09] terms of the potential of looking at uh

[3:11:13] uh special plan

[3:11:15] or leaving it alone for now and um with

[3:11:19] all due respect to Jennifer and her

[3:11:21] goals and and and your timetable and the

[3:11:25] pressures you feel in the job you've

[3:11:27] got. I just I I hate making decisions

[3:11:31] and going with recommendations to the

[3:11:33] city council prematurely.

[3:11:37] » Thank you, Commissioner N.

[3:11:43] » I don't need three minutes. Um I feel

[3:11:46] strongly that I'm not uh after tonight's

[3:11:48] discussion, which is really the first

[3:11:50] discussion that we've had at at this

[3:11:53] capacity of a of a commission.

[3:11:56] Um, I'm not personally uh informed

[3:12:00] enough and would uh welcome further

[3:12:03] discussion. Um, it would be

[3:12:06] irresponsible for me to um to weigh in

[3:12:13] further until we had an opportunity for

[3:12:16] further discussion and I would want that

[3:12:18] further discussion for my own

[3:12:19] edification so that I can make a

[3:12:21] responsible uh decision on this.

[3:12:24] >> Great. Thank you, Commissioner

[3:12:27] » Great. Thank you, Commissioner

[3:12:27] Yes, thank you. Um, I I actually agree

[3:12:30] with all the comments that have been

[3:12:31] expressed by my colleagues. I came into

[3:12:33] this tonight not comfortable with a

[3:12:36] Sonoma mixeduse designation. Um, but I

[3:12:40] was unclear of some of the options. Um,

[3:12:43] I think uh, Commissioner Willer's

[3:12:45] recommendation for status quo is

[3:12:47] intriguing. I think there are still some

[3:12:49] inherent risks to that that I want to

[3:12:52] examine further. I appreciate the

[3:12:54] public's um recommendation for, you

[3:12:57] know, an SRRA. Um but I also think there

[3:13:00] are inherent risks associated with that.

[3:13:02] As some of you know, I'm very involved

[3:13:04] in state policy. I am not responsible

[3:13:06] for the land use policies and the

[3:13:09] housing policies that have been

[3:13:10] implemented at the state level, but I do

[3:13:12] watch them carefully. And so I'm trying

[3:13:15] to balance the risks of some of these

[3:13:17] recommendations because I think that's

[3:13:19] important. And I'm I'm equally intrigued

[3:13:22] by some of the other comments that were

[3:13:24] made about a historic overlay, maybe

[3:13:27] further examination of of our density

[3:13:30] designations. Um, I'm not trying to open

[3:13:33] up a whole can of worms here, but there

[3:13:35] those are intriguing proposals and so I

[3:13:38] don't feel terribly informed enough to

[3:13:41] make a a recommendation to the council.

[3:13:44] And I also really want to express my

[3:13:46] appreciation to the public. We have

[3:13:49] heard you. I did read those comments, by

[3:13:51] the way. There were there were a few um

[3:13:53] in the hundreds of letters we received

[3:13:55] that we're not reading them. And I can

[3:13:57] assure you that all of us here are and

[3:13:59] we've taken this very seriously. But we

[3:14:01] also have a job and um sometimes

[3:14:03] maintaining poker face is important, but

[3:14:05] we hear you and we value your opinions

[3:14:08] and I think we want to make the most

[3:14:10] informed decision that guides the future

[3:14:12] of this community. And I I do support a

[3:14:15] diverse community. So, I think um this

[3:14:17] general plan update is extremely

[3:14:19] important and we need more time.

[3:14:22] >> Thank you, Mr. Nova.

[3:14:25] » Thank you, Mr. Nova.

[3:14:25] >> So, um I too am not comfortable moving

[3:14:27] » So, um I too am not comfortable moving

[3:14:27] forward with just an overlay of the this

[3:14:30] snow and mixed use. And what I um you

[3:14:34] know, I agree we've been I've been

[3:14:36] really thinking about this a lot. I've

[3:14:38] heard from a lot of folks um and I

[3:14:40] really appreciate the comments and I

[3:14:42] think what I've heard tonight were also

[3:14:45] a lot of new ideas around um this idea

[3:14:49] of maintaining control, the idea of

[3:14:51] being creative about this. And I

[3:14:54] personally would like us to to move

[3:14:57] forward and try to incorporate some of

[3:14:59] the things we heard today as a a way to

[3:15:02] refocus the ability for us to maintain

[3:15:04] control um while at the same time not

[3:15:07] keeping the status quo because do we

[3:15:09] want the status quo for another 20

[3:15:11] years? I mean, I don't think so. But I

[3:15:13] do think there's an opportunity for us

[3:15:15] to create um a plan and I'm a fan of

[3:15:20] specific area plans um that that would

[3:15:24] allow us as a city to direct what we

[3:15:27] want and not be passive about it. Um, if

[3:15:31] there's a way, for instance, that we can

[3:15:33] have a specific area plan and also bring

[3:15:35] in an historic overlay to maintain

[3:15:36] control. I mean, I'd like to think about

[3:15:38] those kinds of ideas

[3:15:41] um for us to be able to direct where we

[3:15:44] want to go and have some control over

[3:15:45] it. So, I too would like to incorporate

[3:15:48] some of the things that we've heard and

[3:15:50] and refocus what's possible um with

[3:15:53] regard to not only the development code,

[3:15:56] but also the general plan and the land

[3:15:58] reuse.

[3:16:00] Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.

[3:16:02] >> Okay, set my three minute timer.

[3:16:06] » Okay, set my three minute timer.

[3:16:06] Um,

[3:16:08] I have to agree with everyone here. Um,

[3:16:10] one of my first concerns was I felt like

[3:16:13] we were jamming things when we really

[3:16:15] didn't understand the project that was

[3:16:16] coming before us. Um, hotels are not

[3:16:20] that

[3:16:22] in demand right now. They're hard to

[3:16:24] finance. If anybody was really excited

[3:16:26] about building a hotel, I know Darius

[3:16:28] Anderson is still trying to secure

[3:16:30] financing for his hotel. Um, the fact

[3:16:33] that this is a very high fire zone makes

[3:16:36] insurability a really important issue

[3:16:38] and for housing that's such an important

[3:16:40] issue. I think it needs to be uh

[3:16:42] understood very well before any housing

[3:16:46] can be built there. I think as we have

[3:16:49] any projects come before us, we'll have

[3:16:50] SQA that we have to go through. A lot of

[3:16:53] the SQA process we can't do until we

[3:16:55] have a project, but I think the HRE is

[3:16:58] one we could. I'm wondering how we could

[3:17:01] possibly because the site is there.

[3:17:03] That's not going to change. I'm

[3:17:05] wondering if there's a way that we can

[3:17:07] actually um

[3:17:10] get a historic resource evaluation for

[3:17:13] the site so that any developer coming

[3:17:15] forward knows precisely what they're

[3:17:17] dealing with, what's historic there,

[3:17:19] what isn't historic, what do we wish to

[3:17:21] save, what do we not need to save. And I

[3:17:24] know that's not typically done. We

[3:17:26] always do the HRE after the project

[3:17:28] comes to us, but I'd like to see that as

[3:17:31] a possibility.

[3:17:33] I agree that with uh Commissioner

[3:17:35] Donbach, we wouldn't really want the

[3:17:37] status quo. If Sebastian came to us

[3:17:40] right now and said, "I want to put in

[3:17:41] wine production in this neighborhood."

[3:17:42] We'd all go, "Heck no." And if you ask

[3:17:46] August Sebastian about when he was a

[3:17:48] little kid and they had uh grapes coming

[3:17:50] in at harvest time and he was the kid

[3:17:51] who had to go around and tell all the

[3:17:53] neighbors trucks are coming through and

[3:17:55] the neighbors weren't very happy. So,

[3:17:56] no, we don't want status quo. That's

[3:17:58] definitely not what we want there. But I

[3:18:00] think we do have an asset there that is

[3:18:04] a treasure but not the entire thing. I

[3:18:07] think parts of it are a treasure and

[3:18:08] parts of it we really want to maintain

[3:18:11] and we want to keep as part of our

[3:18:12] heritage and then other parts we want to

[3:18:16] repurpose and see them flourish and be

[3:18:19] more useful going forward. So I'm not

[3:18:22] ready to jump into the Soma mixed use

[3:18:26] commercial whatever zone. Um I I don't

[3:18:29] feel comfortable with that. I think this

[3:18:31] is too big of a test case for us to have

[3:18:33] a new designation on that makes me

[3:18:35] nervous because I personally don't feel

[3:18:37] smart enough to look at all the ways

[3:18:39] that somebody could take advantage of

[3:18:40] that. Um so my biggest ask is um what

[3:18:44] can we do about potentially getting some

[3:18:47] kind of HRE as we go through this

[3:18:49] process and having a community task

[3:18:52] force as was suggested that we could

[3:18:55] actually take this as a task force

[3:18:57] continue to on this, not wait till the

[3:19:00] next general plan, but continue to work

[3:19:02] on this knowing that we want to get this

[3:19:04] incorporated and get it taken care of

[3:19:06] very quickly. My three minutes went up.

[3:19:08] Sorry.

[3:19:09] >> Thank you.

[3:19:11] » Thank you.

[3:19:11] Um, I will join wholeheartedly in what

[3:19:15] my colleagues up here on the dis have to

[3:19:17] say. Um, I come from a position of

[3:19:20] wanting to preserve the last remaining

[3:19:22] levers of local control that we have.

[3:19:25] And in this case, um, what's represented

[3:19:28] by the the proposed

[3:19:32] Soma mixeduse zone, I think, seeds, uh,

[3:19:36] too much, um, you know, could seed too

[3:19:41] much local control to a level to an

[3:19:43] extent that I'm uncomfortable with.

[3:19:45] Um, I would like to see more

[3:19:48] incremental, gradual steps taken to

[3:19:50] marshall the evolution of this extremely

[3:19:53] special and historic place that

[3:19:55] contributes so much to the sense of

[3:19:56] place

[3:19:58] um

[3:19:59] of Soma. Um, it's just too important to

[3:20:03] to rush. Um, I'd be interested to hear

[3:20:07] to hearing more about a sight specific

[3:20:10] plan. I'd be uh really interested in

[3:20:13] hearing about specific projects. Um I

[3:20:17] think that this conversation has to

[3:20:19] continue. Um I'm not anti-housing. I'm

[3:20:22] not anti-development. In fact, I'm pro

[3:20:24] both. But I'm pro- responsible

[3:20:27] development.

[3:20:29] and

[3:20:31] uh in an environment, a legislative

[3:20:33] environment where the inclusion of

[3:20:35] housing where there wasn't formerly

[3:20:37] housing, it opens up a floodgates to to

[3:20:40] potential disaster in my opinion.

[3:20:43] Um

[3:20:45] that said, if there's a decision or a

[3:20:47] recommendation that has to be made

[3:20:49] tonight, it would be mine would be to

[3:20:51] abandon the concept of Sonoma mixed use

[3:20:54] and to stay with what we have and to

[3:20:56] explore options in the next five or 10

[3:20:59] years going forward. Maybe even

[3:21:01] curtailing what exists in the wine

[3:21:03] production zone to allow additional

[3:21:05] uses, light retail, wine adjacent uses,

[3:21:09] maybe even a boutique hotel. I have no

[3:21:11] problem with that if it's done well. Um,

[3:21:15] but opening the floodgates, which I

[3:21:17] think the language in this mixed use

[3:21:19] zone as proposed effectively does, I'm

[3:21:22] uncomfortable with it. Those are my

[3:21:24] thoughts.

[3:21:31] » You want your summary now?

[3:21:35] >> All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it

[3:21:41] » All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it

[3:21:41] the same, but there's a butt there,

[3:21:44] right? It's continue the conversation.

[3:21:46] Um, that they something it's going to

[3:21:50] change and helping it change in the way

[3:21:53] the community wants is important to the

[3:21:55] plane commission.

[3:21:57] That can lend itself in different ways.

[3:22:00] Um right now it would be to um just keep

[3:22:06] it the three different designations it

[3:22:09] is right now and then

[3:22:12] um two options. One a project gets

[3:22:16] proposed for that site.

[3:22:19] Um another option is that the you know

[3:22:24] go back to the table if we did do a

[3:22:26] specific plan we would need to give

[3:22:30] budget um to do such thing um or we

[3:22:34] would wait for a project to come through

[3:22:37] um so there's there's a different

[3:22:40] options out there um for this. I'm sorry

[3:22:44] that you feel rushed Larry don't want

[3:22:46] you to feel rushed. Um,

[3:22:50] I don't want you guys to feel rushed on

[3:22:51] any of this. Um, I know it's a big deal.

[3:22:53] I know that it's 20 years of planning uh

[3:22:57] into the future that we know is we don't

[3:23:00] know what that looks like in the next

[3:23:02] six months. Uh, and I know that's really

[3:23:04] hard. So, I recognize that. Um, so that

[3:23:08] is what I heard. Um, I do have questions

[3:23:11] around what that looks like just

[3:23:15] because part of that change that um is

[3:23:20] being proposed

[3:23:22] that Sebastiani historic district is all

[3:23:25] currently um zoned

[3:23:29] um actually wine production. Um, and so

[3:23:32] one of the changes that was being

[3:23:35] proposed is to modify that wine

[3:23:37] production on those lots to residential

[3:23:40] low.

[3:23:42] So I wanted to um clarify that keeping

[3:23:46] that change is still

[3:23:49] um good to go.

[3:23:54] >> Just those specific homes,

[3:23:57] » Just those specific homes,

[3:23:57] those single those little single

[3:23:59] residential homes

[3:24:03] on

[3:24:04] >> the Sebastian cottages.

[3:24:06] » the Sebastian cottages.

[3:24:06] >> Yeah, the little cottages. The

[3:24:08] » Yeah, the little cottages. The

[3:24:08] Sebastian, it's the residential historic

[3:24:10] district.

[3:24:12] Um,

[3:24:14] so those would be

[3:24:16] these little yellow ones right there.

[3:24:20] >> Sorry, what what was it?

[3:24:32] But they're consistent with all the load

[3:24:33] that's below it.

[3:24:38] » That density that density might be 15

[3:24:40] units to the It might be 10 units to the

[3:24:43] acre.

[3:24:45] >> I think it's around the medium is

[3:24:47] » I think it's around the medium is

[3:24:47] between the low and the medium. Um but

[3:24:50] it's reflective of the zoning that's

[3:24:52] across the street.

[3:24:56] So that's what that small change

[3:25:01] that I just wanted to make sure that I

[3:25:03] clarify. If that those little yellow

[3:25:06] >> if if you're asking for opinions on

[3:25:08] » if if you're asking for opinions on

[3:25:08] that, I have no problem converting what

[3:25:12] are currently residential uses to

[3:25:14] residential zoning.

[3:25:15] >> Okay,

[3:25:16] » Okay,

[3:25:16] >> that's just double checking. I just

[3:25:18] » that's just double checking. I just

[3:25:18] >> I would join in that.

[3:25:20] » I would join in that.

[3:25:20] >> Okay,

[3:25:22] » Okay,

[3:25:22] I am doing some cleanup. So those were

[3:25:24] one of the things. So I just wanted to

[3:25:25] clarify that that that would still

[3:25:27] change. Um okay.

[3:25:31] So I think that ends that discussion. I

[3:25:34] do I know it's 9:24

[3:25:38] but I do want the other two lots

[3:25:41] discussed please if possible.

[3:25:46] the other two lots,

[3:25:48] >> the memo on the f the um request

[3:25:55] » the memo on the f the um request

[3:25:56] >> on Levelvel Valley and then also on

[3:25:58] » on Levelvel Valley and then also on

[3:25:58] Sonoma Highway.

[3:26:05] » So, are we complete with this session?

[3:26:07] >> Yes.

[3:26:08] » Yes.

[3:26:08] >> Okay.

[3:26:13] » Five minute stretch.

[3:26:18] At this yeah at this point I will call

[3:26:20] for a fivem minute recess but a strict

[3:26:21] fivem minute recess reconvene at 9:30

[3:26:24] please.

[3:32:20] Yes,

[3:32:28] » we need to reconvene. It is uh about 30

[3:32:31] seconds past my strict five minute

[3:32:33] stretch break.

[3:32:35] At this point, I'd like to thank the

[3:32:37] remaining members of the the community

[3:32:39] who are in the room still. And uh thank

[3:32:41] you for your insight. Thank you for your

[3:32:43] time. Thank you for your your care and

[3:32:46] consideration and uh we're we're happy

[3:32:48] and we're glad you're here and uh your

[3:32:50] opinions and your comments help us to

[3:32:53] formulate our opinions and move forward.

[3:32:55] So again, thank you. And with that,

[3:32:59] uh I believe we are still on item 5.2.

[3:33:04] >> We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of

[3:33:07] » We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of

[3:33:07] you right now is the uh memo that was

[3:33:10] written in regards to land use change

[3:33:12] requests that have come in from specific

[3:33:15] property owners um um in regards to

[3:33:18] their own properties andor in

[3:33:20] collaboration with the property owner.

[3:33:22] So the first one is 577 um it's two

[3:33:25] parcels 577 and 711 Level Valley Road.

[3:33:30] Um the request is from agricultural to

[3:33:32] rural residential. Um staff did

[3:33:35] originally incorporate that into a draft

[3:33:38] future land use map for consideration

[3:33:41] um to incorporate it into the secret

[3:33:44] process. The request came in late um and

[3:33:48] knowing that we would still have

[3:33:49] multiple opportunities to discuss um it

[3:33:53] is um a request that would modify

[3:33:57] those two parcels. one is both are

[3:34:01] smaller than the 10 acre requirement um

[3:34:03] which is a one dwelling unit per 10 acre

[3:34:05] um on those agricultural parcels and

[3:34:08] then the change of those land use um

[3:34:10] property would allow two dwelling units

[3:34:12] per acre. Uh I do recognize that that's

[3:34:14] a big change um but rural residential

[3:34:17] does allow continued agricultural um use

[3:34:20] which is currently being done on the

[3:34:23] larger of the two parcels.

[3:34:26] Um so that is one. The other one um is

[3:34:32] on 1934

[3:34:35] zero and through 9360

[3:34:38] Soma Highway. Um these two um the

[3:34:43] request came in to do a mixeduse land

[3:34:45] use designation.

[3:34:47] Um there is mixed use on the property

[3:34:49] just to the south that is um a little

[3:34:53] smaller actually um in the commercial

[3:34:56] component part of it. Um this is all

[3:34:58] mixed use down here. Um this whole area

[3:35:02] was identified um as housing

[3:35:05] opportunity. I did double check these

[3:35:07] lots specifically are not identified to

[3:35:10] meet our regional housing needs

[3:35:12] allocation. Um unlike the Montalo

[3:35:16] property which was

[3:35:18] um housing opportunity is uh 30 dwelling

[3:35:21] units per acre maximum. A mixed use

[3:35:25] under the proposed change would be 25

[3:35:28] dwelling units per acre which would be a

[3:35:30] reduction of about five um dwelling

[3:35:32] units on these specific sites. Um and um

[3:35:37] that request came in. Both of them have

[3:35:40] uh letters attached and I do not see

[3:35:44] owner of Levelville Valley, but I do see

[3:35:47] um the director of the community health

[3:35:50] center.

[3:35:51] So with that, that concludes staff's

[3:35:54] very brief presentation.

[3:35:56] >> Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments

[3:36:00] » Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments

[3:36:00] or sorry questions? Commissioner

[3:36:02] questions based on director's

[3:36:04] recitation.

[3:36:06] >> I do have a clarifying question for the

[3:36:09] » I do have a clarifying question for the

[3:36:09] the first one is 577. I just want to

[3:36:12] make sure I understand the the image.

[3:36:15] >> So when looking at it on the right side

[3:36:19] » So when looking at it on the right side

[3:36:19] is that 577 that property that has a

[3:36:24] home on it and then the and that's 577.

[3:36:28] Uhhuh. This whole thing to here.

[3:36:31] >> What? Which one is 711?

[3:36:33] » What? Which one is 711?

[3:36:33] >> This one. This piece.

[3:36:36] » This one. This piece.

[3:36:36] >> Okay. So 711

[3:36:39] » Okay. So 711

[3:36:39] um

[3:36:41] already has a home. It's a smaller lot.

[3:36:44] So is is that it's but it's all on the

[3:36:46] same lot. I'm just really confused about

[3:36:48] >> it's two parcels.

[3:36:49] » it's two parcels.

[3:36:49] >> Okay.

[3:36:49] » Okay.

[3:36:49] >> The lot line is right here. Okay.

[3:36:51] » The lot line is right here. Okay.

[3:36:51] >> Right where you see those trees.

[3:36:53] » Right where you see those trees.

[3:36:53] >> All right.

[3:36:54] » All right.

[3:36:54] >> That's the lot line.

[3:36:55] » That's the lot line.

[3:36:55] >> And so the request is to change So,

[3:36:57] » And so the request is to change So,

[3:36:58] there's already a home on one of them.

[3:36:59] >> There is one home on this one. And then

[3:37:01] » There is one home on this one. And then

[3:37:01] there's two small units over here on

[3:37:03] this one.

[3:37:05] >> And so, the proposal would be to change,

[3:37:08] » And so, the proposal would be to change,

[3:37:08] let's just talk about the 711 that

[3:37:13] >> the proposal would be to change that

[3:37:15] » the proposal would be to change that

[3:37:15] potentially to the rural which would

[3:37:18] allow another unit on that even though

[3:37:21] it's not 10 acres. This is I'm kind of

[3:37:23] really confused about this. Agriculture

[3:37:25] is one per 10 acres.

[3:37:28] >> Um the change of land use would allow

[3:37:32] » Um the change of land use would allow

[3:37:32] two units per acre. So these two parcels

[3:37:36] are around nine acres of land.

[3:37:39] >> That little parcel 711 is nine acres.

[3:37:42] » That little parcel 711 is nine acres.

[3:37:42] >> No, combined it's nine acres.

[3:37:47] » Okay.

[3:37:47] >> So So for a total of 18,

[3:37:51] » So So for a total of 18,

[3:37:51] >> no,

[3:37:52] » no,

[3:37:52] >> it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.

[3:37:54] » it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.

[3:37:54] >> No, no, no.

[3:37:57] » No, no, no.

[3:37:57] >> Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.

[3:37:59] » Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.

[3:37:59] >> Total total potential

[3:38:00] » Total total potential

[3:38:00] >> total potential. Yeah.

[3:38:01] » total potential. Yeah.

[3:38:01] >> Units is 18.

[3:38:03] » Units is 18.

[3:38:03] >> Okay. And and and that's where I was

[3:38:04] » Okay. And and and that's where I was

[3:38:04] going. Thank you. But but obviously

[3:38:06] those 18 would be on that open a space

[3:38:10] because there's already home on part of

[3:38:11] it, right? It would be on the space

[3:38:14] where the lot line is going toward.

[3:38:18] >> Yeah.

[3:38:22] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:38:25] >> On that note, do we know the intent of

[3:38:29] » On that note, do we know the intent of

[3:38:29] the um applicants? What their intention

[3:38:32] is?

[3:38:33] >> Well, he he says in his letter that he

[3:38:36] » Well, he he says in his letter that he

[3:38:36] wants to continue the agricultural use.

[3:38:39] The the issue is is that if we change

[3:38:41] the designation, some future owner of

[3:38:44] the property then is governed by the new

[3:38:49] designation, not the intention of use.

[3:38:53] So what the present owner intends to do

[3:38:56] is less significant than what the zoning

[3:39:01] designation of the parcel is

[3:39:05] historically.

[3:39:08] I have a question. The

[3:39:12] land to the south,

[3:39:14] is that county or is that city?

[3:39:16] >> County.

[3:39:17] » County.

[3:39:17] >> Okay. And what is the zoning?

[3:39:21] » Okay. And what is the zoning?

[3:39:21] >> It's uh their version of a rural

[3:39:26] » It's uh their version of a rural

[3:39:26] residential. It

[3:39:27] >> varies. The density is

[3:39:29] » varies. The density is

[3:39:30] >> um

[3:39:30] » um

[3:39:30] >> attached to the counties.

[3:39:33] » attached to the counties.

[3:39:33] >> Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um

[3:39:36] » Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um

[3:39:36] he knows

[3:39:37] Um I can't remember off the top of my

[3:39:39] head. Um what

[3:39:42] >> one unit per two

[3:39:43] » one unit per two

[3:39:43] >> true something like that.

[3:39:45] » true something like that.

[3:39:45] >> So

[3:39:50] » so it it typically two acre minimum

[3:39:54] parcels

[3:39:55] >> one unit but it's heavily controlled by

[3:40:00] » one unit but it's heavily controlled by

[3:40:00] not public sewer.

[3:40:02] >> Okay. So the allowed densities in the

[3:40:05] » Okay. So the allowed densities in the

[3:40:05] county and their version of rural

[3:40:06] residential would not be

[3:40:09] not be equal, but it also not wholly

[3:40:12] dissimilar from what they're asking for,

[3:40:13] right?

[3:40:16] » So the difference would be nine.

[3:40:21] >> Does this have city water?

[3:40:24] » Does this have city water?

[3:40:24] >> I'd have to look to see if it's already

[3:40:26] » I'd have to look to see if it's already

[3:40:26] serviced or not. I don't I do not know

[3:40:28] off the top of my head.

[3:40:28] >> And it does not have city sewer.

[3:40:31] » And it does not have city sewer.

[3:40:31] >> I would have to look to see if it's been

[3:40:33] » I would have to look to see if it's been

[3:40:33] serviced or not. I mean, we do have lots

[3:40:35] within our city that are still on city

[3:40:37] water or sewer.

[3:40:39] >> Well, I'm just looking from a future

[3:40:40] » Well, I'm just looking from a future

[3:40:40] development perspective. Um, it if it

[3:40:43] has water and sewer and Yeah, I'd like

[3:40:47] to know

[3:40:47] >> it can have it.

[3:40:50] » it can have it.

[3:40:50] Where is it now? Where does it end? I

[3:40:53] mean, that's could be cost prohibitive

[3:40:55] if it's too far away.

[3:40:57] >> And that's something I don't exactly

[3:40:59] » And that's something I don't exactly

[3:40:59] remember where it ends. I think it's

[3:41:01] going to end probably at the development

[3:41:03] if it hasn't already been extended.

[3:41:05] It'll end at the development that's just

[3:41:06] north of Sebastiani.

[3:41:11] That's where currently it ends even

[3:41:13] going up Fourth Street. It was just

[3:41:15] extended to Brazil this year.

[3:41:19] >> Any more questions for staff before we

[3:41:21] » Any more questions for staff before we

[3:41:21] open public comment?

[3:41:24] Okay, this time I would open public

[3:41:26] comment. Anybody wanting to come speak

[3:41:30] on this matter?

[3:41:35] » Good evening.

[3:41:36] >> Evening.

[3:41:37] » Evening.

[3:41:37] >> Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of

[3:41:38] » Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of

[3:41:38] Sonoma Valley Community Health Center.

[3:41:40] Very nice to meet you all and be here.

[3:41:42] Um so we are um federally qualified

[3:41:45] health center. We serve 6,500 patients a

[3:41:47] year and we're also looking at the

[3:41:49] trends of healthcare needs in the valley

[3:41:51] and are interested in expanding and

[3:41:53] providing more care and better serving

[3:41:55] the needs of the community so we don't

[3:41:57] have to leave go to other parts of the

[3:41:59] county. Um we're also interested in

[3:42:02] providing housing. One of the challenges

[3:42:03] that we have is in recruiting and

[3:42:05] retaining staff and especially

[3:42:06] healthcare providers is housing. So

[3:42:08] looking to see if we can use this as an

[3:42:10] innovative way to retain staff and

[3:42:12] continue to provide the healthcare in

[3:42:14] the valley. That's our That's our hope.

[3:42:16] >> Okay.

[3:42:17] » Okay.

[3:42:17] >> Yes.

[3:42:18] » Yes.

[3:42:18] >> So, do you own these parcels? Is the the

[3:42:22] » So, do you own these parcels? Is the the

[3:42:22] health center owned the parcels in

[3:42:24] question that are being considered for

[3:42:27] this change?

[3:42:28] >> No, we don't own them, but we are hoping

[3:42:29] » No, we don't own them, but we are hoping

[3:42:29] to acquire them.

[3:42:31] >> Okay. So, um your intention is then to

[3:42:36] » Okay. So, um your intention is then to

[3:42:36] acquire them and with the change in in

[3:42:41] uh the zoning designation

[3:42:43] uh have the opportunity to construct

[3:42:48] lowincome or workforce housing on this

[3:42:51] parcel.

[3:42:51] >> Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.

[3:42:55] » Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.

[3:42:55] >> How do you mean in addition to the

[3:42:57] » How do you mean in addition to the

[3:42:57] clinic?

[3:42:57] >> Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't

[3:42:59] » Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't

[3:42:59] designed it yet, but the idea is to have

[3:43:00] there be housing and the the healthcare

[3:43:02] provided there.

[3:43:03] >> Oh, so you would move from the location

[3:43:05] » Oh, so you would move from the location

[3:43:05] that you were in.

[3:43:06] >> No, keep that one as well. But this is

[3:43:08] » No, keep that one as well. But this is

[3:43:08] just a few parcels down.

[3:43:10] >> Uhhuh. And so you would com you would

[3:43:12] » Uhhuh. And so you would com you would

[3:43:12] have both health serving use on the

[3:43:16] parcels as well as housing.

[3:43:18] >> Exactly. On this one on that the housing

[3:43:19] » Exactly. On this one on that the housing

[3:43:19] would not be on the one that's existing.

[3:43:21] >> That's quite an ambitious plan.

[3:43:25] » Yeah.

[3:43:25] >> Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs

[3:43:26] » Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs

[3:43:26] that we need to

[3:43:27] >> Well, I understand. in an era of federal

[3:43:29] » Well, I understand. in an era of federal

[3:43:29] government cuts to community health

[3:43:32] >> centers.

[3:43:34] » centers.

[3:43:34] >> Um so you have a assume a robust

[3:43:37] » Um so you have a assume a robust

[3:43:37] fundraising plan in mind as well.

[3:43:39] >> That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot

[3:43:40] » That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot

[3:43:40] of other

[3:43:41] >> Okay.

[3:43:41] » Okay.

[3:43:41] >> innovative strategies. Yeah.

[3:43:43] » innovative strategies. Yeah.

[3:43:43] >> Okay. Thank you.

[3:43:44] » Okay. Thank you.

[3:43:44] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[3:43:46] » Yeah. Thank you.

[3:43:46] >> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[3:43:50] » Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[3:43:50] >> Any other members of the public?

[3:43:53] » Any other members of the public?

[3:43:53] >> Mr. Granny, come forward. State your

[3:43:54] » Mr. Granny, come forward. State your

[3:43:54] name.

[3:43:57] Art Randy. Um

[3:44:01] I go up and down Levelvel Valley Road

[3:44:03] quite often walking, bike riding.

[3:44:06] I don't think the possibility of having

[3:44:09] that developed to the the rate of two

[3:44:13] per acre for roughly 10 acre site and

[3:44:17] that location uh suits the uh the scene.

[3:44:23] So there are a lot of practical issues

[3:44:26] as well which obviously everybody

[3:44:27] already knows about water, sewage,

[3:44:29] whatever lots of complications. Money

[3:44:32] can solve some of those to some degree

[3:44:34] but not at this time. Thank you.

[3:44:38] Any other public comments?

[3:44:44] Okay, I'll close public comment at this

[3:44:47] time. Bring back to the commission for

[3:44:48] commissioner comments.

[3:44:50] Any comments? Commissioner Willers.

[3:44:53] Um, for me it's all about edge condition

[3:44:57] and and it's and it and it does link

[3:45:00] back to our earlier discussion. Um,

[3:45:04] one of the one of the reasons that's

[3:45:07] stated in the letter is because we're

[3:45:10] considering adding housing to the

[3:45:13] Sebastian property. Well, we're not. We

[3:45:15] don't know what we're going to add to

[3:45:17] the Sebastian property at this point.

[3:45:20] And so, you know, you create an edge

[3:45:22] condition of growth

[3:45:25] and the other edge, the edges around it

[3:45:27] respond. It's California development.

[3:45:32] It grows from the edge out. And and so

[3:45:36] my I don't think that there's a reason

[3:45:38] to reszone this land. There's a request

[3:45:41] to reszone it. And I think the

[3:45:43] implications of reszoning it in my

[3:45:46] opinion are too great given the edge

[3:45:49] condition

[3:45:51] to to make it reasonable.

[3:45:53] So I am not in favor of this request

[3:45:57] for those reasons.

[3:46:00] >> The other one, you know, it's it's

[3:46:02] » The other one, you know, it's it's

[3:46:02] intriguing. It's zoned housing

[3:46:04] opportunity. Um I think the mixeduse

[3:46:08] zone is almost equal.

[3:46:12] Um I don't I have no issue with the

[3:46:15] mixed use zone being applied on the

[3:46:17] corridor here. It's the place where it

[3:46:19] probably makes sense to do it. Um it is

[3:46:22] also the area where we have opportunity

[3:46:26] to have you know it's good to know that

[3:46:28] it's not being used for reena numbers at

[3:46:31] this point. Um

[3:46:34] and it's current zoning is

[3:46:37] what's it?

[3:46:39] >> It's housing opportunity.

[3:46:40] » It's housing opportunity.

[3:46:40] >> It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't

[3:46:41] » It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't

[3:46:41] allow anything but multif family.

[3:46:45] >> You know, it's currently a mixeduse

[3:46:47] » You know, it's currently a mixeduse

[3:46:47] corridor already as a corridor. So I

[3:46:49] don't have any issues with that with

[3:46:51] changing that. I don't think the density

[3:46:54] the 30 dwelling units per acre is that

[3:46:56] great of an impact on these parcels even

[3:47:00] in their aggregate because

[3:47:03] it's all about parking cars as you can

[3:47:06] see next door to it. So

[3:47:10] >> great. Thank you. Any other commissioner

[3:47:12] » great. Thank you. Any other commissioner

[3:47:12] comments? Commissioner D.

[3:47:14] >> I will make a comment. Um I am also

[3:47:18] » I will make a comment. Um I am also

[3:47:18] supportive of um the um redesation um of

[3:47:23] to mixed use in this parcel. I think

[3:47:26] it's a reasonable plan. It it fits in

[3:47:29] with the you know the zoning around

[3:47:31] there and I'd love to support what your

[3:47:33] efforts in trying to bring housing and

[3:47:36] uh expanded healthcare to the community.

[3:47:40] With regard to the other property, um I

[3:47:44] I would agree. I I think that um I was

[3:47:48] also um moved by the fact that this is a

[3:47:51] zone where we need to have perk and we

[3:47:54] need to to, you know, recharge our

[3:47:56] aquifers. And I think we need to really

[3:47:58] pay attention to that, especially here

[3:48:01] in the south end where our aquifers are

[3:48:05] really drying up the deep deep aquifers

[3:48:07] and soon seawater will come in and that

[3:48:09] will affect our ability to be

[3:48:12] agricultural.

[3:48:14] So I

[3:48:16] I really don't support that change

[3:48:19] because of the density that would be

[3:48:21] impacted there. Um and not knowing about

[3:48:25] the sewer or the water also um adds to

[3:48:30] that. Um and thirdly, this idea that we

[3:48:34] also have to really think about our

[3:48:37] other water resources um and our

[3:48:39] environmental resources

[3:48:41] um I think are for me it's it's

[3:48:46] not appropriate to approve.

[3:48:50] » Commissioner O'Neal. Um, I'm in

[3:48:52] agreement. Um, the Arnold Drive, that

[3:48:54] sounds like a great opportunity. And

[3:48:57] further up the street there is some of

[3:48:59] the live work condos that, you know,

[3:49:01] there's a mixed juice area there. So,

[3:49:02] that just to me looks excellent. Um,

[3:49:07] Levelville Valley, uh, as a runner going

[3:49:10] up and down Level Valley, we call it

[3:49:11] Lake Level, and if you ride your bike or

[3:49:15] run out there right now, it's a very

[3:49:17] large pond, and you have to time it to

[3:49:19] get through before the spray you. Um,

[3:49:22] that area definitely has some water

[3:49:25] pooling issues and I think that there's

[3:49:28] just too much that we don't understand

[3:49:30] there to be able to jump and just say,

[3:49:33] uh, yeah, let's go ahead and do this,

[3:49:35] especially not understanding the intent

[3:49:37] and what where it's going to go with it.

[3:49:39] If we just go ahead and say, "Yeah, they

[3:49:41] can develop this property, put two units

[3:49:42] per acre, but we don't have the

[3:49:44] infrastructure to deal with that water,

[3:49:46] and we don't have what we need. that the

[3:49:50] runoff goes somewhere because if it's

[3:49:52] not going to go out into those vineyards

[3:49:54] right now, where's it going to go? So,

[3:49:56] I'm definitely not okay with making any

[3:49:59] changes on that until we have a much

[3:50:01] clearer picture of it.

[3:50:04] >> Your comments?

[3:50:08] » Um, I concur with the um

[3:50:12] uh the um

[3:50:16] what the hospital wants to do with those

[3:50:18] properties. And yes, It makes it makes

[3:50:21] all the sense in the world. It's already

[3:50:22] there. Um, regarding Level Valley, um,

[3:50:26] with a lack of intention,

[3:50:30] I'm not compelled to, um, I and a lack

[3:50:34] of information about what's going on

[3:50:36] there. Um, I'm not compelled to

[3:50:40] approve that. There's just I just don't

[3:50:42] know enough.

[3:50:45] >> Anybody else?

[3:50:47] » Anybody else?

[3:50:47] Okay, I'll just join in the comments of

[3:50:49] my fellow commissioners. I don't have

[3:50:50] much to add other than um I I join them

[3:50:54] in their analysis of uh finding that a

[3:50:58] reszone to to rural residential doesn't

[3:51:01] quite meet the test um as far as you

[3:51:05] know edge conditions and and um

[3:51:09] I could see if we were entertaining the

[3:51:12] idea of um housing on the adjacent site

[3:51:15] then it might be a little bit more

[3:51:16] applicable, but and by the consensus

[3:51:20] tonight, it sounds like we are not. Um,

[3:51:22] so for those reasons, I join in not

[3:51:25] supporting the reszone for Level Valley,

[3:51:27] but supporting uh the change to mixed

[3:51:32] use on this other site.

[3:51:37] And I will

[3:51:38] >> Does it need to be? I

[3:51:39] » Does it need to be? I

[3:51:39] >> I didn't think so.

[3:51:42] » I didn't think so.

[3:51:42] Okay. Um

[3:51:45] >> um

[3:51:46] » um

[3:51:46] question.

[3:51:48] >> Yes.

[3:51:49] » Yes.

[3:51:49] >> Um in the if there was anything in

[3:51:53] » Um in the if there was anything in

[3:51:53] regards to the elements, I mean in

[3:51:56] instead of going through them unless

[3:51:58] anybody had some very specific comments

[3:52:01] um is it possible to move those uh edits

[3:52:05] forward or do you want them I know or do

[3:52:09] you want them

[3:52:13] moved again to the March meeting because

[3:52:16] we've moved them so

[3:52:17] >> three meetings now. I think

[3:52:19] » three meetings now. I think

[3:52:19] >> I I would be willing to entertain what

[3:52:21] » I I would be willing to entertain what

[3:52:21] my colleagues have to say, but I would

[3:52:24] prefer to move them forward to March. I

[3:52:26] think that they're deserving of a little

[3:52:28] bit more conversation we can have at

[3:52:30] this point. And I I would like to hear

[3:52:31] 5.1 tonight, too. Um

[3:52:35] so it would be my opinion to to continue

[3:52:40] the the balance of 5.2 to forward to to

[3:52:42] the March date

[3:52:44] >> and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10

[3:52:46] » and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10

[3:52:46] o'clock hour

[3:52:50] » is there any

[3:52:54] » so the only input that I would make is

[3:52:56] that both of those both of those

[3:52:58] elements have very minor edits from the

[3:53:00] ad hoc because most of the um both most

[3:53:06] of the elements are driven by

[3:53:10] things we really don't have the

[3:53:11] opportunity to have any input on. Right.

[3:53:15] Um the safety element and the cultural

[3:53:18] resource element are primarily directed

[3:53:21] other than the way in which we're going

[3:53:23] to implement the the cultural resource

[3:53:26] are primarily directed by state law and

[3:53:29] so our general plan is consuming state

[3:53:32] law and putting it within it and

[3:53:35] structuring it. So I think the

[3:53:38] discussion would be relatively short

[3:53:41] um around those two because the edits

[3:53:43] are so minimal. In fact, one of them one

[3:53:46] of them we didn't really even edit. The

[3:53:49] cultural resource one we didn't even

[3:53:51] have any comment on.

[3:53:54] Okay. I I'd be willing to entertain a

[3:53:56] poll of who would like to continue those

[3:53:59] items within 5.2 to March versus uh

[3:54:03] hearing them tonight. Um, I want to

[3:54:06] understand if we do hear them tonight,

[3:54:08] what happens with 5.1

[3:54:16] » because I think that's a higher

[3:54:17] priority. But, um,

[3:54:21] >> so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go

[3:54:24] » so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go

[3:54:24] for another 20 minutes and we probably

[3:54:26] in my opinion we could probably get done

[3:54:28] and be done.

[3:54:30] >> I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See

[3:54:33] » I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See

[3:54:33] how quickly we can get it out of the

[3:54:35] way.

[3:54:35] >> That is my suggestion.

[3:54:36] » That is my suggestion.

[3:54:36] >> Not that I want to rush.

[3:54:39] » Not that I want to rush.

[3:54:39] >> That is that is my suggestion.

[3:54:42] » That is that is my suggestion.

[3:54:42] >> And and then we'll do it.

[3:54:43] » And and then we'll do it.

[3:54:43] >> Wasn't one of those colors tonight.

[3:54:46] » Wasn't one of those colors tonight.

[3:54:46] Sloth.

[3:54:48] >> Yes.

[3:54:48] » Yes.

[3:54:48] >> Yeah.

[3:54:50] » Yeah.

[3:54:50] >> Where did that come from? I don't know,

[3:54:52] » Where did that come from? I don't know,

[3:54:52] but it was on one of the colors. It was

[3:54:54] a sloth gray. And I was thinking of you

[3:54:56] not wanting to rush. Not that you're a

[3:54:58] sloth.

[3:54:58] >> What color is your house?

[3:55:00] » What color is your house?

[3:55:00] >> Sloth.

[3:55:02] » Sloth.

[3:55:02] >> Okay. So, that said, we are going to

[3:55:05] » Okay. So, that said, we are going to

[3:55:06] table 5, the balance of 5.2,

[3:55:10] and move on to uh item 5.1,

[3:55:15] interpretation of multifamily dwelling.

[3:55:17] And director dates, if you would please.

[3:55:20] >> Sure. Um

[3:55:23] » Sure. Um

[3:55:23] and there it goes. Um so um before you

[3:55:28] is an interpretation um for your

[3:55:31] consideration tonight. So again, strict

[3:55:33] adherence um it's about multif family

[3:55:36] dwelling. Strict adherence to of the

[3:55:38] definition in the land use tables um for

[3:55:41] multif family dwelling would preclude

[3:55:44] multifamily residential development from

[3:55:46] including multiple structures being

[3:55:48] plural containing one unit each on a

[3:55:51] single lot because the definition of

[3:55:53] multif family dwelling refers to a

[3:55:55] structure being singular

[3:55:58] in order to allow mix of residential

[3:56:00] building typologies and a multif family

[3:56:02] residential development. the existing

[3:56:04] definition of multifamily development is

[3:56:06] more accurate um as a land use type

[3:56:10] rather than um multifamily dwelling.

[3:56:14] So interpreting multif family dwelling

[3:56:16] to allow mix um of building types also

[3:56:20] um comports with our development codes

[3:56:21] rules of interpretation in that a

[3:56:24] development code provides structure that

[3:56:27] should be interpreted as structures and

[3:56:29] the term structure is defined as

[3:56:31] buildings being plural. So there's two

[3:56:33] different um ways to interpret that. In

[3:56:36] addition, while not specifically listed

[3:56:39] in the land use table, a multif family

[3:56:41] development does meet the same intent as

[3:56:43] a multifamily dwelling in the zoning

[3:56:45] district and is substantially similar to

[3:56:47] a multifamily dwelling in the sense that

[3:56:50] it contains more than two dwelling units

[3:56:52] on a single parcel.

[3:56:56] And so recommendation is to approve the

[3:56:58] resolution accepting the zoning code

[3:57:01] interpretation. So that would be for

[3:57:03] purposes of the use table under um our

[3:57:07] section 191050.

[3:57:09] Multifamily dwelling shall have the same

[3:57:11] meaning as multifamily development which

[3:57:14] already is defined in our code.

[3:57:17] That concludes my presentation.

[3:57:19] >> Amazing. Any questions of director

[3:57:22] » Amazing. Any questions of director

[3:57:22] Gates?

[3:57:26] Do I

[3:57:28] >> I need to open public comment.

[3:57:31] » I need to open public comment.

[3:57:31] Any members of the public wishing to

[3:57:32] address the commission? I see none.

[3:57:34] >> Also, don't you

[3:57:37] » Also, don't you

[3:57:37] >> bring it back to the commission for

[3:57:39] » bring it back to the commission for

[3:57:39] comment? Does anybody have comment?

[3:57:41] >> Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?

[3:57:44] » Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?

[3:57:44] Motion to approve the recommendation to

[3:57:48] change um the use tables under SM's E

[3:57:52] section 1910

[3:57:55] 050.

[3:57:58] >> Second.

[3:58:01] » Roll call, please.

[3:58:04] >> Commissioner Willers.

[3:58:05] » Commissioner Willers.

[3:58:05] >> Yes.

[3:58:05] » Yes.

[3:58:05] >> Commissioner Barnett.

[3:58:06] » Commissioner Barnett.

[3:58:06] >> Hi.

[3:58:07] » Hi.

[3:58:07] >> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.

[3:58:08] » Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.

[3:58:08] >> Hi.

[3:58:08] » Hi.

[3:58:08] >> Commissioner Donbach.

[3:58:10] » Commissioner Donbach.

[3:58:10] >> Commissioner O'Neal.

[3:58:12] » Commissioner O'Neal.

[3:58:12] >> Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick

[3:58:15] » Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick

[3:58:15] >> I.

[3:58:16] » I.

[3:58:16] >> Motion passes unanimously.

[3:58:19] » Motion passes unanimously.

[3:58:19] >> Okay. Can we continue the discussion on

[3:58:23] » Okay. Can we continue the discussion on

[3:58:23] the remaining points of 5.2? Is there

[3:58:25] any objection?

[3:58:26] >> I I have a question. Does that include

[3:58:28] » I I have a question. Does that include

[3:58:28] the land use element or just the because

[3:58:31] the land use element is there. So that's

[3:58:34] three.

[3:58:35] >> So my recommendation is let's do

[3:58:39] » So my recommendation is let's do

[3:58:39] historic and safety. I'm fine with

[3:58:42] continuing for the fourth time the land

[3:58:45] use element or third time. I don't know.

[3:58:48] I think we started in December. Um but

[3:58:50] we'll get there. Um but these two I

[3:58:52] think are really short and I think we

[3:58:54] can get through them.

[3:58:55] >> Is there any objection to hearing those

[3:58:56] » Is there any objection to hearing those

[3:58:56] two?

[3:58:58] >> Okay.

[3:58:58] » Okay.

[3:58:58] >> And the first being historic and

[3:59:00] » And the first being historic and

[3:59:00] cultural resources. Anybody have any

[3:59:02] comments? Because this one's the

[3:59:04] easiest. I did present it to the

[3:59:06] Historic Preservation Commission last

[3:59:08] Friday. They do have Obviously, there a

[3:59:11] number of edits, so I will be

[3:59:13] incorporating those in the edits that

[3:59:15] will um go into that final version, and

[3:59:18] it's more for clarification purposes and

[3:59:20] and some key terms um around like

[3:59:23] cultural landscapes and uh intangible

[3:59:25] resources and and different things that

[3:59:28] um aren't quite in here.

[3:59:31] >> I just have one one comment. Sure. And

[3:59:34] » I just have one one comment. Sure. And

[3:59:34] and and it just um it was just a flag as

[3:59:37] I was reviewing it and I don't have any

[3:59:40] There was a reference in on page 138.

[3:59:44] >> Can you give me the the

[3:59:46] » Can you give me the the

[3:59:46] >> Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in

[3:59:49] » Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in

[3:59:49] support of goal essay-2

[3:59:54] item C.

[3:59:57] Oh, back down.

[3:59:59] >> I swear this is quick. It's just the way

[4:00:01] » I swear this is quick. It's just the way

[4:00:01] my brain is.

[4:00:02] >> Wait, you're talking about safety or

[4:00:03] » Wait, you're talking about safety or

[4:00:03] housing?

[4:00:03] >> No, I'm talking about I thought this was

[4:00:05] » No, I'm talking about I thought this was

[4:00:05] cultural. I thought this was historic.

[4:00:08] >> Yeah. HC HC.

[4:00:10] » Yeah. HC HC.

[4:00:10] >> Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to

[4:00:14] » Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to

[4:00:14] go down to goals.

[4:00:18] It's just a point of clarification. Keep

[4:00:20] going.

[4:00:23] Yep. Next page.

[4:00:27] See,

[4:00:28] >> you have reference to Senate Bill 18.

[4:00:31] » you have reference to Senate Bill 18.

[4:00:31] There's no reference to Senate Bill 18

[4:00:33] anywhere else in that section.

[4:00:36] >> So, I just don't know what it is. I

[4:00:38] » So, I just don't know what it is. I

[4:00:38] thought maybe we wanted to explain it at

[4:00:40] some point.

[4:00:41] >> Okay.

[4:00:41] » Okay.

[4:00:41] >> So, I'm just making note that that's my

[4:00:43] » So, I'm just making note that that's my

[4:00:43] only comment.

[4:00:44] >> All right.

[4:00:45] » All right.

[4:00:45] >> It's again, bills always kind of stand

[4:00:47] » It's again, bills always kind of stand

[4:00:47] out to me. So, but I couldn't find it

[4:00:49] anywhere else in the in the draft. So, I

[4:00:53] thought we might want to reference what

[4:00:54] it is.

[4:00:55] >> Okay, that's all.

[4:00:58] » Okay, that's all.

[4:00:58] >> Thank you.

[4:00:59] » Thank you.

[4:00:59] >> Sorry everybody.

[4:01:05] » Any other questions?

[4:01:07] related to this.

[4:01:12] You want to do the other one,

[4:01:25] » safety element. Um there were a few

[4:01:29] edits comments. Um I will be adding more

[4:01:32] around climate adaptation um based on

[4:01:35] what we've done in our hazard ation

[4:01:37] plan. I'm working with Sarah Tracy on

[4:01:38] that right now. Um and then also after

[4:01:41] the review of the hazard mitigation plan

[4:01:43] plan by um Department of Emergency

[4:01:46] Management and others, if we do have

[4:01:48] another opportunity to modify that,

[4:01:51] we're going to reverse also and and

[4:01:54] incorporate some of the things that came

[4:01:56] out of um the recent um evacuation

[4:01:59] traffic study. some of those details

[4:02:01] that are in there that don't belong in

[4:02:02] the general plan but really go into that

[4:02:04] hazard mitigation plan itself. So just

[4:02:07] FYI on that. Um so

[4:02:11] um just general if you anybody had any

[4:02:14] specific questions or comments on the

[4:02:16] safety element itself. Um there were a

[4:02:20] few um comments um in this element. Um

[4:02:25] just for also consistency sake with our

[4:02:28] other element, we'll be reformatting

[4:02:30] everything and and making sure that

[4:02:32] there's consistency.

[4:02:36] Um,

[4:02:41] and so there's just been just small

[4:02:43] little edits inside.

[4:02:46] Anybody have any

[4:02:49] questions?

[4:02:51] >> Any questions?

[4:02:54] » Any questions?

[4:02:54] All right,

[4:02:56] I think I have to reopen public comment

[4:02:58] for anyone interested in commenting.

[4:03:01] Okay, close public comment. Commission

[4:03:04] comments.

[4:03:08] hearing. Seeing none,

[4:03:12] Director Gates, are you satisfied with

[4:03:13] your feedback for those two elements?

[4:03:15] >> I just want to note that it took two

[4:03:16] » I just want to note that it took two

[4:03:16] minutes.

[4:03:19] >> I want to say the ad hoc rocks.

[4:03:21] » I want to say the ad hoc rocks.

[4:03:21] >> Yes.

[4:03:23] » Yes.

[4:03:23] >> Go ad hoc.

[4:03:26] » Go ad hoc.

[4:03:26] >> All right.

[4:03:29] » All right.

[4:03:29] >> Um,

[4:03:31] » Um,

[4:03:31] we have a 5.3.

[4:03:33] No,

[4:03:33] >> we do, but I can continue that one that

[4:03:35] » we do, but I can continue that one that

[4:03:35] really going to be that's really

[4:03:38] connected to the land use element.

[4:03:39] >> Okay. So,

[4:03:40] » Okay. So,

[4:03:40] >> so 5.3 is to be continued

[4:03:42] » so 5.3 is to be continued

[4:03:42] >> with the land use element.

[4:03:43] » with the land use element.

[4:03:43] >> With the land use element. No

[4:03:45] » With the land use element. No

[4:03:46] objections.

[4:03:48] All right. Director comments and

[4:03:50] announcements.

[4:03:54] » I I can't think right now.

[4:03:57] >> Commissioner reports and comments.

[4:04:01] I will just quickly say that I think

[4:04:03] Jennifer is doing an excellent job

[4:04:05] marshalling this general plan process

[4:04:06] through and it takes some serious

[4:04:09] patience to deal with

[4:04:11] planning commissions and all the various

[4:04:14] other commissions under your purview and

[4:04:16] um interface with the with a um to our

[4:04:22] consultant and be an intermediary

[4:04:24] between the city

[4:04:27] the various powers to be to include the

[4:04:28] city council on all your commissions.

[4:04:30] So, we think you're doing a great job. I

[4:04:32] think you're doing a great job.

[4:04:33] >> I second that.

[4:04:34] » I second that.

[4:04:34] >> Um, thank you for your tireless efforts

[4:04:37] » Um, thank you for your tireless efforts

[4:04:37] and um, keep up the good work. Hannah,

[4:04:40] you too, I guess.

[4:04:44] » Um, and on that note,

[4:04:46] >> motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.

[4:04:48] » motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.

[4:04:48] So, move

Planning Commission - 19 Feb 2026

Transcript