The regular meeting of the Soma Planning
Commission, February 19th, it is 6 pm.
If I could get a roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Willers
» Commissioner Willers
>> here.
» here.
>> Commissioner Barnett
» Commissioner Barnett
>> here.
» here.
>> Commissioner Jenkins
» Commissioner Jenkins
>> here.
» here.
>> Commissioner Donach
» Commissioner Donach
>> here.
» here.
>> Commissioner O'Neal
» Commissioner O'Neal
>> here.
» here.
>> Vice Chair Nent
» Vice Chair Nent
>> here. Chair Chair Hyrick
» here. Chair Chair Hyrick
>> here.
» here.
Thank you very much.
>> Do I have a motion to approve tonight's
» Do I have a motion to approve tonight's
agenda?
>> Motion to approve.
» Motion to approve.
>> Well,
» Well,
I would like to uh make a suggestion as
to the rearrangement of the agenda.
>> Council or Commissioner Barnett,
» Council or Commissioner Barnett,
>> ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick
» ex Councilman. Um uh given a quick
review of the audience here um I suspect
that a significant number of people are
here to discuss the land use element
specifically as it pertains to u the
Sebastiani parcels. So um I would like
to suggest that we move that discussion
up to the top of the list under 5.2 two
and um uh as well if the if the
commission agrees to actually move 5.2
above 5.1
so that it's the first item under our
items for discussion.
» Okay. So is that a motion?
>> If it needs to be a motion I can say
» If it needs to be a motion I can say
yeah that's a motion. If it doesn't have
to be, then I then it isn't a motion.
How's that for How's that for?
>> I'll second the almost motion.
» I'll second the almost motion.
>> Okay.
» Can I get a roll call?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner Willers?
» Commissioner Willers?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett.
» Commissioner Barnett.
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
» Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Donbach.
» Commissioner Donbach.
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner O'Neal.
» Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Vice Chair Net. I.
» Vice Chair Net. I.
>> Chair Hyrick.
» Chair Hyrick.
>> I.
» I.
>> The motion passes unanimously.
» The motion passes unanimously.
Okay, thank you.
Is there do we need another motion to
approve the remainder of the agenda?
Okay. At this time, we will recite the
pledge of allegiance. Uh, Vice Chair
Nent, if you could lead us in the
pledge, please.
» To the flag of the United States of
America to the Republic.
Okay, thank you very much.
At this time, members of the public may
comment on any item not appearing on the
agenda tonight. It's recommended that
members of the public keep their
comments to three minutes or less. For
items appearing on the agenda, the
public will be invited to make comments
at the time the item comes up for
commission consideration. Upon being
acknowledged by the chair, please step
to the podium, speak into the
microphone, and begin by stating and
spelling your name.
At this point, we will move on to the
consent calendar of tonight's agenda.
>> Oh, I'm sorry.
» Please come forward and state your name.
>> Thank you. And thank you for the
» Thank you. And thank you for the
adjustment of the agenda. I get to eat
dinner tonight.
Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole.
B is in boy, O Y L E. I am here to
provide comment on the proposed land use
change for the Spastian parcels after
attending the January
>> I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item
» I'm sorry to interrupt you but that item
is agendaized for tonight under item 5.
>> Wait till 5.1
» Wait till 5.1
>> exactly. So at at this time members of
» exactly. So at at this time members of
the public can come forward and and
address the commission on items that do
not appear on tonight's agenda.
>> Sorry.
» Sorry.
>> Thank you for the clarification.
» Thank you for the clarification.
>> I messed up. You messed up. We all
» I messed up. You messed up. We all
messed up.
>> I got a little practice.
» I got a little practice.
>> Hi
» Hi
>> Mr. Abdily.
» Mr. Abdily.
>> JJ Abdil. What's your name?
» JJ Abdil. What's your name?
>> JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,
» JJ Abideli. AB as in boy O D E L Y. Um,
so my comments really about the process
and that that you know we're here as I
understand it to talk about land use and
really to create a definition of what
land use means for various zoning and
>> so so
» so so
>> but this is this is this is general
» but this is this is this is general
because I think what's I would like to
say is that the lack of details that are
discussed at this point in the process
is creating a lot of anxiety because
everyone wants details. I think we will
address matters related to the process.
Okay. In item 5.2 tonight. Fair enough.
So,
>> so for items completely separate, I'm
» so for items completely separate, I'm
sorry to interrupt and break your train
of thought, but
>> no worries.
» no worries.
>> We will we will hear at this point items
» We will we will hear at this point items
that are completely separate from any
any agenda item that that appears on on
tonight's agenda. So, thank you.
>> So, are there any additional members of
» So, are there any additional members of
the public? I'll try not to yell at you
or interrupt you. If you have comments
tonight or wish to address the
commission on anything relating to
matters not appearing on tonight's
agenda.
Okay.
Thank you very much.
Okay. At this point, we will move on to
the consent calendar. Are there any
changes or edits to be made to
the minutes in item 3.1, in item 3.2, or
in item 3.3 that any commissioner wishes
to raise?
>> I'll just note that I wasn't present at
» I'll just note that I wasn't present at
the 3.3, so I'll abstain from that vote.
>> Noted.
» Noted.
>> Okay. Is there a motion to approve
» Okay. Is there a motion to approve
tonight's consent calendar?
>> Move to approve.
» Move to approve.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.
» Roll call, please. Commissioner Willers.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett.
» Commissioner Barnett.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.
» Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Commissioner Donbach.
» Commissioner Donbach.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner O'Neal.
» Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Vice Chair Nent.
» Vice Chair Nent.
>> I.
» I.
>> Chair Hyrick.
» Chair Hyrick.
>> I.
» I.
>> The motion passes unanimously.
» The motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you very much.
» Thank you very much.
Moving right along to tonight's public
hearing. The first item is item 4.1.
discussion, consideration, and possible
action to approve a use permit and
design review for the permanent
placement of an MRI trailer at 347
Andrew Street.
>> Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself
» Mr. Chairman, I'll be recusing myself
from this item since close proximity to
my residence.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Oakman.
Are there any commissioners that need to
report any exparte communication with
the applicants in this case?
Okay. Thank you.
And if I could have a staff report,
please. Of course. Good evening,
commissioners. I am Jake Dunn, associate
planner, and I'll be discussing the use
permit and design review for the
permanent MRI trailer at 347 Andrew
Street. So, this item was previously
reviewed um in October of 2025 where
some revisions and studies were
suggested and then we'll go over some of
those changes that were made for uh this
project as a whole. So, the trailer is
located on Andrew Street on the north
side of the hospital. The general plan
and land use are dedicated as public and
the property is not within any overlays.
The hospital is located in the central
west planning area and setits on three
and a half acres of land.
And the project is proposing dedicating
the MRI trailer as a permanent structure
which was previously approved as
temporary. And the applicant intends to
modify the trailer to match the color of
the hospital with the recommendations
that were made at the previous hearing
and add sound dampening devices to the
existing fence that you can see in that
image there which should reduce the
noise level impacts on the neighboring
residences. Uh they'll also be
permanently closing the parking lot at
this time uh since we determined that
the additional parking was not necessary
and they will be adding new movable
landscaping to uh help with some visual
buffering and some aesthetic uh
improvements to that parking lot. And
then they will still use the parking lot
but only for emergencies and maintenance
on the MRO trailer.
So this site plan shows the northern lot
with the uh trailer dimensions in
related to in relation to the parking
spaces that are currently there. And
then this is the modified site plan
after the discussion at the last hearing
with the landscaping features um in that
parking area. And then there's also the
location of the sound dampening device
on that fence line. And then here's some
examples of the landscaping that will be
used for that visual buffer. just kind
of give an idea of um how they'll kind
of hide the trailer
and a noise assessment was also
conducted as requested and the
assessment found that the noise levels
produced by the MRI trailer along with
the it was a chiller and some climate
units that uh the noise levels from both
of those ended up exceeding um by about
four dB and um affected two of the
residences. And then it found that with
the recommended noise curtain that it
would reduce the levels to below 50 dB,
which would be about 47 for I think both
of the residences.
And so in accordance with the use permit
findings, we found that the uh use is
consistent with the general plan and uh
supports the Sonoma Valley Hospital to
respond to community needs. It also
found that the MRI trailer is allowed on
public properties and complies with the
standards uh without needing any
variances or exceptions. And then uh we
found that the um the MRI trailer would
be would further support their
operations without negatively impacting
those surrounding land uses by
increasing the aesthetic value of the
property by improving that lot.
And as part of the design review, um
further findings found that with the
improvements to that parking lot, it's
now a little bit more compatible with
the residences surrounding it. Um it
kind of cleans up that that has been
unused and the pro uh the proposal won't
negatively impact the public health,
safety or welfare now that we know sound
dampening devices have been added to
reduce the sound impact to those
residences.
And so staff is recommending approval of
the use permit and design review for the
permanent placement of the MRI trailer
and alterations to the parking in
accordance with the SQL section 15303.
Oh, sorry, that's yeah, 15303 and 15311.
So staff's available for any questions
and the applicant is also available to
ask uh to answer any questions as well.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Are there
» Great. Thank you very much. Are there
any questions from Commissioner Barnett?
Question.
>> Um
» Um
I understand that the no noise abatement
uh efforts that have been made have
brought it down to a threshold that's
acceptable. Um my question is is the
operation of this and the noise
attenuation something that's only going
to be um present during
portions of the day or is this a 24-hour
noise producer?
>> I believe the applicant uh would be
» I believe the applicant uh would be
prepared to speak on that.
» Good evening, commissioners. Uh my name
is Brian B R Yan.
Uh and this is Ryan Es with me. R Y Y an
um so to answer your question, the noise
abatement is a permanent exterior grade
blanket which be installed on the fence
and would be there for the rest of time.
>> That's not my question. My question is
» That's not my question. My question is
um is is the unit that's producing the
noise the MRI trailer and the equipment
inside is that only producing the noise
when it's in operation or is there a
period of the day where it is not in
operation and therefore producing no
noise?
>> Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units
» Yes, that's correct. Um so the two units
provide cooling for the actual MRI
equipment. Yes. And there's a BART unit
on the wall which provides um air
conditioning for the occupants within
the trailer.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> But that trailer is only in operation
» But that trailer is only in operation
during regular day hours. So after hours
it doesn't operate.
>> Neither the chillers or the air
» Neither the chillers or the air
conditioner.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Do any other members of the commission
» Do any other members of the commission
have questions for the applicant now
that they are at the podium or for
staff?
>> I have a quick question. How long has
» I have a quick question. How long has
that trailer been in operation there
with the HVAC equipment that it
currently has?
>> Uh, approximately two years.
» Uh, approximately two years.
>> Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only
» Okay. Yeah, thank you. That's my only
question.
Any other questions of the applicant
while they stand there? Okay. Thank you
very much. Are there any members of the
public that wish to comment on
this agenda item?
Okay.
bring it back to the commission for
discussion.
It sure if you'd like to come up to the
podium and uh address make got to
address the commission but um happy to
hear what you have to say.
>> Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just
» Hi, my name is Kim Belch. Um I'm just
wondering how many MRIs approximately a
day. So how long would the sound be
stopping starting stopping starting
throughout the hours that it would be
working?
>> Okay, thank you. Thank you for the
» Okay, thank you. Thank you for the
question. Uh if the applicant is
willing, they they're welcome to come
forward and um address that question if
you did you hear the question?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> I heard the question is how many MRIs
» I heard the question is how many MRIs
per day? It's 10 to 11.
>> Okay, great. Thank you.
» Okay. Are there any other members of the
public wishing to comment on this agenda
item?
Great. I'll close public comment and
bring it back to the commission for
commission comments and analysis.
>> Yes, Commissioner Dbach.
» Yes, Commissioner Dbach.
>> Um I just uh want to comment that I
» Um I just uh want to comment that I
appreciate uh the applicant working with
the staff um with regard to the
improvements that we requested. Um and
based on what has been uh achieved, I'm
I'm comfortable proving this.
>> Great. Any other commissioner comments?
» Great. Any other commissioner comments?
Commissioner Bernett?
Well, perhaps it's a function of getting
older, but I'm sorry to see our world
becoming so noisy.
And um uh I hope that at some point in
the future um
in some future generations expansion of
this hospital
uh if it continues to succeed which I
sincerely hope it does that uh functions
like this are entirely enclosed within
the building and the need for noise
attenuation and or the other things
necessary to to prevent
the
I'll use the word degradation of
ordinary everyday life because of the
increase in sound um ambient sound
mechanical ambient sound um uh can be uh
ameliorated and changed in the future. I
just uh uh I'm finding the world to be
an increasingly noisy place and I don't
find it pleasant.
But that said, I appreciate the efforts
that's being made on this and I
certainly will approve the application.
>> Thank you. Any other commission
» Thank you. Any other commission
comments?
>> I'd like to make a motion to approve.
» I'd like to make a motion to approve.
>> Second.
» Second.
>> All right. Roll call, please.
» All right. Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Willers,
» Commissioner Willers,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett,
» Commissioner Barnett,
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Dbach,
» Commissioner Dbach,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner O'Neal,
» Commissioner O'Neal,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Vice Chair Nent,
» Vice Chair Nent,
>> I.
» I.
>> Chair Hyrick,
» Chair Hyrick,
>> I. The motion passes 6001.
» Excellent.
Moving on to item 4.2.
I'll give Commissioner Aorman just a
second to walk back here.
All right, we'll continue now with item
4.2 of tonight's public hearing
discussion, consideration and possible
action to approve a signed permit for
two uh new illuminated signs on a
residential property at 383 First Street
West.
Is there a staff report?
>> Absolutely. So, this is for a sign
» Absolutely. So, this is for a sign
permit for two new eliminated wall signs
um for a uh non-conforming wine tasting
facility that has been grandfathered and
improved with the zoning clearance. Uh
the property is located in the downtown
district and is zone medium red
residential medium density. The use of
the site um was determined as
grandfathered and was approved for the
zoning clearance back in a April of
2025. The property is 5,473 square feet
and surrounded by commercial and
residentially zoned properties. The
project proposes one illuminated wall
sign to advertise the business name
which includes a halo lit backing above
that front window. And it also proposes
one externally illuminated logo sign
next to the front entryway.
The flat vineyard sign will be a total
of 6.25 square ft and the logo sign will
be four square feet. The business name
and logo are proposed in satin black
with the aluminum faces colored perfect
khaki and slumber uh slumber sloth to
match the color of the current
structure.
And then this gives you an idea of the
um street view looking down the um down
this roadway. So there was a comment
from the public uh in concern to um
how the entry to this street looks in
regard to the residences and um the use
of these residential sites as commercial
businesses. Um so I put this site photo
here to show uh there's three wineries
here. One is the Hawk Winery on the left
that you see was the previous winery
wine tasting facility which is now going
to be um Plat Vineyard. And then there's
Walts on the right and there's I believe
it's atrium on the left. You can't
really see the signage there, but this
is to kind of give you an idea of that.
So, the property has f uh 53.25 ft of
frontage on First Street West. So, an
aggregate of 27.3 square feet is allowed
um for signage. An additional 13 square
feet is allowed due to the distance
between the center of the road line and
the front of the u the building. The
total area of the proposed signage is
10.25 25 ft and the proposed eliminated
wall sign is not going to exceed the 27
ft maximum.
So in accordance with the sign permit
findings, we found that the proposed use
is consistent with the general plan by
providing uh ground flooror retail use
on a small lot without imposing
stylistic restrictions. uh the proposed
signage is consistent with the intent of
the code and it doesn't negatively
impact the surrounding character and
matches the look of the current
structure without causing a max like a
large visual impairment. Um the signage
is consistent with the signage in
surrounding area. Uh it has small
lettering and uh colors that are also
matching the structure as it is. And the
signage is limited to a small portion of
the structure and isn't um isn't going
to impact for character and it intends
to preserve the quality of the property
as a whole. So staff recommends planning
commission approval of the sign permit
to install the two new wall signs um and
sorry two new illuminated wall signs at
383 First Street West and um
staff is available for any questions. I
I'm not sure if the applicant is here.
So if they are they may you may ask them
as well.
>> Great. Thank you for your presentation,
» Great. Thank you for your presentation,
associate planner done. Are there any
members of the commission that wish to
ask staff questions of staff? I saw
Commissioner Donbox.
>> You know, I always have a question. Um
» You know, I always have a question. Um
uh my question pertains um to when the
applicant plans to illuminate and or not
illuminate. Um so I know that there's uh
permitting allowing to 11 p.m. Most wine
tasting rooms don't go that late. So, do
we have any idea of whether the
illuminated signs will be turned off in
the evening versus left on?
>> That I don't know for sure. Um, but it
» That I don't know for sure. Um, but it
is up to your discretion to set a
standard for when the eliminated sign
should be turned off or if it should be
dimmed at any point um as part of the
lighting standard in the ordinance um
which is part of the conditions
approval. We can also add additional
conditions for a timing.
>> Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if
» Okay. Thank you. Can I just ask if
anyone if the applicant's present
tonight or an agent of the applicant is
present?
>> Would you like to come up and uh address
» Would you like to come up and uh address
the commission or you don't have to?
>> I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat
» I can. Uh Chris Shriner with Plat
Vineyards. Uh our signed vendor that put
everything together was going to be
here.
They took care of more of this. Um, I I
I can't really uh answer the question
directly, but I can say uh we're willing
to to follow whatever rules you deem
appropriate for the neighborhood.
>> Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.
» Uh, our hours are till 6 PM presently.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Great. Thank you very much. Or are there
» Great. Thank you very much. Or are there
any other questions from the commission
of staff or of the applicant?
>> Yes. Vice Chair,
» Yes. Vice Chair,
>> Jacob, could you go back to the previous
» Jacob, could you go back to the previous
slide? It really flashed by me quickly.
That next one,
>> I mean,
» I mean,
>> go forward.
» go forward.
>> Forward one.
» Forward one.
>> So, I'm um we talked about the size of
» So, I'm um we talked about the size of
the sign. Um
I just have I just wanted to read this.
Um so, the illumination is it's in
compliance
and we really need to determine. Um,
what I'm hearing is that they're in
business till 6 PM. Um,
is there a reason why we would would it
be necessary to extend it beyond um,
business hours? And are there other
illuminated signs
uh, in and around this area for other
retail businesses or wine tasting rooms?
So, in regard to the wine tasting rooms
that are directly surrounding it, they
do not have illumination on those signs.
Um, I believe I keep forgetting the name
of it, but I believe it's atrium. The
one next door, it has a up lighting on
our tour.
>> Artur, that's what it's called. Um,
» Artur, that's what it's called. Um,
there is an up there's an up light on a
tree and that's what they have there. I
don't know that they turned it on, but
that's the only lighting I was able to
see when I went by. Um, other than that,
there has been approval of lighting uh
sign lit lit signs in the plaza. So,
that's the only other thing I'd have as
a comparison.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Any other questions of staff or the
» Any other questions of staff or the
applicant?
Okay.
At this time, I would ask commissioners
to disclose any experte communications
they've had with interested parties to
this agenda item.
I have spoken with one of the neighbors,
Jim Bohar.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> I have spoken with a neighbor.
» I have spoken with a neighbor.
>> Thank you. Anybody else? All right.
Um,
Mr. Applicant, would you like to come up
and address the commission further or
are you satisfied?
Okay. Thank you. Uh, at this time, I
will open up this item for public
comment.
Please come forward. State your name.
Mr.
>> Bohar.
Jim, I hate to interrupt. Would you
would you mind just speaking into the
microphone? I'm sorry. That way it's
>> spoken into the record.
» spoken into the record.
>> I understand.
» I understand.
>> Thank you very much. Got it. Um,
my understanding is the general plan and
code discourages non-conforming uses and
will not allow commercial uses within or
abuing residential areas that changes
the historic nature or character of the
residential neighborhood context or
other impacts of that nature. Um
this is a not on a is not a sign on a
residential property as it indicates in
the first paragraph. It in fact is is on
a structure which is a non-conforming
use a wine tasting facility and the
reason it's non legal non-conforming is
that there are certain limitations on
that use in terms of time and intensity.
Um
the description of it is overridden by
the fact that um it has limitations on
it. And
the U applicant states that the reason
for the illuminated signs is to increase
foot traffic. Um
this is the only wine tasting room that
would have an illuminated sign as far as
I can see. and having uh an
encouragement of foot traffic sounds
like an intensity of of use over what we
have right now. the only um
the the uh city discourages
uh lit signs on the plaza and the only
wine tasting facility that I understand
is that uh something or other suppressor
on the u on the east side and there's
some question about whether that's going
to remain there.
Neither of the two tasting rooms have
illumination that was uh talked about
under the community development element.
It says it's to coordinate development
on small lots. There's no development
here to coordinate. It's finished. It's
been done years ago. Preserving the
heritage of the community. It violates
the heritage of the community as far as
the neighbors are concerned.
Um
accessory structures allows on
premisage. This is not an accessory
structure. It is the main structure on
the site, the subject of the site.
Our
position is and the neighbor's position
is that it violates the uh general plan
and code in the sense that having
commercial uses abudding uh residential
is is not allowed and also one that
affects the historic value or the uh uh
continuity of it is is May I have about
20 seconds left?
>> Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully
» Yes, another 20 seconds. I respectfully
request that the commission reject this
application, direct the applicant to
return the front yard to residential
garden, install no signs on the actual
building, except modest in ground signs
and no elimination. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much, Jim.
» Thank you very much, Jim.
Are there any other members of the
public who wish to address the
commission on this agenda item? Okay,
we'll close public comment. I'll bring
it back to the commission for
discussion. Any commissioners wish to
opine on this agenda item? Uh,
Commissioner O'Neal,
>> I have a question. I'm not sure if it's
» I have a question. I'm not sure if it's
for staff for the applicant, but Jacob,
I'll start with you. Um, so currently or
previously, Hawk had that monument sign
out front and what is the plan for that
monument sign going forward?
>> That sign's no longer there.
» That sign's no longer there.
>> So, there's nothing in replacement and
» So, there's nothing in replacement and
the monument sign has gone away.
>> That is correct.
» That is correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner,
>> thank you. Um, I will direct this to
» thank you. Um, I will direct this to
staff. Um, hopefully you can answer. So,
in terms of of I think the question was
already asked about the the lighting in
terms of the plaza itself, do we have
any code or any ordinance pertaining to
the lighting of buildings on the plaza?
Even even the the lights in the park,
what what time do those go off?
I wouldn't be able to speak on the
lighting in the park, but in terms of
the plaza, I'm not aware of any specific
regulations for that. We've talked about
that as a potential new regulation with
the upcoming sign ordinance.
>> Um, so that's something to consider in
» Um, so that's something to consider in
how we address uh new lighting that's
around the plaza.
» Anyone else have questions for staff? I
have a question.
Have we, to your knowledge, have we
placed any um restrictions on any other
lit signage around the plaza?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> On Bank of America, it's the most recent
» On Bank of America, it's the most recent
one.
>> I remember I recall that one. Is there
» I remember I recall that one. Is there
any other I mean, is it
>> Yes. Um we've done another um wine
» Yes. Um we've done another um wine
tasting room that
um I'm trying to remember.
It's on this side of the plaza as well
where we limited the lighting um for
their sign to just be within the
business hours and so after business
hours it was to be turned off. I see. So
fair to say that limiting the period of
elimination for this lit sign to
business hours would be in keeping with
precedent.
Okay. Thank you. That's all I have. Any
other questions?
uh comments.
» Um let's see. I'm gonna address the
illumination of the sign. First of all,
the I was the advocate for the reduction
of the illumination of the Bank of
America sign, but that sign is an
internally
there was one not internally
illuminated. There were others that were
internally illuminated and they had come
to us wanting to keep that those signs
illuminated 24 hours um a day. Um
my feeling about this sign and its
illumination is one it's not truly an
internally illuminated sign. It's a sign
that's lit from the back so that it um
is accented off the wall. And and I also
feel like the sign itself
is a
um is less of an imposition in the
residential neighborhood than the
monument signs of the wineries that are
across the street from. It's not a big
placard that's facing you as you're
driving down the street. It's a
relatively modest more than just a
little more than a third of the allowed
area or a little less than a third of
the allowed area. Um and
um I don't really find it objectionable
in terms of the encroachment of the
commercial district into that
residential neighborhood. I know for the
35 years that I've lived here, that's
those buildings have been occupied by
businesses forever. One of one of them
used to be um the adjacent Greyhound bus
station. Um, so, you know, I I don't
have any problem um making a motion to
approve this. I I think it's a really
modest improvement on the property. I
think that the hours of illumination
should be restricted to the hours of
business. Um, so that when they're gone,
the neighborhood doesn't have to deal
with the illumination.
>> Thank you. Any other comments,
» Thank you. Any other comments,
Commissioner Da?
>> Thank you. First, I I appreciate the
» Thank you. First, I I appreciate the
comments from the public and their
concerns. Um so um with regard to the um
the businesses, my understanding is that
that business not only has been there
that uh business establishments have not
only been there for a while, but it's
actually in the retail overlay, I
believe. And so technically, it is kind
of in the business area. Um but
secondly, with regard to the
illumination, you know, that was my
concern. And I went back and looked at
our existing ordinance. Um, and
basically it it does say that, you know,
it would be inappropriate unless unless
a business is operating in the evening
hours and that we should um consider it
carefully and and I feel that we have
considered it carefully. I I would agree
with Commissioner Willer's assessment. I
think it's a modest backlit sign similar
to Moon Mountain which is on the east
side and Capoetta on the on the east
side and Moon Mountain on the west side.
Um, and I I would approve this with the
condition of approval that we limit it
to business hours.
» Any other comments? Commissioner
Bernett?
>> Well, um, my concern about this
» Well, um, my concern about this
application has little to do with the
design and plans for the sign itself. I
certainly would support its use the of
the illumination only during business
hours. Um, I guess that my concern, and
it's not something we can hold against
this applicant, is that is this going to
begin the process of the other wine
tasting operations wanting illuminated
signs, too? And are we then going to
face, you know, additional applications
for illuminated signs in this on this
street? And um I can't answer that
question, but but business being what it
is, I think the likelihood of that
happening is probably pretty good. So I
throw that in there only as a
consideration. The only other thing I
will add is that legal non-conforming
uses are subject to all kinds of
limitations.
For example, the footprint of the
building cannot be enlarged.
Um, and uh, and there may be other
conditions that apply to legal
non-conforming uses. Um,
uh, I don't know if the other
commercial uses of residentially zoned
properties. Um, uh, is true of all the
other commercial uses on that section of
the block.
Um, I suspect it probably is that they
are grandfathered in and uh, as legal
non-conforming uses. Um, so I I think
imposing a condition such as the
illumination be turned off when the
property is not in operation as the
business is is appropriate and um and in
accordance with the typical kinds of
limitations that are placed on legal
non-conforming uses. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Are there any other
» Thank you very much. Are there any other
comments?
Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Um, I do think that the elimination of
» Um, I do think that the elimination of
the monument sign is an improvement to
the street view and I do think it's um
I'd like to go on record saying that I
would really be objecting to a
illuminated sign that was a monument
because I think it's too distracting for
people driving up and down the street.
Um, the fact that it's placed um back
against the structure, even if this is
the main structure, I think it's um way
more subtle and I I like that. I think
it's just a little bit more elegant for
the approach to that neighborhood. Um, I
also think that visibility of the
business is an important thing and using
the illuminated sign against the
building as opposed to a monument is
just um keeping that streetscape nicer.
So, I do I like that.
>> Any other comments?
» All right.
I'll make a motion to approve a sign
permit for two new illuminated wall
signs on a residential property at 383
First Street West with the condition of
approval that the sign be only
illuminated during business hours.
>> Is there a second?
» Is there a second?
>> Second.
» Second.
>> Roll call, please.
» Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Willers,
» Commissioner Willers,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett,
» Commissioner Barnett,
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.
» Commissioner Oberman Jenkins.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Commissioner Donbach,
» Commissioner Donbach,
>> yes. Commissioner O'Neal.
» yes. Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.
» Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> The motion passes unanimously.
» The motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you. Congratulations to the
» Thank you. Congratulations to the
applicant. Thank you very much for your
time, Mr. Bohar, and your thoughtful
comments. Appreciate it.
Okay.
Moving along to item 4.3 of tonight's
public hearing. discussion,
consideration, and possible action to
approve a modification to a use permit,
design review, and variance, including a
new variance for the approval of a
renovation of the second floor, an
increase in the structure height of a
duplex built over 45 years ago. This is
located at 310
2nd Street East.
Is there a staff report? Absolutely. So,
I'll clarify as we go through this. Um
but yes, this item's for a new variance
as well as a modification to the um use
permit design review and variance that
was previously approved uh at a hearing
in May of 2025 and specifically address
the remodel and expansion of the duplex
which is technically a non-conforming
structure due to its setbacks.
The property is developed with a 2,829
foot duplex on a 6,672
foot lot. The property is located in the
northeast planning area and is within
the historic overlay in its own medium
density.
So this project will be proposing an
increase in the height of the duplex by
one foot on the second floor and
replacing all of the exterior walls on
the second floor so that uh larger
flaming sorry flaming framing can be
added for support. Um the modification
to the design review is necessary due to
the enlargement of the windows on that
second floor with the increase in height
so that there's compatibility with the
new height. And the proposal requires
the new variance because the demolition
of the second floor, the walls on the
second floor, uh makes it makes the
total change in exterior walls greater
than the 50% that's allowed for
non-conforming structures. So this would
be considered a new structure and needs
to be uh reviewed as such.
So this is the existing floor plans with
the demolition. You can see the first
floor is on the right and the second
floor is on the left. the second floor
with the dotted lines shows you where
that demolition will be occurring as
well as the first floor um which is what
has triggered the new variance to be
required.
Uh this is an image of the west
elevation with the proposed modification
along with the previous approval from
May. So you can see the height
difference along with the change in
window height and those entry uh
entryway heights.
This is the east elevation.
Here's the north elevation.
Oh, sorry, that was the south. And this
is the north elevation. And just to be
clear, none of the other additions or
changes from the previous approval are
being added. There's no uh increase in
the in the floor area or anything like
that. This is specifically for the
height of the structure.
So in the analysis uh was found that the
project's compliant with all development
standards in northeast signing area
except for those site setbacks. The
changes proposed would not further
expand on the non-conformities and is
still compliant with the height
standards as it will be below 30 ft.
The project is compliant with the
development code and general plan uh by
promoting higher density infill without
imposing rigid sty stylistic
restrictions and the proposal promotes
innovative designs uh to make the duplex
more livable for the tenants.
The historic resource evaluation that
was done previously determined that the
duplex didn't qualify as historic and
the proposal is consistent with the
design standards and doesn't have a
historical character characteristic that
will be altered and it's not expected
that it will be impacting historic
characters of the adjacent properties.
So the adjustment is consistent with the
intent of the zoning uh zoning district
for higher density infill and the
variance will treat the development as
the new construction and intends to
continue maintaining its existing
setbacks as they were approved in the
previous hearing and the increase to the
height of structure um is within the
height limit that's consistent with the
zoning. So the approval of the variance
would allow for the property owner to
use the existing duplex footprint as is
as it is now whereas the current
development standards would require them
to partially demolish some of that
residence to be able to meet those side
setbacks.
The approval doesn't grant special
privileges in our uh in our findings and
uh gives the property owner an
opportunity to design the duplex in a
way that improves that livability
overall. So should the planning
commission determine that the findings
can be met, staff recommends approval of
the modification to the design review
and variance uh sorry and the new
variance including the new variance to
allow the reconstruction of the
sidewalls within the required setback
and increase the height of the duplex
and staff's available for any questions.
I believe the applicant is available as
well.
>> Thank you very much. I'll first ask if
» Thank you very much. I'll first ask if
any commissioners need to disclose any
exparte communication with any
interested parties to this application.
No.
Okay. There questions of staff from the
commission. Commissioner
>> Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the
» Jacob, I've got two questions. Um the
first is I'm confused as to why this was
this extra foot of height wasn't
included in the original application for
the variance back in May. That's my
first question. The second, this
property has already been demolished and
is under construction now.
So why are we getting it now when
they're already under construction?
So to answer the first question, u from
my understanding is they had an
architect who passed away prior to the
hearing at the previous hearing. Um and
so they went forward with what was drawn
out in that at that time. Um when they
were going into construction, they
realized that there was some changes
that they wanted to make for the height
that felt appropriate for the structure.
Um and in doing that, they determined
that better framing was going to be
needed. So they wanted to request that
um that we review that. When it comes to
the work that's already been conducted,
um that was part of what was previously
approved. So they started the work for
what was previously approved and then
stopped that work once they were from my
understanding they stopped that work
before uh to get the approval and then
they could continue.
» Okay. Any any follow-up questions to
that or Okay. Any other members of the
commission have questions for city
staff?
I guess my question uh Jacob would be
whether a specific reason was provided
to you for the request for the um
additional elevation. Was it structural?
Was it aesthetic? I I recognize that the
applicant's here and will come and
address us, but I'm I'm wondering
specifically if
>> it may be better for the applicant to
» it may be better for the applicant to
address just because I didn't I didn't
receive a specific one besides u
potentially aesthetic value.
>> Okay, great. Thank you. Any
» Okay, great. Thank you. Any
other questions? Okay. I would invite
the applicant to come forward
and
speak or present. Sir, if you could
state your name for the record.
Glenn Kamoto. I reside at 324 Second
Street East, which is next door to this
property. Uh your question about why
this hadn't come before the commission
initially. Uh the architects
initially thought that we would redo the
roof using scissor truss and get the
height uh as we address the roof and the
roof height wouldn't change. But as we
started construction, did the
demolition, it became very clear that um
that we needed to lift the roof and the
existing second the whole second story
to get the new floor joist in because
the first floor has been approved for an
addition of one foot to bring it to 9
ft. And we're also putting in two inches
of of concrete so that you don't catch
footfalls between the floors. So, we had
a plan and as Jacob said, we lost our
architect um unexpectedly
and as we st got into construction, we
said, "Oh, this this doesn't make
sense." And in addition, it's it's 2x4
framing. It's not in very good shape.
The building was poorly constructed and
the contractor's strong preference and
my preference is, "Hey, let's demo the
thing." And under the code, we can demo
everything but 12 feet. and the planner
said just demo the whole thing and
that's the right way to do it. So the
2x4 framing is going to be replaced by 2
by six framing much stronger. It's going
to take a lot more insulation. It's
going to be warmer and a 9- foot ceiling
in these days is
considered more livable. It's just just
going to be a nicer space. But it's the
same square footage. It's just got more
volume.
>> Was the original plan for an 8ft
» Was the original plan for an 8ft
ceiling? The original plan was for a 9
foot ceiling internally use without
changing the exterior structure at all.
>> I see.
» I see.
>> So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we
» So we thought, oh, it's, you know, we
can just leave it the way it is. Bad
idea. Turned out to be a very bad idea.
>> Understood.
» Understood.
While the applicants at the podium, do
any members of the commission wish to
ask any questions? Okay.
Thank you very much, sir.
Okay. At this point, I would open this
item to public comment. Any members of
the public present who wish to come and
address the commission on this item can
come forward and state their name.
>> Claudia Raniker.
» Claudia Raniker.
>> Okay. The first floor uh walls were
» Okay. The first floor uh walls were
originally 8 feet. They got they
increased that by one foot and there was
20 in of insulation. If you'll look at
the plan, a space of 20 in for
insulation between the two floors. So
that makes the first that makes an
increase all of 32 inches.
On the application that I've read the
from the staff said they wanted to
increase that second story another 12 in
because they feel that that makes things
much more livable another foot. But most
of the people in the world live under 8
foot ceilings and I don't believe that's
going to increase any comfort. So also
in that report it says they also wanted
to put another two inches for in for uh
soundproofing.
This all of this together with the t 32
in that are approved will bring that
total height increase to 46 in
the the building is suspended. The top
floor is suspended over the first and
it's set at 48 in. So there's a 48 inch
gap that 48 that
and being okay. The variance has allowed
Okay. So that the variance from last
year has allowed the allowed the
building to sit five feet from the fence
line under rule of the old code.
But the height allowance is being
controlled by what code allows today.
Today's code holds a 7 and 1/2 ft
setback
and a 30foot height allowance.
But because the building is being held
at five feet, two and a half feet closer
to the fence line, any height increases
will only intensify the force on
boundaries.
The original building was not aggressive
because the setback and height allowance
were in sync to prevent that. Height
allowances are concerned with the height
of the roof.
This building has a very low pitched
roof of six feet. So very little of the
height increase is absorbed by the roof
height. It is a sheer wall like Villa
Cheese, but the building does not bear
down on you because there's space around
it. This is overbearing.
And because of all that, I am asking you
to re-evaluate
this current request for more height
increases
because that will make the building
excessively overbearing and excessively
dominating
and to make a more mutually and I'm
asking you if you can
to make a more mutually respecting
decision for both of us.
But before you do that, I would like you
to ask the property owners in private
if that is okay with them because I
think they deserve a decent amount of
respect.
>> Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your
» Thank you, Claudia. I appreciate your
comments.
>> Thank you.
» Okay. Are any other members of the
public wishing to address the commission
on this matter tonight?
Okay, seeing none, I will close public
comment. I will bring it back to the
commission for discussion.
Any members of the commission wish to
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the
» Um Jacob, I'm having trouble reading the
um drawings. Can you um between the
previous approval and the proposed
modification, what is that height
difference?
the overall height. Is that what you're
asking?
>> Well, what is the previous approval?
» Well, what is the previous approval?
What's the height on that one?
>> 24 feet and one inch.
» 24 feet and one inch.
>> Okay. And we're only we're increasing it
» Okay. And we're only we're increasing it
one foot
>> to 25 ft and one inch.
» to 25 ft and one inch.
>> What is Claudia's comments about the 48
» What is Claudia's comments about the 48
in increase? My understanding was since
she's no longer here is a deviation from
baseline from the initial what was the
initial the height of the initial
structure prior to consider.
>> Okay. Not between the first to the
» Okay. Not between the first to the
second the first approval and what's
being considered here.
>> Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh
» Yeah. Um, I did uh speak with her at uh
one point and it had to do I think part
of it had to do with the spacing between
the first and the second floor um and
the difference there. I I'm not fully
understanding it, but um I think that
was part of where the height difference
was um was between that insulation
between those two floors.
» Thank you. Any other commissioners
wish to apply?
>> Mr. Na,
» Mr. Na,
>> I'll make a comment. Um, again, I
» I'll make a comment. Um, again, I
appreciate the public's comments. Um,
but reading through the report, my
understanding is the difference between
what was approved in May and now is this
1 inch um increase um one foot. Thank
you. More than one inch. Um and that
that there's also the same setback issue
of not seven feet but 5.3.
>> Yeah. Which was approved at that time.
» Yeah. Which was approved at that time.
>> Right.
» Right.
>> Um and so when I look at the overall
» Um and so when I look at the overall
there no there's no change in other
aspects F or site coverage. Um and that
the 25 ft is within the maximum that's
allowable. Um,
I would I would say that I'm supportive
of the change because it it really
doesn't change the overall structure.
The only change here is one foot of
height, which is within the the code
norm. Um, and it is improving the house
and improving the structure. Um, and
what I heard tonight was also that it's
improving the safety and the foundation
of the structure. So, I I would be
inclined to approve it.
>> Thank you. Any other members of the
» Thank you. Any other members of the
commission have comments?
>> Commissioner Bernett,
» Commissioner Bernett,
>> um what is the um
» um what is the um
what is the height of the finished
building as proposed and what is the
permittable or permissible height of a
building in that particular situation
according to the code?
>> So the maximum height for the zoning uh
» So the maximum height for the zoning uh
for this planning area is 30 feet. The
maximum height of this structure will be
25 feet and one inch.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Other members of the commission have
» Other members of the commission have
comments.
I will join in the comments of my fellow
commissioners and that I support the
approval of this application that on
balance the additional uh 1 foot in
height um doesn't negate any of the
findings that were previously made.
We're not here to relitigate um the
findings of um
what was uh what was discussed in May
and approved. And uh for that reason and
all the reasons previously mentioned, I
would be supportive of approving this
application.
With that said, is there a motion?
>> Motion to approve.
» Motion to approve.
Um you can find it here. the um
the variance, including a new variance
in the approval of a renovation of the
second floor and increase in the
structure height of a duplex built over
45 years ago located at 310
Second Street East, including the action
to approve the categorical exemption.
>> A second.
» A second.
>> Roll call, please.
» Roll call, please.
Commissioner Willers,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett,
» Commissioner Barnett,
>> hi.
» hi.
>> Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,
» Commissioner O'Gorman Jenkins,
>> hi.
» hi.
>> Commissioner Donach,
» Commissioner Donach,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner O'Neal,
» Commissioner O'Neal,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Vice Chair Nent,
» Vice Chair Nent,
>> I.
» I.
>> Chair Wyrick,
» Chair Wyrick,
>> I.
» I.
>> The motion passes unanimously.
» The motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you very much. Thank you to the
» Thank you very much. Thank you to the
applicant for his presence tonight and
uh to the members of the public who came
to participate in the discourse.
Moving on to item 4.4 four of tonight's
public hearing discussion,
consideration, and possible action to
approve design review and use permit
amendment
for
» may I
discuss item 44, discussion,
consideration, and possible action to
approve design review and use permit
amendment for exterior modifications to
the front facade and operational
conditions located at 9 East Napa
Street. If there's a staff report,
please.
>> Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate
» Sure thing. Diane Levine, associate
planner. Good evening, commissioners,
chair Wyrick, and Vice Chair Nent. Nice
to see you.
So the item before you uh in summary as
Hayrick um chair Hyrick described is for
design review for exterior modifications
to the front facade located at 9 East
Napa Street uh at OSO. It is has a
general plan designation of commercial
zoning uh commercial. It is within the
historic overlay and the plaza retail
overlay and it is within the downtown
district planning area and there was a
previous historical resource evaluation
done on it and uh it was determined to
not be eligible as a historic resource.
So on the right is the exterior of OSO
as it is now and then on the left is a
rendering of the proposed changes
and we can visit back if we need to.
So the the proposed changes include uh
insetting the front facade to make it
flush. Right now it's sort of at an odd
angle as you're you're probably aware
of. Um it would go from four smaller
windows to three larger windows. Uh and
perhaps most notably um moving the the
entrance from the west side to the east
side of the front facade. The wood
awning uh for lack of a better term
would be removed as well as the um dark
ac uh wood accents and dark tiling. And
the a color change would occur and the
replacement of the existing metal
windows and door would be replaced with
um as you can see a green color in that
same um material. And throughout the
plan set you you may have noticed um
alluding to signage and sidewalk seating
and both of those items will be handled
uh under separate permit. So, we're just
sort of focusing on the the changes to
the front facade and the amendments to
the existing use permit.
So, again, here is just providing a bit
more detail on the materials in color
and lighting. Um the existing material
is stucco, so it but you almost can't
tell due to the dark color that's
currently on the building. Um, so it' be
a bit more not noticeable when they go
to this lighter sort of off green color.
Um, and then the darker green for the
windows and doors and um there's just a
closeup of the the lighting features
there that would be down lit. Um, and
there is a time schedule in the lighting
schedule that's in the plan set. I would
also like to note um that the you may
have also noticed that I mentioned in
the staff report that the location of
the gas meter was called out to be on
the front facade of the the building and
the applicant definitely acted in the
best interest of the city in regard to
um operating on the plaza and worked
with P Gen to apply for an exception in
order to be able to do the upgrades that
they're wanting on the interior for
their tenant improvements with uh while
still being able to use the existing
location which is um in the sidewalk
there.
So the moving on to the amendments quite
minor really um and actually a reduction
in hours for the exterior on Fridays and
Saturdays. Um so generally staying the
same um and all the other applicable
uh conditions that were that are in the
existing use permit would remain. Um and
then really it's just a change in the
arrangement of seating. So they would go
from 29 interior seats to I I'm sorry uh
26 indoor seats to 29 and eight outdoor
seats to 14 in the rear patio. And
although the number of employees per
shift was not um specifically expressed
previously um that would not go beyond
six employees uh maximum per shift and
as in the the existing use permit uh
with the total occupancy not to exceed
49 and that would not change.
So there are a number of findings
including the design review findings,
the use permit findings and then um
design review within the historic
overlay um staff does feel that it meets
all of the findings and we are
recommending approval of the design
review and the use permit amendment to
the front facade and operational
conditions. and and also asked that the
project um be considered uh
categorically exempt pursuant to section
15301
um which is existing facilities. Thank
you. Oh, I'm sorry. And we do have that
the owners here should there be any
questions that should be directed at
them. We have uh David and Kelly Bush. I
meant to mention that in the beginning.
>> Miss Levine, thank you for your report.
» Miss Levine, thank you for your report.
Commissioner comments. Commissioner
Barnett.
questions. Excuse me.
>> I noticed on one of the renderings there
» I noticed on one of the renderings there
were looked like three tables. I'm not
sure if it's been proposed formally that
these become part of the application,
but um this obviously if if uh approved
this way and if the drawing indicates a
change in seating capacity, would this
not increase the outdoor seating
capacity by six seats?
So, uh, that's why I mentioned in the
beginning the sidewalk permits are, um,
applied for under a separate permit. So,
that won't be part of that's not part of
this application. The 49 is the 49 is in
reference to an interior occupancy. Um,
that just they would have to stay under
49 on the interior in order to not
trigger other, you know, fire
requirements or what have you.
>> No, I understand, but go back. There was
» No, I understand, but go back. There was
one that had to to talked about seating
in the garden
and uh there was a change
uh interior
14 rear patio seats from eight outdoor
seats.
So that just has to do with the
>> I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's
» I Yes. Perhaps I didn't clarify that's
in the rear.
>> So that just has to do with the rear.
» So that just has to do with the rear.
>> Yes. And but it's not changing their
» Yes. And but it's not changing their
total number of occats.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> And so if I understand you correctly, if
» And so if I understand you correctly, if
they do want to go forward and apply for
some seating in the front, they're going
to have to make a separate application
to do that.
>> Yes, that would be done through the
» Yes, that would be done through the
sidewalk seating permit.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> You're welcome.
» Thank you. Any other questions?
Commissioner Dela.
>> Thank you. I have a clarifying question.
» Thank you. I have a clarifying question.
I just want to make sure I understand um
about the gas meter and and whether we
have to make that a condition of
approval. There's there was some
language in the staff report that
suggested that. So I just want to make
sure I understand. So there is a front
there is a gas meter. It's just not a
new gas meter. Is that correct?
>> So the existing gas meter is actually
» So the existing gas meter is actually
under the sidewalk there. Um it's not on
the front. And so I actually did include
it in the conditions of approval just
because I really like to have the plans
match exactly what what's what we see
come in as a building permit or or
whatnot. Um and so I didn't have them
refresh revise the plan set. Um so
that's why I called it out but it would
remain as such. They had originally P
Gen now wants um when certain um
upgrades are triggered. They want the
gas meters on the front of the building.
And um so we had an internal discussion
because we hadn't heard this come up
before and there was concern over the
impact that that would have
aesthetically on the plaza. Um and so we
spoke internally and then uh we spoke
with the applicant and they were um
willing to apply for an exception with
PG& to maintain um the location where it
is now which is not visible. Okay. So
just two follow-up questions. Um
so um just a process question. So since
you already have it in the conditions
the we if we were to uh recommend a
motion we wouldn't have to include it.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Okay. The second question I have is
» Okay. The second question I have is
around safety and what happened to
corner 103 with the underground gas
line. And I I'm do we have any insight
into whether even though PG& approved
that that they really refortified that?
>> That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.
» That's not a gas vault. That's not gas.
That it was power. It was
>> I apologize. I thought it was gas.
» I apologize. I thought it was gas.
>> No, it's electricity.
» No, it's electricity.
>> Okay. But again, the an underground the
» Okay. But again, the an underground the
underground.
>> So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.
» So, I'll I'll answer that part of it.
Okay. So, um after that occurred, um PG&
did come out, reassess um all of the
vaults, looked for that specific type of
electric fault and identified those that
may be within our sidewalks that are of
that age and type and have already
looked into updating all of those. And
so, it's already in process for all of
that. Um the um the reason why they want
them up is really just to read meters
and accessibility purposes more than
anything. It's not
um because of safety.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Thank you so much.
» Thank you so much.
>> Great. Any other commissioner questions?
» Great. Any other commissioner questions?
Commissioner Bernett?
>> Um are we being asked to consider the uh
» Um are we being asked to consider the uh
color scheme for this in this
application?
>> That is within your privy. Yes.
» That is within your privy. Yes.
And so were there any I would have liked
to have seen
um this color scheme in context with the
other adjacent properties.
>> Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can
» Yeah, that's understandable. Um you can
see a glimpse of it here or and I can
also so we have soul desire on the left
which is the lighter cream and then also
in the center and then parkside to the
right. So it would be a tone may perhaps
it could be referred to as in between
the two. Um, but I can also we can pull
up um Google or uh Google Maps right now
too if if that's something that you want
>> Well, you know, normally um
» Well, you know, normally um
even just a color change on the plaza
would trigger a robust discussion.
Uh not to mention a change in the actual
structure of the facade, which is this
what this includes. I'm not in love with
their wooden um uh canopy or whatever
you want to call it today. Um and they
haven't indicated
what kind of signage.
Uh OSO does have one of those. We were
discussing them earlier backlit
type illuminated signs but there's no
indication on this as to what kind of
signage they want to do.
>> Right. So that was the other component
» Right. So that was the other component
that will be they wanted to defer that
to another application.
>> Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little
» Okay. Once again, I'm I'm a little
concerned about considering each of
these pieces in isolation when the
reality is that um we'll be dealing with
uh a comprehensive change in the context
of whatever gets approved as the final
approval for this particular location.
and I'm not seeing a a submittal
application that
um reflects the totality of those
changes. So, I'm having a little I'm
finding myself resisting a little bit
going ahead without more information to
put this all of these changes in
context.
>> Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,
» Okay. Um and just to note or clarify,
the sidewalk seating wouldn't be
something that would come before you. We
those do get processed administratively,
but I understand um your concern in in
regard to the signage. Um if you'd like
me to pull up the street view, I can do
that or whatever you prefer.
Well, I I wouldn't mind seeing it, and
I'll have to use my imagination for what
it would look like with these green
colors rather than a mocked up composite
of of how the uh final would look. I
just I'm just surprised there isn't a
more complete visual presentation on
this.
Do you want to ask if there's any more
questions and then we can pull it up
while we're
>> It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na
» It seems that there is. Uh vice chair na
>> uh just clarifying question is OSO and
» uh just clarifying question is OSO and
uh is it park side are they related? Are
they the are they in the same Thank you.
>> We have questions of staff while we're
» We have questions of staff while we're
pulling that up.
Might this be an opportunity to invite
the applicant to come forward and
address the commission if they so
choose? There's no requirement.
» Great. And if you just say your name for
the record, I appreciate it.
>> David Bush ush.
» David Bush ush.
>> Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple
» Um I mean it's it's a pretty simple
remodel. It's a restaurant now. It's
going to remain a restaurant. We're just
improving the space, making it more
comfortable. Um,
improving the facade, I believe. Looks a
little outdated and a little drab. Um,
and we really just want to create more
of a neighborhood restaurant on the
square, casual place, um, and a much
more comfortable place. The backyard
obviously needs improvements. Um, and we
would love to get some sidewalk seating.
We just think it makes the place more
vibrant and, um,
really attracts people more to the
square. I think people want to sit
outside. We hardly ever fill up inside
when it's nice outside and having tables
out front like when we had the parklets
really gave us a lot more life,
especially on that side of the square
where it's pretty slow sometimes,
especially as far as foot traffic goes.
So, you know, that's the goal for the
project. Um,
we're just a small family business
doing our best.
>> Thank you. I appreciate it.
Uh, thank you for pulling this up. That
helps me.
As I say, I wish um it'd been a mockup
of the colors
in a, you know, wouldn't be hard to do
in Photoshop. And uh so I would have
hoped and expected and I guess my
position is that
any changes to the plaza to me
um demand an extra level of scrutiny and
consideration. It's just it's just the
way I'm built. And I'm not opposed to
change. I happen to enjoy Oso as a
restaurant. I've eaten there many many
times and um um but I think that uh
going forward at least when we have
changes to a facade of any
uh plaza business. Uh I would like to
see those changes rendered in the
context of where they are their
neighbors. And I know it'll be extra
work for applicants. I'm sorry about
that. But, you know, I uh having worked
with Photoshop myself for 35 years, it's
not that hard to do. So, I'll see where
the rest of the commissioners.
>> Thank you very much. Any other
» Thank you very much. Any other
commissioner comments? Questions? Excuse
me. Questions? Any more questions?
No more questions?
Um, any comments? Excuse me. I need to
open public comment on this matter. Are
there any members of the public wishing
to address the commission on this agenda
item
and see? Oh, Mr. Abadilly, state your
name, please.
>> JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state
» JJ Abdily. Um, I'd just like to state
that uh I think OSO is a real gem of
restaurant to have on the plaza. It has
unique offering um different than most
any other place. It's one of the rare
places we can still get a bite at 8:59
p.m., which I really appreciate. And I
think we all know how hard it is to run
a restaurant. I I hope the commission
can help make it a little easier for a
business owner to run the business the
way he wants. And from the looks of it,
I'm not much of a color guy, but I think
I can I think I can picture like a dark
dark green, and I think it'll look well
look good in the context. So, I
appreciate that. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Any other members
» Thank you very much. Any other members
of the public wishing to come address
the commission?
Okay, seeing none, I will close the
public comment and bring it back to the
commission for comments.
Commissioners have comments.
Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Um, I like the new design. I think that
» Um, I like the new design. I think that
that angle is um awkward and I think
that this is a really clever way to make
it a little bit more comfortable there.
And I do really encourage the outdoor
seating. I think it makes the look more
vibrant. I think the plaza would look
more vibrant. I think that the dated
reclaimed wood um worked 12 years ago
about when you guys put it in and a
refresh is a great way to have people
remember. Oh, Oso. Yeah, I haven't been
there in a while. So, I actually am
fully in support of this. I think it's a
really nice design and I look forward to
enjoying it.
>> Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.
» Thank you, Commissioner Dbok.
>> Yes. I I also um really like the design
» Yes. I I also um really like the design
and I really appreciate Oso as a
business in Soma um and as a community
member. Um one thing I hope is that
somewhere you'll keep the pig the pig
bear.
» Thank you. Any other comments?
Commissioner Willers. Um, Jacob, can you
pull up or can you pull up the color
chart that the colors are were actually
applied for that you have up in the
corner of the one slide? So I I think
this is
to me this is a failing of SketchUp and
a and the thing we should be paying
attention to is are these colors because
I think that the stucco color the paint
color of the stucco is actually um very
close a little bit more vibrant than the
next door neighbor um to the to the
west. Um, and is it correct that the
tile is the internal area?
» Yes. But that that's how it was labeled
on the plan set.
>> So does is it the entire al cove?
» So does is it the entire al cove?
>> Here we have Sarah who was the applicant
» Here we have Sarah who was the applicant
on on behalf of the owners if you don't
mind.
>> I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the
» I'm Sarah. I'm the architect. Uh, so the
tile would be right behind where the
seating is and the rest would be painted
>> to match the tile color.
» to match the tile color.
>> Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are
» Yes. And I agree the SketchUp colors are
kind of difficult. It's a notoriously
tricky program with the colors. The top
right is the best representation of the
actual colors. So it's darker the
stuckle color and the tile as well are
darker than the rendering is showing.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Yeah, I I I think that the you know the
image that you see of the opening is
much different than what the final
appearance is going to be. And so I have
no trouble with the color selections as
a design.
>> Any other comments,
» Any other comments,
>> Mr. Bernard?
» Mr. Bernard?
>> Okay. So I want to I want to understand
» Okay. So I want to I want to understand
the picture we're looking at now with
the little tables in the front and those
two versions of greens. These are not
the accurate colors. Is that what you're
telling me? So, the colors on the right
are the accurate colors, which are far
less
um
uh
>> well, they're they're they're more
» well, they're they're they're more
compatible with the neighboring
properties, but I'm using my imagination
at this point in order to fill it in,
which is why I'm concerned that that in
future applications like this on the
plaza, we get more detail
before it comes to this commission.
because I don't you know I was a graphic
designer professionally for for 20 years
uh before I changed careers and um the
one lesson I learned
in that craft was don't leave much up to
the client's imagination because
everybody imagines things somewhat
differently. the better that you can
show in a rendering precisely what it is
you're intending, the better off you
are. Otherwise, you run into the
individual taste of a client that has to
do with a color that may not be what's
intended. So going forward, I would I
would recommend to staff that, you know,
we not we not have a variation as
significant as this in terms of
representation representation of how
something's going to look when it
actually is going to look quite
different. So that being said, um I
think now that I understand the actual
colors that are going to be used, I have
far less concern. And in terms of the
design and the layout and the removal of
the existing structures, those are all
fine with me and I agree with the
sentiments of the audience. I think the
that so is a wonderful restaurant to
have in town and I want to have them
want to see them continue to succeed.
>> Great. Thank you. Any other comments?
» Great. Thank you. Any other comments?
>> Okay. I will just join in saying that
» Okay. I will just join in saying that
I'm supportive of the the changes that
are proposed in this application. I I I
will actually joined Commissioner
Barnett in his comments that I I believe
that the um plaza facade is deserving of
a maybe a little higher scrutiny than
other not as prominently displayed areas
of our city. But uh what's proposed here
isn't anything that can't be uh you know
remedied by a different painkiller in
the future. So with that I would be
supportive of uh approving this
application.
And with that, there any motions on the
floor?
>> A motion to approve.
» A motion to approve.
>> Second. Roll call, please.
» Second. Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Willers,
» Commissioner Willers,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett,
» Commissioner Barnett,
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,
» Commissioner Ogerman Jenkins,
>> I.
» I.
>> Commissioner Donbach,
» Commissioner Donbach,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Commissioner O'Neal,
» Commissioner O'Neal,
>> yes.
» yes.
>> Vice Chair Nent,
» Vice Chair Nent,
>> I.
» I.
>> Chair Wyrick,
» Chair Wyrick,
>> I.
» I.
>> The motion passes unanimously.
» The motion passes unanimously.
>> Thank you very much. At this time, I
» Thank you very much. At this time, I
would call for a fivem minute recess. I
want to be respectful of the the time
that uh the members of the audience have
spent thus far tonight and uh would call
for a five strict fivem minute recess at
this time. Thank you.
members of the public,
if I can encourage you to take your
seats, please.
Director Gates, are you close to being
prepared?
Okay. At this point, I will reconvene
the planning commission meeting and go
back on the record in item uh 5.2, which
based on the action earlier will be
moved to the top of the items for
discussion portion of our agenda
tonight. I want to begin by just
thanking the members of the public who
have remained here and who have obliged
us uh after an hour and a half of other
regular uh calendar agenda items. Um the
fact that you're here speaks a lot to
the fact that you believe in this
process and that you believe in your
city and uh the fact that there is um a
pathway forward where I think uh you
know that there's going to be a there
can be a happy medium and that uh people
can be um proud of where we live and um
so I will reiterate thank you very much
for being here and being involved. With
that said,
we will move forward with 5.2, which is
discussion of the general plan ad hoc
committee comments on available draft
general plan elements. And I will turn
it over to director Gates.
>> Thank you. And also based on that
» Thank you. And also based on that
reorganization, my understanding is that
we are going to first focus on the
discussion around the Soma mixed um
description. Correct.
>> That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,
» That was my understanding. Okay. Um, so,
um, to start there, um, and I can bring
up things that you may request at any
time, but just to kick it off the
discussion. So, just as a reminder, on
January 14th of this year, um, a
community meeting was held at the
Vintage House that many of you did
participate in. It was an agenda
planning commission um, meeting.
Um and at that meeting um the goal of
that was to gather input on what a Soma
mixuse could look like on the Sebastiani
property. So participants were asked to
um participate in a roundt format to
work together to discuss that potential
uh uses.
So each table did color in um different
land uses on the map and completed a
land use table to identify the specific
uses that they would prefer to see in a
future if a future development was to
occur. Um at the end each table did
present their maps to the group and
those results um for each table were
uploaded to our general plan website and
then they were also attached to your um
staff report. In addition to the maps
and tables from that meeting, the
community members were that were unable
to attend as well as those that did um
were offered the opportunity to also
participate in that same exercise. So
those also um were provided to you and
attached to the staff report and they
were available um online um on our
general plan website.
So based on the input um and all the
comments that have been uploaded um
specifically to the Sebastiani folder um
we've created one folder in our general
plan comments just for this purpose um
based on um just so that we could allow
for more focused um separation of the
comments. Um while there were a lot of
those that participated that would
rather not see change at all um if the
change was going to happen that's what
those maps represented. um the
Sebastiani, the future land uses that we
saw the really the focus um and this is
me summarizing so people may have taken
different things but um really focusing
on preserving agriculture and or open
space where it exists today and to
increase or create more buffers um using
landscaping between existing and any
other commercial or higher density
housing to preserve the history of the
Sebastiani Winery.
um to um if change was to occur. Well,
again, no change is preferred that the
commercial hotel or multif family
development was preferred to be tucked
away on the sites away from the streets
and again buffered um from the
neighboring properties.
Um also to maintain a small building
character especially along the street
edge. And then concerns um were raised
around noise, traffic, and safety um
with a new development if that was to
occur there.
So based on the input and direction, um
staff is looking for direction on any
edits to the proposed cinema mixuse
description, including the name. Um I
know a lot of people don't like the
name, and that's fine, too. Um it's just
a placeholder. Um but if there's any
changes at this point, um that's what
staff is looking for direction from the
planning commission on. And um again,
some of the level of detail that um is
um really would form any future
development would be part of the zoning
code. Um which also is um something that
the general plan ad hoc um group is um
discussing as well. and that input from
tonight could also feed that uh
discussion
around that future zoning code. So that
concludes my brief presentation on the
item. Again, I can bring up anything
specific that you may want to look at um
or some of the things that were
presented. Um there were a number of
submitts after um so hopefully you had a
chance to at all of those that were
uploaded
um to get different kinds of feedback.
So with that
um did want we do have a number of
people here. I didn't know if you wanted
to ask me questions and and then do
public comment before getting into
discussion or not.
>> Yes,
» Yes,
we can go. Would would there be an
objection to fielding public comment
first
prior to entertaining questions? Yes.
Yes.
Has there been a historic resto resource
evaluation of this site?
>> Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but
» Sorry. No, there has not been yet, but
that would be required with any
potential development.
>> Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having
» Okay. Um, is there any benefit to having
that completed before we even look at
the potential of resoning?
Um,
so
even though something is historic
doesn't mean that development can't
occur. Correct. Right. So there's an
environmental process with that. So
if
um if anything was proposed on that site
to change anything, we would require it.
We're currently in the process of doing
our uh citywide survey
>> um for historic resources um to
» um for historic resources um to
determine if there are other resources
in town that haven't been uh identified.
This is an early California landmark,
but it's so early that it actually
doesn't it's not automatically uh on the
California register.
Um, so it would need to be actually
assessed.
>> Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm
» Okay. And the reason I'm asking is I'm
I'm thinking that a lot of the property
is not historic, but certain parts of it
are truly historic, and it would be I
would find it very helpful to get
clarity as to what the different pieces
are and how we would want to respect
those going forward. So that's where I
was coming from. Okay. Thank you.
questions from the commission.
>> Mr. Millers,
» Mr. Millers,
>> um I just have a general questions for
» um I just have a general questions for
for the commission as well as for the
public so they understand what what are
the ground rules so to speak in our
discussion of this item tonight given
the fact that it's a um general
discussion of a general plan potential
zoning change.
Um,
so it's not a public hearing for an
item. It is a discussion, but we're at
the point in these discussions where
we're making edits to um the document or
potentially even the land use map. The
planning commission is not the deciding
factor. Um, and again, we would look to
city council to provide any final
direction on how we would want to move
forward on uh any discussion that's
being had. Um we um staff has just
scheduled a um item for the city council
on March the 4th to provide a general
plan update um with a couple of these
changes that are presented not um not
just this but also um the two uh
requested land use changes that would
affect the map would be presented as
well to city council on March 4th for
final direction so that the EIR studies
can be finalized um along with that
draft general plan.
>> Just a follow-up question to that. So
» Just a follow-up question to that. So
fair to say that the planning commission
in this sense has a acts an advisory
capacity.
>> That's correct.
» That's correct.
>> And it helps to inform the city council
» And it helps to inform the city council
on the direction that they ultimately
take. Correct.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.
» Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bernett.
Would it be of value and is it our task
tonight to
uh edit or modify the language of the
proposed
new
uh land use category?
>> Yes, that would be within your purview
» Yes, that would be within your purview
tonight. That is um part of that
discussion is what does that how does
that read? um and um if there's certain
things missing from it or other edits to
anything within the land use element
that we want to have addressed. There's
the ad hoc has provided some additional
comments not just on this but in general
on the land use element specific to
Sebastiani mixed use. There's been a
number of questions around
um a level of specificity that is um not
typically seen necessarily in a general
plan. Um and then concerns raised about
the unknown um about a future
development project and what would that
look like? Um, in this case, a general
plan again sets kind of the higher level
policy. The zoning code sets um the
limitations and the box as well as the
uses that go inside that box. Um but um
the uh uh I know that there's some
concern around mixed use and not you
know having one use or another use um on
the site um and things like that. So,
>> so, um, just to further clarify that,
» so, um, just to further clarify that,
um, we're talking about
to we we can talk about tonight the
specific words included in the
definition of a new land use
designation,
which which specifically isn't a general
plan land use designation. and it's a
zoning map designation, but the two have
become conflated
in my mind in that u in that the
new Soma mixed use designation as it's
been called um has certain allowances in
it in terms of what it is
um permitting as possible uses within
that designation. So, is that on the
table tonight? A discussion of that
specific language?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Yeah. Thanks. I I just want to make sure
I understand. Um, on page 197, you have
a summary that says Sonoma Sebastian
property targeted land use framework. Is
is that is that language from staff
as a proposed
I I'm not sure.
>> Sorry. What page are you on?
» Sorry. What page are you on?
>> I think it's 197.
» I think it's 197.
>> It says summary Sebastian property
» It says summary Sebastian property
targeted land use framework.
>> I'm looking at the agenda.
» Okay. I on your computer
>> page 197 of 286.
» page 197 of 286.
>> It's not something that's on the screen
» It's not something that's on the screen
though.
>> No,
» No,
>> I don't see anything on the screen.
» I don't see anything on the screen.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Okay. I don't know what it is you're
» Okay. I don't know what it is you're
looking at. I'm looking at the agenda,
page 197, and there's a thing there's a
there's a under item 5.2 and it says
summary
Sebastiani property targeted land use
framework. That's how it's entitled.
>> Page 199.
» Page 199.
>> Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.
» Oh, I I'm I apologize. It says 197.
>> Oh, on mine it says 199.
» Oh, on mine it says 199.
>> Okay. Okay. Apologies.
» Okay. Okay. Apologies.
>> This one?
» This one?
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Yes, that is a public comment.
» Yes, that is a public comment.
>> So, the summary is a public comment.
» So, the summary is a public comment.
Yes.
>> Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
» Okay. Thank you. I just wanted to
understand where that language came
from. Thank you.
» Yes. So, it ends. So, the me the the one
that's right above is our summary of the
land use tables,
>> right?
» right?
>> Um and then where that ends uh ends that
» Um and then where that ends uh ends that
um that item,
>> okay,
» okay,
>> that portion of it. and then the rest
» that portion of it. and then the rest
are going to be the public comments
suggestions.
>> I would also add that this would also be
» I would also add that this would also be
the appropriate time to discuss the
merits of whether a new land use
designation is appropriate at all. Am I
correct?
>> If that is um
» If that is um
going to be that's a possibility so it
can be removed. Um so any changes to the
land use um map or descriptions are on
the table.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think
» Yeah. One other comment. I mean I think
one of one of the things that came up in
the ad hoc is is whether to call this a
specific plan because of the site size
or versus um just adopting zoning. So I
just adopting the land use by the zoning
code. And I just wanted to bring that up
and ask if that's still an opportunity
for discussion.
>> Um, everything is open for discussion.
» Um, everything is open for discussion.
So, just as a reminder, a specific plan
is a zoning code. It's just um includes
more things than just the zoning code.
» Any other questions?
» Okay, I have some questions.
Uh, Jennifer, could you speak to how
housing laws like, for example, SB35,
AB 2011, AB130 could potentially be used
to maximize residential development at
this site under a mixeduse
uh designation as it is reflected in the
proposed language currently.
So um
those are actually not about maximizing
those are just more about um creating a
ministerial process um around housing
developments um
um and they have to meet certain
standards um don't typically see SB35
because they actually require um the um
the
wage that the word just escaped me. Amy,
help me here. um
>> prevailing wage
» prevailing wage
>> prevailing thank you um the prevailing
» prevailing thank you um the prevailing
wage requirements um and I can't
remember 2011 is the same way um the one
that maximizes and what you're thinking
about when you say maximize is going to
be density bonus law so any property
that um is of a certain size and we
allow a certain density that gets a
minimum of five units um is allowed a
density bonus just by law if they
provide a certain percentage affordable.
Um they don't have to use the actual
density increase but they do get
incentives um a certain number of
incentives and then unlimited
concessions and waivers. Um and the idea
behind that is that by providing that
affordable you're reducing your ability
to get your rate. And so, um, sometimes
you need those waiverss and concessions.
Um, maybe it's F, maybe it's setback,
maybe it's height. Uh, it just depends
on the project itself and what they're
looking for um to meet that. So,
anything that has housing pretty much in
this town that can have five units can
have a density bonus project.
Um, so that's really the only law and
that is a state law and a state
requirement and it's an uh code as well.
>> Okay, thank you.
» Okay, thank you.
Um
kind of on that note,
um
how could
h how could a potential developer of
that site use a concession or one of
these incentives um to devel could they
potentially develop 100% housing a
residential project at at that location?
So
50% they could have 50% um density bonus
but they perhap um I can't remember what
the percentage is. It depends on what
level of affordability it is. Um then
yes they could have a 50% um increase
um in their density. Um
typically um
this city's never seen that. Um I
personally have never seen that um in my
other jurisdictions but yeah anything's
possible
>> and it's all about what the project is
» and it's all about what the project is
and what they need to
>> to get their project.
» to get their project.
>> So
» So
thank you for obliging me helping me to
understand. So waiverss and concessions
could include things like not having a
parking standard for example.
So density bonus automatically
identifies the parking standards that go
along with density bonus and we actually
are consistent with that already in our
code. Um what you're thinking of is um
the project that we just approved on
Montalo their density bonus request was
um to an increase in their F. Um we've
seen setback reductions.
um we see typically um sometimes you see
height increases
um
uh site coverage. Um so they just range
and basically the idea is that those
development standards um the standard
that has to be met is that the
development standard
um reduction is allowing the
affordability of the project to move
forward in the sense that they're
providing these affordable units. So,
it's helping helping them either
increase that density, get more on the
site, um maybe spread out across the
site a little bit differently.
>> Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my
» Okay. I guess I'm just trying to get my
arms around, you know, for I think it's
20. Is it 20? We're calling it 22 acres,
right?
>> 20.
» 20.
>> Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a
» Okay. So, mixed use, it it allows a
residential component in the
description. That's what mixed use
intends.
I'm trying to get my arms around the
scope of what could be there if a
developer utilized the tools that are
available to them to maximize density,
to maximize
development.
Um,
and that that's where my that's where my
questions are coming from. I'm trying to
get my arms around that. I'm trying to
get a a solid understanding around what
could potentially be there if they
potential developer met or crossed the
threshold that would allow them the
highest density bonus and the highest uh
or the the greatest amount of waiverss
and concessions. What would that look
like?
>> Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't
» Maybe that's too broad a question. Can't
go there. Okay.
>> No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's
» No, it's it's an unknown, right? It's
all going to come down to what the
project is and what's being proposed,
right?
um what is um that goal of that project
um every project that I've worked on in
my other jurisdictions with multif
family development every single one was
very different and it all comes down to
the developer themselves and how they
develop their properties. Um
the developers are very different on
what they're looking for. Um they also
have different returns on investment,
right? um depending on what their
funding streams are. So all those things
play into what they at the end of the
day they're going to be asking for. Um
the aspect of the zoning code too is you
know what we're trying to do is um
around this is also
define the boundaries but also how do we
incentivize to get what we want out of
that project.
Um, is there a way to do that? Maybe,
maybe not. Um, in that sense of waiverss
and concessions, but
um, I'll let developers speak for
themselves. But, um,
there are obviously certain cases where
developers will don't care about
community um, and just come in for their
product, but in other cases, some work,
you know, with that and understand what
the needs of that community. um at the
end of the day their project has to be
marketable to the community.
>> Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much
» Sure. So I I guess that inspires a much
broader question and what tools do we
have to get what we do want to see? Uh
we I feel like we've seen this model um
where
a developer or an entrepreneur comes and
they they get a project entitled right
or a conceptual project entitled and
then they sell it.
What mechanisms do we have to tie?
Maybe that's too broad a question, but
um I'm trying to understand and I'm
trying to help the public and my
commission understand what uh what the
upsides of this are and what the
downsides of a reszone are or arts. Um
fair to say that a reszone
to what's currently titled as Sonoma
mixed use commercial
would open door
to
uh state the the impacts of state laws
that reduces local control over what
happens there.
>> Is that is that fair or is that unfair?
» Is that is that fair or is that unfair?
So, I'm going to go with it's going to
be a depends situation. Um, if this was
a full-on housing reszone to just
housing, I would say yes. Clearly, yes.
Um, just because of the way that the
laws are are now. um the um you know if
there was only 10 acres or something
like we have specific regulations and
there's new ministerial processes um for
housing multif family housing
developments in certain instances. Um
there are also other things um on each
site that may be different that affect
that ability to develop. um
mixed use. The way that we have it
written is that it's not just a housing
project. It's housing and commercial,
>> right?
» right?
>> Um there is um a mixed use in density
» Um there is um a mixed use in density
bonus that has specific um uh ratios um
as well as other um aspects of that. Um
so is it there? Yes. Is it always going
to be there? Yes. Um at this time frame
in the foreseeable future uh the state
is going to continue to move in this
motion. Um they've already I mean it's
already been said that even shopping
centers um can be changed to housing. Um
so
in this case the
the city can take the the front end of
it and say okay this is what we want
with change. Um or you don't have change
and maybe in the future somebody wants
to come and make that change and then
then you're getting a proposal of
something that you would then be
reviewing as a proposal. Would
the elimination of a residential
component
in what's allowed in the zone
help to
protect I'll use the word protect our
community from the impacts of what I
consider overreaching state laws?
>> So
» So
if you have no housing and you just
continue to allow commercial or expanded
commercial potential. Um then yeah, you
wouldn't have
per se those I'd have to look
specifically at that commercial uh
process, but
>> Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone
» Okay. Feel like I've had the microphone
for a long time. I'm willing to uh let
anybody else get in here who's
interested in Commissioner Don.
>> Yeah. I have a couple follow-up
» Yeah. I have a couple follow-up
questions to that. I mean um the first
question is even if it's a commercially
zoned property, you can still build
residential property on that. Correct.
>> Unless we spec specifically state in
» Unless we spec specifically state in
this zone type that there's no housing
allowed in our commercial zone. So let's
say we just in the same sense that here
we've identified it to be a special
zone. Right now it is a wine production
zone and it has its only one uh in the
city. um and it has its specific uses
that are allowed. So if you added
additional commercial types to that then
and didn't include residential, our res
our commercial and our mixed use zones
do allow multifamily residential in them
and have identified a density. That
doesn't mean that
um you didn't you have to.
>> Okay. And and the second question, you
» Okay. And and the second question, you
know, um the public came and they and
I've looked at the tables and they've
put their preferences down and in other
of our um our uh municipal code for
other designations of land use, we have
these tables that we allow things to be
permitted or use permit or not
permitted. And I think that that's
something that um we use, we understand,
and seems like um a lever that the city
can use to really designate
like other land use um parcels what we
what we accept and don't accept. So with
the input that we've received from the
public around that kind of use table
is that one mechanism where we can
actually kind of construct what's
allowed and not allowed on the parcels
and um along that line there are several
small parcels in the 20 acres. Correct.
And we talked about it there's some that
are more agg and some that have a winery
and and um there was a request for
preservation of that winery the the
historic portion. So,
how do we how do we craft that into a
code? Um, you know, there's a table of
use, but how do we craft the subparcals?
Sorry. Is your is your question is there
a way to modify allowable or allowed
uses in the existing zone to achieve
what we see as the will of the
community? Well, that's I I that's why,
you know, I brought up kind of a a sight
specific plan because this is a unique
property. It's 20 acres. It has multiple
components to it. And um we've heard the
summary from the public that some areas
want to be buffered. We want, you know,
we want to have some A. I saw that there
was residential that people were okay
with and certain kinds of commercial. So
I think that from my perspective reading
all of that, we do have a framework and
I'm just wondering how we put that
framework into this unique parcel um by
designating different areas if we can do
that as part of this um unique
code. You know, because what we have
here is like I'm not sure if somebody
could bulldoze the Sebastiani
building or they could take that
building and make a m a multi- uh family
unit. That that's what I'm not clear
about. So, are there ways that part of
the part of the area would be uh
designated commercial or residential,
part would be designated open space?
That's what I'm I'm not clear of what
what levers we have as um a city to help
direct that.
>> Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of
» Yeah. I ask a clarifying question of
commissioner.
Um are you basically asking whether or
not it's possible to have multiple land
use designations applied to this overall
20 acres rather than a single
designation? Is that the question you're
asking? I guess my question is since
we're this is a new designation, are
there ways that we can specify just like
we did with four corners, are there ways
that we can have a a a specific
specification of what can be in that
parcel?
>> Well, no parcels. Yeah.
» Well, no parcels. Yeah.
>> No, I understand we're we're that that
» No, I understand we're we're that that
was related to the issue I brought up
earlier about, you know, modifying the
language of the proposed designation.
But I hear underlying your question, the
question is rather than having one
designation apply to the 20 acres,
can we instead is there an option to
create multiple land use designation
within those 20 acres? I guess that's an
alternative way to do it. So,
» it's probably not ideal, but
>> it is not ideal. Um, it's not good
» it is not ideal. Um, it's not good
planning practice. Um, we actually have
an area of town where we have two land
uses on same parcels. Per law, those
zoning, those setbacks and things have
to occur um from the actual location of
this arbitrary line that's not actually
a parcel line. Um and it doesn't quite
work the way you would think. The other
aspect is we cannot down zone.
So you can't take away the development
rights of these parcels that already
have development rights to make them
open space. Um the aspect that is
more difficult in the conversation has
been because of the variety I would say
of uh parcel sizes, shapes
um historic uses. Um the railroad
corridor went through here, right? So
that's why we have little slivers um of
parcels.
Um and so
there's
the idea behind a mixed use and having
one is that when somebody comes forward
with the um a subdivision or new parcel
map and reorganizes all the lines or
reduces the number of lines
that you have one zone already. When you
have two zones, the fun begins. Um, and
where those lines are.
Um,
so that is the reasoning behind applying
a broader um zone criteria to such a
variety of parcels at this point.
Um,
I in my head cannot envision how we
would separate
the parcels
by use type.
>> Mr. Millers,
» Mr. Millers,
>> therein lies the rub.
» therein lies the rub.
>> We live in a community that is exactly
» We live in a community that is exactly
what you're talking about. And yet law
wants us to create a community where
everything's perfect.
>> All one color here, all one color there.
» All one color here, all one color there.
And we live in a tapestry. We don't live
in the one color there, one color here.
And so compatibility
is the tapestry.
Law is the one color. And we're
struggling because we have a we have one
of the largest parcels aggregated, one
of the largest parcels in our community
to deal with. and it doesn't feel right
to put one thing on it that allows all
kinds of things because we don't know
what that future is. And and so that to
me is the real issue on on this parcel
or these parcels I should say and we
should continue to save these parcels
even though it's one zone as a as a wine
production zone zone primarily because
that's what was happening on the at the
time and made it conforming.
Um, it's difficult because all of those
issues that are raised by taking the
taking what would normally be a series
of small parcels and allowing something
to happen on the 20 acre parcel in our
community is not the tapestry that we
live in. And so, um, I've been
struggling with this and it's the first
opportunity we have to talk about it,
but there's so many external forces on
it that it really takes, in my opinion,
it's going to take very careful
consideration and applying a single zone
to all of the parcels doesn't feel
right. And I think it needs more study
to do it correctly. Um, and
>> yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I
» yeah, and I'd like to add to that. I
mean, I'll put it out there. I'm a
Strong Towns fan, and I really do think
that this that, you know, that infill um
that we had in the early part of last
century, it is more compatible with with
this town. And if there's a way that we
can really roll up our sleeves and
figure out how to I know it's hard, but
the current design standards, good
planning may not be good planning. you
know, it's just kind of what we've all
accepted over the last century. So, I I
would um I want to solve this problem. I
I want it to be good for this community.
H want housing, want commercial that's
compatible,
open space. So, I I really would love us
to to be able to do what's practical and
what's feasible for this 20 acres um of
land that we have. Um, and I I I
still would like it to be a very
specific kind of zoning.
>> So, seems like we're kind of getting
» So, seems like we're kind of getting
away from questions, which is okay. But,
um, do right. I want to give I want to
start a good round of of uh of public
comment here. Are there any final um
maybe broader questions from the
commission of of Director Gates before
we jump into public comment?
Commissioner Millers.
>> So if we left it as wine production
» So if we left it as wine production
and made no change to the parcel parcels
um and a
uh I can say a developer, we'll just put
it that way. The developer decided that
they wanted to take on the 20 20 acres
of land and come forward with a project.
It would simply require if it included
things that are not in the wine
production zone, it would require a
general plan amendment to allow a
project that is acceptable at the
community level if it met those
standards to make the general plan
amendment.
So you would probably do a general plan
amendment with either
specific plan that you want or a new
designation with that zoning.
>> But the evaluation of that project
» But the evaluation of that project
wouldn't be dependent on the zoning. It
would be dependent on the application.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> And the review.
» And the review.
>> Correct.
» Correct.
>> So
» So
>> as one total project. as one total
» as one total project. as one total
project
>> including subdivision yards.
» including subdivision yards.
>> But the but the city at that point would
» But the but the city at that point would
not be setting the precedent for the
development of the property and thereby
wouldn't be um
wouldn't have to accept an application
if it was non-conforming.
>> Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming
» Well, it wouldn't be non-conforming
because it didn't exist. Well,
non-conforming being that it isn't wine
production and doesn't you and it
doesn't meet the uses of the land that
way. You know, it's, you know, people
can propose whatever they'd like to
propose and the community can come out
and say yes, we like that or no, we
don't, but we don't have to define our
laws on on proposals. And so, so in my
mind is if we don't change the zoning,
we have a quasi derelict land use.
Um but it doesn't have the a potential
negative impact of
of all of the things that you chair have
brought up and that is we have a very
aggressive state housing law. We have
very aggressive state housing laws right
now that don't allow very much community
input and and while we all want housing,
we all want to be able to also know what
that's going to be and how to control
it. and we don't have a lot of
discretion as soon as we open that box.
So, you know, I I'm just asking that
because in some ways the protective
thing is to leave it as it is.
» Did I have a question mark on the end?
» I said yes.
>> Oh, you said yes. Okay.
» Oh, you said yes. Okay.
At this point, I would like to give the
public a stab at coming and addressing
this issue. There's enough hot air up
here as it is. So, we'll turn that down
for a minute and uh turn it over to the
public. And I'll just remind everyone if
uh we're tonight because of the uh the
audience members here in attendance,
we're going to try to abide by our three
minute maximum. And um another way to
show support for the comments of someone
who's at the podium is to raise your
hand. Um, we I pay attention to that and
um we'll go ahead and move forward. So,
if you could state your name, please.
Thank you.
>> Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good
» Janet Bole. B as in boy. O Y L E. Good
thing I talk fast. Even though my blood
sugar is dropping, I'm going to talk in
faster. Um, unlimited concessions and
waivers. Scares the heck out of me. Um,
and it is five parcels. We shouldn't
have to treat it all as one. Uh, I like
tapestry. That is the world. So, okay.
Uh, good evening. My name is Janet Bole
and I'm here to provide comment on the
proposed land use change for Sebastian
parcels. After attending the January
14th public meeting, it is clear that
many engaged residents have serious
concerns about redesating this site in
total. So as Sonoma mixeduse, the
consistent theme was that the
designation feels too broad, too
undefined for a property with this level
of historic significance and community
impact. For that reason, I respectfully
urge the city to designate the Spastiani
site as a special planning area rather
than applying this newly created
mixeduse category before any specific
project has been proposed. We're getting
the cart before the horse. A special
planning or area would allow the city to
evaluate actual sight specific proposals
when they are submitted instead of
pre-approving a wide range of uses in
advance. This is not an unusual request.
Across California, sensitive and
historic sites are commonly governed
through sight specific planning
frameworks rather than broad mixeduse
designations.
My concern is practical. Under current
state housing laws, once zoning and land
use standards are adopted, cities are
often required to approve projects with
very li limited ability to deny or
modify them. We just saw this play out
last week in St. Helina. The city
attorney explained that once they their
zoning was changed, the city had to
approve the project. In fact, the mayor
expressed in quotes
quote deeply he was deeply
disappointment that this project was not
really delivering what our community
needed. However, he had to approve it.
Um, we all know the Sebastiani property
is special. A special planning area
designation would allow the city to
define sub areas, preserve agricultural
and historic elements, establish clear
limits, and ensure the development
aligns with infrastructure and fire and
evacuation realities. Just like what
happened last week in St. in Helina once
a broad designation is adopted that
prudent management may be lost. There is
a broader uh uh implication if this
precedent is set here in the city. Think
about 27 acres at Cherry Block. If we
approve this this if the city classifies
this land use as a proposal, the county
could follow suit. I met I took the
initiative. I met with our supervisor
Hermaceia and she was not able to assure
me that such an expansion is unlikely.
So current, think about it. 50 acres in
our backyard could be all development.
This is a slippery slope. Let's wait
till the proposal is presented. I got 22
seconds. Okay. We currently have over
1,200 signatures on petition calling for
responsible land use. Responsible land
use does not mean no. It means
evaluating each proposal carefully,
transparently, and on merits when it is
actually before us. Therefore, I
respectfully request that we designate
the bastion as a special area planning.
Thank you,
>> Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to
» Miss Bole. I'm impressed. Two seconds to
spare.
Sir, if you come forward, please, and
state your name. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank
» Yeah. Hi, I'm John Edelman, and thank
you for letting me speak to you tonight.
So, I'm going to be brief. I've
submitted this before, but I want to to
you in writing, but I'm going to read it
to you. So, a case against the proposed
uh mixeduse changes to the Sebastian
property. Uh the proposed general land
use plan changes allow mixeduse
development on historic Seab Sebastian
properties to represent a fundamental
departure from Sonoma's adopted planning
principles community values and public
safety obligations while exposing
taxpayers to unknown and potentially
substantial infrastructure costs and
insurance related costs. Framed as an
economic solution, the proposal rests as
an optimistic assumptions that are
unlikely to materialize and would
instead produce irreversible harm.
increased wildfire risk, evacuation
failures, loss of agricultural land,
historic resources, erosion of Sonoma's
identity and the sense of place, retail
bleed possibly from the historic core
and a precedent that undermines
integrity of the uh general land use
plan itself and all goals uh uh LU 2,
three, four, and five when you read
them. Apply it. Applying a single
mixeduse designation as we just spoke
and everybody in the room did with a
wide residential density range to
Sebastian properties departs from common
California planning practice for
historically significant fire
constrained and partially operational
sites. Um comparable jurisdictions
typically rely on sight specific
planning thank you um tools to manage
sensitive properties, limit residential
intensity and preserve historic and
agricultural assets. uh blanket zoning
approach risks irreversible impacts on a
site that functions as a historic winery
and agricultural campus. Uh it offers
the current owners and potential futures
investors a vacant redevelopment
opportunity. Do we want to do that is
the real question. Uh, critically, the
proposal ignores viable and safer
alternatives already available to the
city, including vacant parcels along
established commercial corridors and the
adaptive reuse or repurposing of
outdated commercial buildings for
residential and mixed residential uses.
It also fails to account for the likely
bleeding of the retail and uh visitor
serving uses away from the plaza
Broadway and existing commercial
districts, weakening Sonoma's historic
commercial core. The treatise sort of
consolidates the principal arguments
raised by citizens, experts, and
community stakeholders and sets forth a
clear alternative path. So I that's what
I would say is a clear alternative path
to recognizing development,
preservation, transparency and adherence
of the adopted plan that you already
have. Um risks of a pro profit
extraction by out of area development
interests is a a real reason. the
permanent loss of historic buildings,
the agricultural land loss, and the
Sonoma way of life. So, I urge you to
reconsider this blanket mixeduse plan
and let a developer come forward with a
plan that's acceptable for the community
and propose it here in front of you all.
Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your
» Thank you, Mr. I appreciate your
comments.
Sir,
» good evening. Uh, my name is Marty
Bennett Bennett TT. I'm a longtime
consultant for the hotel workers
unionite here local too. I've lived in
the city for more than 30 years.
I urge that the general plan draft land
use element conditionally permit any new
hotels and that you require a study
demonstrating that the hotel would not
increase the demand for affordable
housing.
Hotels can increase demand for
affordable housing because they often
pay workers low wages, few benefits, and
these are not sufficient to live in the
valley. In 2025, the California
Employment Development Department
reported that entrylevel Sonoma County
hotel housekeepers earn 1832 an hour and
an annual income of about 38,000.
However, MIT economists calculate that
in Soma County, two full-time working
parents with two children each need to
earn $33 an hour or an annual income of
$108,000
before taxes to cover basic expenses,
food, housing, health care,
transportation, and child care. In 2025,
United Ways of California reported that
nearly onethird of households in Sonoma
County are working poor, meaning at
least one member earns income from work
but still can't cover basic expenses.
Most hotel workers and their families
are working poor, struggling to make
ends meet. The UC Berkeley Labor Center
studies revealed that if service sector
workers wages are so low, many will be
forced to commute to less expensive
housing markets in Solano, Lake
Mendescino counties, particularly given
the long-term trend of stagnant wages
and raising rents.
Commutes roughly double for costburden
renters who move to more affordable
housing markets. If hotel workers rent
locally, many will live in overcrowded
housing, impacting family health and
their children's educational
achievement.
In addition, many low-wage hotel workers
will be forced to rely on public
subsidies like medical, cow works, and
food stamps because of low wages. Thank
you very much.
>> Thank you, Mr. Bennett.
Hello, I'm Sonia Caribel. I'm also with
the hotel workers union, Unite Here
Local 2. Um, I submitted a letter and
I'm going to read from that. Um,
although maybe condense it a tiny bit.
Um, so, uh, again, my name is Sonia
Carabel and I'm with Here Local 2, the
hotel workers union for the Bay Area
including Sonoma County. We represent
workers at the Fairmont Sonoma Mission
Inn, Hyatt Regency Santa Rosa, AC Hotel
Santa Rosa, and Pedaluma Sherin. Our
sister local, Unite Here at 49, rep
represents workers at the Great and
Casino and Resort. Together, we
represent around 1500 hospitality
workers in Sonoma County. Our mission is
to improve working conditions and build
worker power in the hospitality
industry. Uh, this draft used land
element, draft land use element creates
the new Sonoma mixed commercial use
designation on the Sebastian Winery
site, permitting mixeduse housing and
commercial development. We have no
problem with denser mixeduse
development. Our members struggle to
find affordable housing and we support
building housing particularly when it is
affordable to hotel workers. However, we
are skeptical about permitting hotels as
part of this new zoning designation. We
are in a housing crisis, not a hotel's
crisis. A mixeduse development with
housing and groundf flooror commercial
could help to alleviate the housing
crisis in Soma. However, a hotel could
make the problem worse if it creates
low-wage jobs without creating enough
affordable housing to offset demand.
Hotel jobs in the Sonoma Valley usually
pay low wages, which means workers
generally cannot afford decent housing
nearby. Soma's economy is already very
tourism focused, and this has led to
extreme inequality. We don't need more
bad tourism jobs. We need more housing
for workers. The draft land use element
says of the Soma mixeduse commercial
designation, allowed uses may include
wine production, agricultural uses,
hotels, and other visitor serving uses.
Um, we suggest that hotels, if they are
permitted at all, be conditionally
permitted so that the specific impacts
of the hotel on the local economy can be
evaluated. If they are simply permitted
by right, there will be no opportunity
for the public and local officials to
weigh in other than potentially on the
design of the hotel. Uh we have a
suggested amendment uh which says
allowed uses may include wine
production, agricultural uses, hotels
and other visiting serving uses with the
addition hotels will be a conditionally
permitted use with a required study that
demonstrates that the hotel would not
increase overall demand for affordable
housing in Soma. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
» Hi. Hi commissioners. My name is Becky
Sager. It's s a g- e r. Um I'm going to
assume as they often do in these
meetings that you've read the
submissions and I could I I I've sent
one in. I've sent many in and I couldn't
say it better than my friend Janet did
tonight. We share the same concerns. Um,
I want to make one small point, maybe
not so small before I say what I came up
here to say, and that is I'm looking at
the land use map before and after from
the current general plan to the
proposed. And there are two sections of
the Sebastian property that are
agricultural. It's not all wine
production. So there are two land uses
there now, as far as I understand.
Three. Yeah, there's one tiny
commercial, right? Mixed use. So we we
do have existing and to your point, if
we left it, we do have agriculture and
wine production. And the one thing I've
heard so consistently from everyone who
gives feedback is keep the green space
green. But what I really want to say
tonight is thank you. Um this is the
first time um in this whole excruciating
process that I've felt like we've been
heard and that we share concerns that
are real and based on common sense and
reasonable and critical to this
community that we all love. And that's
why we're here. We're not here because
we don't want housing for people. We're
here because you think about the last
five or six years in this town and in
this country. You can't predict what's
going to happen five years from now,
right? You can't predict that somebody
might not come in here and say, "I want
to take advantage of the bonus density
laws and build a thousand housing units
there." And then what do we do when we
have a fire? We're already sleeping with
our go bags, folks. We've seen the
studies. We don't need the studies. This
is basic common sense. So, I am getting
all worked up here, not because I
disagree with you, but because I love
the conversation that's happening. I
appreciate it. As someone who cares
deeply about this along with my
neighbors, please continue to listen to
your constituents. We've got,270 people
so far signing a petition for
responsible land use. Read it. It's what
we keep saying. Readsoma.org.
We are not against development. We just
want it to make sense and we wanted to
keep this town as wonderful as it is.
Um, so thank you for listening to us and
let's keep this dialogue going because
we got to come to a solution that works
for Sonoma. Thank you.
Hi, my name's Jeannie ShraMM and Sm
um on the January 14th uh community
planning session. Uh it was an excellent
beginning and I want to commend you for
organizing it in the first place to
stimulating creative input from the
community. At that meeting, I met Mitch
back there and a lot of us met other
people that we never knew and it got the
discussion going. The land use
designation determines what the
proposals are in the first place. So,
I'm thrilled that we're having this
conversation today and that you are, as
uh the lady just as Miss Sager just
said, listening to us. I think the issue
here, the key issue for all of us is how
can this property be best used to
support community and civic priorities
and values while also addressing the
economic and sustainability issues.
Mitch and I worked together with a
couple of other people and we handed in
a submission late today, a submission of
ideas because anybody can't write a and
especially inexperienced people in 40
minutes. So we got together, we got some
ideas and our priorities that under
underpin these ideas were evacuation,
safety, density, vehicle and foot
traffic, maintaining the physical,
functional and aesthetic integrity,
transparent, visionary, and
participative decision-making process
and recognition that Sebastian winery
property, though unique in size for the
city of Soma, will set a precedent for
how other agricultural properties in
Soma County will be considered in the
future. And that's a very important
thing for all of you here to keep in
mind. The property is boarded by county
residents. And some of the things that
I'd like to point out in the evacuation
report, three of the seven uh reports
that uh that dangerous areas, three of
those seven border this property. Um
there is a we want to
any housing, senior housing, a third of
our population is seniors. That is
expected to grow, according to county
statistics, countywide, 26%
from that number by 2030.
That would enable people who live in the
area to age in place. and
we want to see um
the things that we love about Soma
preserved and to have visionaries. We
have a we are very lucky to have amazing
professionals in our community who are
extremely accomplished internationally
renowned architects and others. So we
would like to say let January 14th be
the beginning not the end. We'd like to
encourage you to form a community
advisory board where we can have
continue to have discussion like this.
Thank you.
» My name is David Dixon, DIX. I actually
live in the county on Level Valley Road
and uh I was looking at the agenda
tonight and I saw a memorandum from
Jennifer Gates about uh 577 and 511
Level Valley Road which they wish to uh
have a land use change to allow them to
develop housing there. I I'm a big
believer also of of I don't know if it's
going to be housing I guess but change
the land use from a to something else.
And I know that we have what we call
downgrading where you don't take a you
don't take a commercial or residential
area and downgrade it to uh rec space or
agriculture. Is there a possibility that
the city can look at the same rule of
not downgrading a to make a mixeduse
residential use or commercial use
because you're losing all the a place
about you can really make a difference
if you think about it. I don't and also
I don't know if 577 7-Eleven Valley Road
is related at all to the Sebastian
project or not. So, thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
» Thank you very much.
>> Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is
» Hi, good evening. Uh, my name is
Mitchell Price. P R I C E. Uh, a lot's
been said tonight, but I wrote this out
earlier, so um, I'll just go from my
script. Good evening, commissioners. My
name is Mitchell Price. I am an
architectural designer and a lifelong
Sonoma resident. I've spent the last
several weeks studying this site
carefully, not just as a development
opportunity, but as a civic
responsibility and uh for the next
generation of Sonoma residents. The
Sebastian property sits within an
established residential fabric with
limited evacuation routes and
circulation capacity. That physical
reality should guide our land use
decisions. The question before us is not
whether this site should evolve, it's
how.
It's a fire constrained residential uh
context. We should be deliberate about
introducing higher intensity destination
oriented uses that increase peak traffic
and emergency complexity.
This is also an opportunity for the city
to think more broadly about economic
resilience. A balanced revenue base, one
that includes community serving and
locally rooted uses can strengthen
Sonoma over time.
This 20 acre site is one of the uh last
large centrallylo properties within the
city. That makes it rare. Rare sites
deserve long-term thinking.
Uh this property could, excuse me, this
property could support lower intensity
uses that strengthen residents first and
generate steady daytime activity without
overwhelming the neighborhood. This
approach allows us to reuse uh would
allow us to reuse and thoughtfully adapt
the existing structures to the greatest
extent possible. We have an opportunity
to demonstrate that economic vitality
and stewardship are not opposites. The
physical character of Soma, its
walkability, its historic fabric, its
human scale uh was created by restraint.
I encourage you to approach this
property not as a blank slate but as one
act of stewardship for the next 50 years
of Sonoma. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you
» Thank you
Miss Cornwall.
>> Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma
» Good evening. Um Caitlyn Cornwall Soma
Ecology Center. Um
uh I am notly not sure if this is the
right time to make this comment but
other people are making comments about
things that are not exactly their South
Aian properties. So, just uh wanted to
make a comment about 577 Level Valley
Road. Um uh uh there have been a lot of
public money spent over the last 10
years or so looking for places um
upstream of the city of Sonoma for uh
water during storms to spread out and
reduce flood risk in the city and also
to recharge groundwater. and um Sonoma
Water and the Ecology Center with
various sources of public money have
looked pretty hard in the Nathansson
Creek wershed for opportunities to let
water spread out in the winter. Um and
uh it was very very hard to find places
that where that's possible and the best
the highest priority location for
allowing that to happen is that
property. And so um I think before the
city decides to change its uh land use
designation, there should be some
thought given to whether there are parts
of that parcel that should be um uh
where future uses must allow the ability
for water to spread out there. um and it
connects hydraologically to uh parts of
the Sebastian properties. The some of
the topography is still there. So we
haven't had major flooding in the city
for a while, but we have had really
major flooding in the city over the last
30 years and it will get worse in the
future. So um that's one point and my
other point is um about the Sebastian
properties. Um, for the first time ever,
uh, in my long time at the ecology
center, I went last year to the Sonoma
County A Summit. And, um, it is a time
of real hand ringing in agriculture
right now. And one of the big challenges
that agriculture faces is the loss of
agricultural processing facilities. Um,
we have amazing food growers in Sonoma
Valley and increasingly they don't have
a place to make value added products or
even to um, process and clean what
they're harvesting. So, um, I'm sure a
use like this would require some kind of
public assistance or subsidy or
something, but I think that's something
to consider with a historic processing
facility like the one at Sebastian that
it could be used for food um, and local
businesses uh, in the future. Thank you.
>> Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.
» Thank you, Miss Formal. Mr.
Grandy, come forward, please.
» Evening, commission. Um, Art Grandandy,
1314th Street East of Gr.
So, I live just up the street from the
Sasiani uh main building and pass it
regularly every day. And I'm not going
to repeat a lot of the things that uh I
agree with that have been said just to
make this shorter. But um I wanted to
express I think a couple of main things.
If one is one of my suggestions and it's
not just my idea but endorsing others is
a special planning area allows the
planning process to go forward but
require
um further detailed exploration of any
proposal for the property without having
to define upfront uh the the accepted
uses and that's clearly something that
that ought to be considered. I don't we
don't need to debate it now, but I think
it sounds like from what I read about
it, it's it's a very useful thing. The
second thing is if any changes are being
made to this property, density is the
key a key concern and it was just
outrageous that we had seven to 25 in
the proposed wording of of the document.
I mean totally incompatible with the
neighborhood on all sides of that
property. Um we have in our zone in our
coding zones uh the medium medium
density residential which is 3 to eight
density and even given the possibility
that that might be doubled still would
allow you to be uh within possible
reasonable uh range. So there are
choices within the current uh coding
choices zone to uh
uh control the risk.
The an additional thought is we need to
have an alternative some alternative
uses as possible for that property if
eventually there is some commercial uh
aptitude
or acceptance of of commercial and um a
senior residential facility of which
there are many types around uh stages of
living uh CCRC
profit nonprofit all of that is is
details in the weed s of what is done.
But um we did have some of a small group
of neighbors there had a conversation
with a major uh developer and operator
of uh homes and uh he knows the site and
they said this would be an ideal one to
look at for a residential facility. And
I'll just point out that uh these count
as uh housing units for meeting the uh
target target goal. And as addition uh
res people who are residents in a
community like that are members of a
community, they will the the certainly
the uh independent living ones will be
able to be customers in town and join
the community.
And I think that's all I have to say.
>> Thank you. All
right. Uh JJ Abdily and um I think it
may be helpful to have the description
on and on on the screen because like
that's what we're talking about. But I
want to echo I I do also appreciate it
seems like some like conversations that
haven't been been able to be have in
public form or being had. So I
appreciate that. I also appreciate uh
Commissioner Willer's consternation
about the process of like trying to put
together a single definition on what is
actually 17 parcels, not five, that have
three different zoning designations
currently. Um I've kind of struggled
with the same thing. I'd love to learn
more about the specific plan process. I
think the reason to have the
conversation today and the reason that
this general plan process which is now
almost two years underway is it's an
opportunity for the community to send a
signal out on what it wants. And let's
also be clear that that the description
here is not talking about what is what
is desired like it's not really talking
about um you know what um should be done
there or can't. It's what what you said
this best. what is the community willing
to accept or not accept? It's it's not a
preapproval of any kind. It's it's quite
the opposite. It's a it's an opening of
a door that says bring a project that um
can fit to meeting our goals in the
general plan which are stated as
housing, economic development, and
maintaining community character and do
it in a way that um that then this is
the idea that I've had I think to maybe
address Commissioner Willer's concern
that I shared as well, which is use the
development code to get specific about
the restrictions. Nobody wants to tear
up the vineyards that exist there.
Nobody wants to remove the green space
that exists there. So use the
development code to put the
restrictions. We have actually really
great opportunity because
I will call it heritage mixed use
because I think it's much better because
it also reminds us of how long it's been
there and how important it is. But we
have the opportunity to create specific
restrictions, constraints in the
development code that will be specific
to Sebastiani and it won't apply
anywhere else because it's the only
place in town that has this zoning
designation. So I would really urge us
to keep the door open, send the signal
that these parcels have a role to play
in the asset base of the future of
Sonoma, a very important role, one that
is probably uniquely positioned to
provide unlike any other. and let the
development code guide the rest
constraints that I think we all want to
place on it regarding protecting certain
aspects of it, maintaining residential
feel in certain places. All of those
things can be done in the development
code and should be done in the
development code. Um, and I agree with
most of everything I've heard regarding
um, the challenges with density bonus
law and having too high of a zoning
standard or sorry, too high of a zoning
a a density range particularly on the
upper end. And I I've looked at that
site and you when you break it into
parcels, you look at keeping the
vineyards on the west side. Five acres
is pretty much what you're left with on
the west side and that's a lot of 15
units per acre is plenty of units over
there. You couldn't fit much more on
there anyway. Thank you. Thank you very
much.
» Hi guys. Uh my name is Bill Couturier.
Uh c u t u r i e. Um I live on loitus.
My wife and uh we're right next to the
place that we're talking about and they
are thinking of putting a whole bunch of
town houses right in our backyard. We're
not happy about that. Maybe that'll
change because I know nothing is
concrete, but just the idea of having 50
town houses right behind Los Cacitus
would
not be in keeping with GLU2, let's say.
Um, but my other thing here is people
are thinking, well, it's just is it a
hotel? Is it a bunch of condos? Is it
I think there's a we could take a little
bit out of the box. And it seems to me
everybody
that I think is here um
is worried about their house burning
down. They're worried about being able
to afford insurance because it's going
up thousands of dollars every year and
it's not sustainable. Um
there's a bunch of water out there in
this property. There's a giant well.
There's there's a problem with much
water coming in. Right.
I'm
was up in Portland for a while at the
Washington Park there. They built a
reservoir. Beautiful,
bigger than we need, 12 million gallon,
but it's it's hit and they have a little
lake on top of it that's beautiful. And
it's this charming place that people can
walk around, dogs play. We could have
something like that built and have
a little place lost the side of it where
there's like drones that carry water and
could fight fires and this could be a
central place where it would be both
recreational.
Uh
>> you're good.
» you're good.
>> Okay. I'm just saying we could save
» Okay. I'm just saying we could save
SNOVA, create a beautiful recreational
place
and uh lower our insurance costs because
we're in a high fire zone, right? So,
good things could happen. It doesn't all
have to be about
housing and there's plenty of places to
build houses.
>> Thank you very much.
I'm Richard Trant. You heard from my
wife Bert earlier.
I think if you think about what
this town is,
it becomes to me to be very vivid that
this is an opportunity for people that
live here that might want to stay here
in their oldest oldest ages. Why can't
this be
a community for
people that are here in this room and in
the in the future. It would be so great
to be able to be close to your your
loved ones in a place where you know
you're safe as the as the
the
as you get older.
So I think it would be amazing for for
Sonoma to have something like this to go
to the next stage. It would be un it
would be absolutely amazing. And I think
it would I think it would just be for so
many reasons the right thing to do. If
you think about what it is, it's
glorious. And um please don't let it go.
Thank you very much.
Okay.
Thank you for everything tonight. I
really appreciate all of what you've
said and such a great deal of thought
put into it. Um, which makes me feel
relieved because I have felt like this
was going towards mixed use and it was
going to be like stopping a train. Um, I
forgot I think I forgot to say my name.
Pat Summers. Uh, su ms.
Um, I was fresh out of knee surgery at
the meeting in January, so I did not get
to participate. But from what a few
people told me, they felt like the map
project was kind of putting the cart
before the horse and they had to put on
that map where a hotel should go, etc.
Well, who says we need a hotel? And
where did that even come from? Um, I
happen to be in the hospitality industry
and I've been dealing with the fact that
we have a lot of changes going on in
this county. We have um a wine industry
that has a lot on their plate and a lot
to deal with. We have a reduction in um
hos in a hotel occupancy and
it's not a thing that's going to be
fixed in the immediate future. It's
going to take time. Um, basically it is
my firm belief that we do not need any
more hotels. Occupancy is around 55% and
we don't need them. Uh, I live on Geroke
Road. I'm a board member of the Geroke
Road Fire Safe Council. I'm extremely
concerned about overpopulation
and increased nonviability of of uh
evacuation.
We have a lot to deal with and we don't
need hundreds of more people at the
bottom of Gerokei Road. It's um not that
I am opposed to very thoughtful
development that can enhance the
community, but we need to retain our
pockets of agriculture and the beauty of
of what we have here. It's very very
special. It's irreplaceable and I don't
want to see it go away. I want to see it
continue and thrive. So, thank you for
your good thoughts on all of that. Um,
very much appreciated.
>> Thank you very much for your comments,
» Thank you very much for your comments,
S.
» Thanks to everyone and for all of your
questions and insights uh from the
commission and everyone who has already
spoken. My name is Ray Shik. I live uh
on uh East Napa Street uh with my wife
Diane. And I think what uh was very
interesting actually about your your uh
question um Commissioner O'Neal is the
idea of possibly
um stepping back and thinking a little
bit about the process differently
because fundamentally the the notion of
a land use plan is about setting the
direction the vision of the the
community that we're planning for and
that's not simply a physical vision.
It's the vision of what the economy
should be. It's the vision of what the
businesses should be here. It's the
vision of how do we place properties in
a way that it actually accentuates the
current businesses and has plans for
where new businesses and where new
housing goes. But fundamentally, it's
it's about defining the experience of
the future of Sonoma. And I think
there's an important conversation around
that because Sonoma is a destination
about experience. It's a destination for
all of us moving here because of the
experience of Sonoma. And this parcel
has such a significant impact uh on the
community in many ways. It was mentioned
about the retail bleed, but you know, if
we if we flip the plan and say, "No,
let's think about this more holistically
in the overall plan of the city, not as
an isolated piece of property kind of at
the edge of the city. Now, how do we
really reinforce retail behavior in the
downtown? What about putting more hotels
downtown to drive uh the economy of the
square which is struggling at times and
the businesses are struggling there. So
to me I think there's some steps that
would be valuable in the process that
maybe have happened and we may not have
seen them already which is a true
economic analysis uh of the potential
uses of this property and their impact
on the city. an analysis of the de the
demographics of the city and where the
city is going in terms of the population
in terms of age in terms of economic
strata. So that we're planning for the
overall experience of the city and not
just looking at this as a use plan but a
plan that really defines where we
believe the city should go uh overall as
a as an integrated component of the city
not as a separated uh parcel from the
city. So everything from a historic uh
analysis, an economic analysis to a
certain degree the environmental
analysis. It feels to me that those
should be part of this conversation.
Understanding that in typical uh
planning there's sometimes the steps
happen a little later but having those
having that analysis done so that we can
make the decisions properly around the
land use having the the information and
the data around what we've learned with
that kind of analytics ahead of time the
housing analytics ahead of time as an
example would be extraordinarily
valuable in this process.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Thank you very much.
Mr. Barnett, state your name, please.
Uh, Chair Hyrick, members of the
commission. Um,
Council Barnett, um, I have a few
thoughts here, so I'm going to go
through them as quickly as possible. Um,
this is obviously a very important
discussion. Um, I think we would all
agree Soma's number one goal throughout
this general plan process is to preserve
community character and authenticity.
And that means historic significance,
our quality of life. Um, this is also
people, making sure that Sonoma
continues to be or, you know, continues
to be what it used to be, a full
spectrum community. And that means all
different people, all different ages.
Um, it also means securing our economic
future. That means considering new
sources of revenue and also housing.
Housing is an economic issue as well and
it also is preserving as much local
control as possible in an era of new
state housing laws and so there are
smart strategies to make sure all of the
above happen but some modifications need
to be made in this general plan uh
proposal and draft going forward. First
I want to talk about the Sonoma mixeduse
plan. Um, if we are updating the land
use, if we are updating our general plan
for the next 25 years, I really think
now is the time to discuss this area and
and honestly take the time to get it
right. I mean, don't decide tonight.
Don't decide next month. Take as much
time as you need to get this right. Um,
but in my view, status quo is not the
option. I think that would be
irresponsible. I think that would be a
failure of your fiduciary duty and the
city council's fiduciary duty. Um,
uh, Commissioner Willer's proposal, you
know, to, uh, accept applications as
they come in and do a general plan
amendment is not a bad idea. The reality
is through that process, once the land
is reszoned, that plan could change and
those new state housing laws could apply
anyway. Um, spe special planning areas
are ideas as well, but state density
bonus law, all the new state laws apply
to special planning use areas as well.
And so I think a hotel use should be
considered. Of all the hotels that have
been considered over the last tw since
1999, I think this is actually the most
natural place for one instead of right
on the plaza or on our public lands over
the hill. When it comes to housing, um
that has been the number one priority of
the Sonoma Council for the last 10
years. And I think it would be a little
contradictory or hypocritical not to
consider housing for these properties.
Um, that said, neighbor concerns, all of
our concerns about the new state housing
laws are are real. Um, and that's why I
think the current proposed densities are
way too high, not just in the Sonoma
mixed use zone, but every zone
throughout Soma, because state density
bonus law allows you not to just get
50%, but through AB1287, you can do a
stackable density bonus, and you can
double the maximum density. And when you
double the maximum density, you often
require the waiverss and concessions
needed from the development code. And so
in my view, we should be lowering all of
the densities. And besides, we've had
maximum densities of 20 units an acre
over the last 25 years in Soma. And no
project has been built. I don't think
economics justify those higher densities
in Soma. I think, you know, they sound
good often, but they oftent times don't
come to fruition for a variety of
reasons, and the economics don't just
pencil. And so I think there are, if I
can just have a few few seconds. Chair
Wy,
>> 20 more seconds.
» 20 more seconds.
>> All right. I have three solutions. We
» All right. I have three solutions. We
have to lower the minimum and maximum
densities, not just here, but throughout
throughout the city. Um, and another uh
potential solution is the historic
district. I think the Sebastian um
historic district along First Street
East should expanded to include the
entire property. A lot of the new state
housing laws do not apply to sites that
have historic structures or historic
districts on them. And while the density
bonus still does, it is much easier for
the city and Jennifer over there to deny
waiverss or concessions by making a
finding that impairs the character of a
historic district. So I think now is the
time to do this, but there are solutions
that we haven't been discussing that I
think would make everyone happy with
this process. Thank you.
>> Thank you,
» Mr. Woods. Step forward and state your
name, please.
Michael Woods, M chairman and members of
the commission. Um I agree with Ko to
the extent that the densities are are an
issue. I also think that amending the
general plan to accommodate a project
that you don't have in front of you is
challenging. It's challenging for the
community. I'm usually here with
developers as you know. Um so so so my
view is sort of taken from lots of
projects that I've been involved with
and also working with cities over the
years. Your general plan jurisdiction is
one of the few tools in your bag of
municipal tricks so to speak where
you've still got some control. And I say
that some control underscore some. Um, I
don't think you can put it past the
legislature to at some point in the next
couple of years say that if you've got a
mixeduse district that allows commercial
and residential, thou shalt not prohibit
a 100% residential project. And if
you've got a 25 DU per density, you
know, units per acre in your general
plan, theoretically, you could have a
very large project and theoretically it
could be exempt from seeker review and a
ministerial approval. And giving up that
discretion to me is not advisable. You
know, I'm used to seeing the planning
commission exercise its discretion, use
SQA as a tool, impose mitigation
measures to reduce potentially
significant environmental impacts to a
level of insignificance. You know, we're
used to those tools, but in the current
environment, if you don't keep your
discretion alive to control your general
plan, I think you're giving up a lot.
Um, and I'm I'm I would think that if if
you have a binary choice of either to
adopt Sonoma mixed use for this site
with a lot of density involved or leave
it at the status quo, I think you should
leave it at the status quo. I don't know
that that's a binary choice for you, but
minimally the densities would have to go
way way down. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you very much for your comments.
Okay. Are there any other members of the
public who wish to come forward and
address the commission on this topic?
Okay. Seeing none, I will close public
comment and I will bring back to the
commission for discussion.
Let me ask a process question.
>> Um, what do we want to try to accomplish
» Um, what do we want to try to accomplish
going forward tonight on this topic?
Garter Gates,
do you what type of what what type of
feedback or direction would be the most
helpful for you in light of the public
comment we heard and in light of the
comments
uh thus far by the commission.
So, um
I
would like to hear
kind of a straw vote of what um
individually so I can get my straw vote
um what they're your guys are thinking
um individually um in regards to Sonoma
mixed use um and then I can present that
to city council.
>> So the straw vote suggests that it is a
» So the straw vote suggests that it is a
binary choice. So
>> well it's not necessar like straw vote
» well it's not necessar like straw vote
in the sense of continue to work on it.
Let's just keep it the same or um you
know we've have some edits some small
edits being proposed. Um,
so
it's just going to depend on kind of
where you're saying. And when I say
straw, that's me going, okay, that's
pause, you know, from this individual.
Pause. Pause. Or no, I won't continue to
work on it. It's still a goal on this
general plan. Um
the
um so again March 4th is the meeting
that we're going to city council and so
I'll be preparing that staff report next
week. So I'm going to give an update on
all of the elements to them and where we
are in the process. So tonight is the
last bit of the elements. There's no
more elements after tonight if we can
get through them. Um
I there's not a lot of on the other two.
Um
but in that in that sense so I will
put that forward.
>> Okay. So so to
» Okay. So so to
>> ask a clarifying followup.
» ask a clarifying followup.
>> Yes you can.
» Yes you can.
>> Okay. Just so just so I understand,
» Okay. Just so just so I understand,
are you saying that that you're going to
uh I guess I'm a little concerned that
that we're going to the city council at
this point.
I is it going to the city council for
them to render a decision about anything
or is this just information? So, um,
based on the discussion tonight, any
changes, right, we're making
modifications to the different elements.
Yeah. So that we can finalize these
drafts to get them, um, get into the
finish up the environmental review
process. So that is the goal for
tonight. And then the goal for the March
3rd is to kind of finalize these drafts.
So in that sense it is a kind of
direction I'm seeking um to move forward
versus pause the general plan.
>> Okay. So um um the this timetable
» Okay. So um um the this timetable
is this um
uh is this something where that is a
self-imposed timetable? In other words,
what I'm what I'm sensing is that uh
there are a lot of opinions out there
about how to go forward and they range.
And if I were asked tonight to render a
final opinion as to what I think we
should do, for example, with this land
use designation we're talking about. Um,
I would do it if I had to, but I hate to
feel pushed to do it um without
uh more opportunity for conversation and
discussion. It's already 9:00. We're not
going to go on for another two hours.
At least I'm not.
And and um I'm concerned that that we're
moving ahead
quickly,
but I'm not sure what the what the
timetable or the establishment of the
deadlines for these timetables where
they're coming from. Is this something
we've self-imposed? Is something that
you want to do? Is it something the city
council has imposed? Is it the
consultantism?
Where are these where are these dates
coming from?
>> Um so it is um a goal to complete the
» Um so it is um a goal to complete the
process by the fall before the fall
except September. And so working
backwards within an EIR and another 60
days of public comment still to occur.
That's where we're kind of falling into
it is that the edits and everything need
to get to the consultant, finalize the
EIR so that we can release it for that
60-day um time frame.
>> Okay. And and the and the completion
» Okay. And and the and the completion
date that you've targeted in the fall
and I don't know whether we're talking
October.
>> Okay. So, you've got a clear date in
» Okay. So, you've got a clear date in
mind. Is that once again is that
something that is being imposed upon us
by the consultant? Is it being imposed
upon us by anybody?
Or is it just simply what you would like
to do so you can get on with business.
Not to I'm not I'm not saying that in a
in a derogatory way. And
>> what are the what are the repercussions
» what are the what are the repercussions
of not meeting the goal?
>> Um that we probably will delay for
» Um that we probably will delay for
another year.
Why is that?
>> Um just because of timing of what's um
» Um just because of timing of what's um
going to be occurring in the fall.
>> Okay. And that that doesn't if let's
» Okay. And that that doesn't if let's
explore that just for a moment. If we
delayed for another year, we're not
violating state laws.
>> I have two elements that do need to get
» I have two elements that do need to get
done. Yes.
>> My safety element is already
» My safety element is already
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> should have been done two years ago. Um
» should have been done two years ago. Um
and then I um one other element needs to
get done. I think it was the circulation
that's
>> okay. But but the but the overall
» okay. But but the but the overall
general plan update accepting those
elements that are that are overdue. Um
uh there's no we're not in risk of
violating some timetable of the state
for the approval of the new general
plan. Right.
>> Not for the rest of it.
» Not for the rest of it.
>> Okay. Um, you know, for example, you
» Okay. Um, you know, for example, you
mentioned the safety element. I mean, we
haven't had a robust discussion yet
about the nexus of the safety element
and where development ought to occur in
the community based on the high fire
risk zones. There may be that with a
further exploration of a topic like
that, the conclusion that would be drawn
would be that if development or
expansion of the city uh development
should occur, it should occur
in some place not adjacent to a high
fire risk zone. I mean, that's that's a
possible. I'm not saying that that
that's what will happen, but that's a
possibility that an analysis would say
we'd be better off having development on
the southern end of the city, which is
not a fire high fire risk zone than on
the northern end of the city, which is I
mean, anything north of Napa Street, as
I understand it, is high fire risk. So,
um I'm just I just I I guess what I'm
saying is I I feel like all of a sudden
we're rushing, and I don't like feeling
rushed. I hate to make decisions feeling
» So I think in the straw poll, you know
where Larry stands.
» Would it be helpful to go commissioner
by commissioner and have each give
three minutes
of where they stand on the issue? Is
that how you like to frame a straw poll
or would you like to frame it in a more
um what would be the most helpful for
you to say
or go commissioner by commissioner and
say
give three options do nothing leave it
as it exists adopt SMU as it's written
or come back to the table is that
helpful to simplify things or no
>> I'd rather have more general eneral
» I'd rather have more general eneral
conversation around it than making it so
strict because I don't think that's
really quite as applicable. Um, I think
I already have a general idea of where
some people sit in that and I can re I
can state to you all what I hear after
you say it and then you can nod, shake,
disagree
>> um afterwards. But I think just getting
» um afterwards. But I think just getting
an understanding of the where you you
sit on the topic of the Sonoma mixed
juice. Um that would be helpful. We can
go from there.
>> Does everybody understand the
» Does everybody understand the
directions? Okay. Commissioner Willers,
we'll start with you.
>> Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three
» Me. Um so I'll try to keep my three
minute promise here. Uh where I stand is
I don't think we're in a position to
make a decision that I I've been
through, you know, we've been dealing
with this for over a year. We've been
talking about it for over We haven't
been talking about it for over a year.
We've been able to think about it for
over a year. Um
there are too many external influences
on this general area to responsibly make
a decision without more information. But
one piece of information that we do have
that was the safe study that came along
that was a very thorough document that I
spent a lot of time reading and it
essentially says no hotel
low density housing
and you can't do it without improving
your infrastructure.
So to me that says if I'm going to pay
attention to what the study says which
is an independently
um you know financed study and has
people behind it that that aren't a
third party so to speak. Um what it says
to me is we have to study the situation
more before we start applying um uses to
a property that we don't know enough
about.
Um and I and I also think that the
The special study area is something that
we could possibly use within the general
plan context to say that we recognize
that this is an important piece of
property that we're going to have to
deal with in the future and what we need
to do it as a community via
the typical process of implementation
measure. we have to do this within a
certain period of time to meet the goals
of our general plan and give us
ourselves the time to do it and agree
that we're going to do it so that it
meets the goals of the 45 general plan.
So I I my personal opinion is we either
leave the zoning as it is and let pro
projects come forward or we take the
tact of introducing this as a special
plan area and doing the studies in the
future so that we can make a reasonable
decision.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
Bernett.
Well, I've already said that I I feel
rushed and I don't like feeling rushed.
And uh so if that implies that uh we
just leave things as they are for now, I
guess that's where I would have to lean
that um I don't I wouldn't feel prepared
tonight to highly define how we're going
to use these this uh these parcels. um
because I I I don't feel we've had a
robust enough examination or discussion.
This is really the first time we've had
uh back and forth or the opportunity to
respond to the concerns of the
residents. And I will characterize
myself as I always have in any public
capacity as resident centric. Um and uh
I believe that um all decisions that the
city makes
have to be considered in light of what
does the community want. And it's only
through forums like this and
opportunities like this that you can get
a sense of it unless you put something
on the ballot and have a vote. I've done
that too. Um so um I I would support um
Commissioner Willer's point of view in
terms of the potential of looking at uh
uh special plan
or leaving it alone for now and um with
all due respect to Jennifer and her
goals and and and your timetable and the
pressures you feel in the job you've
got. I just I I hate making decisions
and going with recommendations to the
city council prematurely.
» Thank you, Commissioner N.
» I don't need three minutes. Um I feel
strongly that I'm not uh after tonight's
discussion, which is really the first
discussion that we've had at at this
capacity of a of a commission.
Um, I'm not personally uh informed
enough and would uh welcome further
discussion. Um, it would be
irresponsible for me to um to weigh in
further until we had an opportunity for
further discussion and I would want that
further discussion for my own
edification so that I can make a
responsible uh decision on this.
>> Great. Thank you, Commissioner
» Great. Thank you, Commissioner
Yes, thank you. Um, I I actually agree
with all the comments that have been
expressed by my colleagues. I came into
this tonight not comfortable with a
Sonoma mixeduse designation. Um, but I
was unclear of some of the options. Um,
I think uh, Commissioner Willer's
recommendation for status quo is
intriguing. I think there are still some
inherent risks to that that I want to
examine further. I appreciate the
public's um recommendation for, you
know, an SRRA. Um but I also think there
are inherent risks associated with that.
As some of you know, I'm very involved
in state policy. I am not responsible
for the land use policies and the
housing policies that have been
implemented at the state level, but I do
watch them carefully. And so I'm trying
to balance the risks of some of these
recommendations because I think that's
important. And I'm I'm equally intrigued
by some of the other comments that were
made about a historic overlay, maybe
further examination of of our density
designations. Um, I'm not trying to open
up a whole can of worms here, but there
those are intriguing proposals and so I
don't feel terribly informed enough to
make a a recommendation to the council.
And I also really want to express my
appreciation to the public. We have
heard you. I did read those comments, by
the way. There were there were a few um
in the hundreds of letters we received
that we're not reading them. And I can
assure you that all of us here are and
we've taken this very seriously. But we
also have a job and um sometimes
maintaining poker face is important, but
we hear you and we value your opinions
and I think we want to make the most
informed decision that guides the future
of this community. And I I do support a
diverse community. So, I think um this
general plan update is extremely
important and we need more time.
>> Thank you, Mr. Nova.
» Thank you, Mr. Nova.
>> So, um I too am not comfortable moving
» So, um I too am not comfortable moving
forward with just an overlay of the this
snow and mixed use. And what I um you
know, I agree we've been I've been
really thinking about this a lot. I've
heard from a lot of folks um and I
really appreciate the comments and I
think what I've heard tonight were also
a lot of new ideas around um this idea
of maintaining control, the idea of
being creative about this. And I
personally would like us to to move
forward and try to incorporate some of
the things we heard today as a a way to
refocus the ability for us to maintain
control um while at the same time not
keeping the status quo because do we
want the status quo for another 20
years? I mean, I don't think so. But I
do think there's an opportunity for us
to create um a plan and I'm a fan of
specific area plans um that that would
allow us as a city to direct what we
want and not be passive about it. Um, if
there's a way, for instance, that we can
have a specific area plan and also bring
in an historic overlay to maintain
control. I mean, I'd like to think about
those kinds of ideas
um for us to be able to direct where we
want to go and have some control over
it. So, I too would like to incorporate
some of the things that we've heard and
and refocus what's possible um with
regard to not only the development code,
but also the general plan and the land
reuse.
Thank you, Mr. O'Neal.
>> Okay, set my three minute timer.
» Okay, set my three minute timer.
Um,
I have to agree with everyone here. Um,
one of my first concerns was I felt like
we were jamming things when we really
didn't understand the project that was
coming before us. Um, hotels are not
that
in demand right now. They're hard to
finance. If anybody was really excited
about building a hotel, I know Darius
Anderson is still trying to secure
financing for his hotel. Um, the fact
that this is a very high fire zone makes
insurability a really important issue
and for housing that's such an important
issue. I think it needs to be uh
understood very well before any housing
can be built there. I think as we have
any projects come before us, we'll have
SQA that we have to go through. A lot of
the SQA process we can't do until we
have a project, but I think the HRE is
one we could. I'm wondering how we could
possibly because the site is there.
That's not going to change. I'm
wondering if there's a way that we can
actually um
get a historic resource evaluation for
the site so that any developer coming
forward knows precisely what they're
dealing with, what's historic there,
what isn't historic, what do we wish to
save, what do we not need to save. And I
know that's not typically done. We
always do the HRE after the project
comes to us, but I'd like to see that as
a possibility.
I agree that with uh Commissioner
Donbach, we wouldn't really want the
status quo. If Sebastian came to us
right now and said, "I want to put in
wine production in this neighborhood."
We'd all go, "Heck no." And if you ask
August Sebastian about when he was a
little kid and they had uh grapes coming
in at harvest time and he was the kid
who had to go around and tell all the
neighbors trucks are coming through and
the neighbors weren't very happy. So,
no, we don't want status quo. That's
definitely not what we want there. But I
think we do have an asset there that is
a treasure but not the entire thing. I
think parts of it are a treasure and
parts of it we really want to maintain
and we want to keep as part of our
heritage and then other parts we want to
repurpose and see them flourish and be
more useful going forward. So I'm not
ready to jump into the Soma mixed use
commercial whatever zone. Um I I don't
feel comfortable with that. I think this
is too big of a test case for us to have
a new designation on that makes me
nervous because I personally don't feel
smart enough to look at all the ways
that somebody could take advantage of
that. Um so my biggest ask is um what
can we do about potentially getting some
kind of HRE as we go through this
process and having a community task
force as was suggested that we could
actually take this as a task force
continue to on this, not wait till the
next general plan, but continue to work
on this knowing that we want to get this
incorporated and get it taken care of
very quickly. My three minutes went up.
Sorry.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
Um, I will join wholeheartedly in what
my colleagues up here on the dis have to
say. Um, I come from a position of
wanting to preserve the last remaining
levers of local control that we have.
And in this case, um, what's represented
by the the proposed
Soma mixeduse zone, I think, seeds, uh,
too much, um, you know, could seed too
much local control to a level to an
extent that I'm uncomfortable with.
Um, I would like to see more
incremental, gradual steps taken to
marshall the evolution of this extremely
special and historic place that
contributes so much to the sense of
place
um
of Soma. Um, it's just too important to
to rush. Um, I'd be interested to hear
to hearing more about a sight specific
plan. I'd be uh really interested in
hearing about specific projects. Um I
think that this conversation has to
continue. Um I'm not anti-housing. I'm
not anti-development. In fact, I'm pro
both. But I'm pro- responsible
development.
and
uh in an environment, a legislative
environment where the inclusion of
housing where there wasn't formerly
housing, it opens up a floodgates to to
potential disaster in my opinion.
Um
that said, if there's a decision or a
recommendation that has to be made
tonight, it would be mine would be to
abandon the concept of Sonoma mixed use
and to stay with what we have and to
explore options in the next five or 10
years going forward. Maybe even
curtailing what exists in the wine
production zone to allow additional
uses, light retail, wine adjacent uses,
maybe even a boutique hotel. I have no
problem with that if it's done well. Um,
but opening the floodgates, which I
think the language in this mixed use
zone as proposed effectively does, I'm
uncomfortable with it. Those are my
thoughts.
» You want your summary now?
>> All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it
» All right. Um, so I heard mostly keep it
the same, but there's a butt there,
right? It's continue the conversation.
Um, that they something it's going to
change and helping it change in the way
the community wants is important to the
plane commission.
That can lend itself in different ways.
Um right now it would be to um just keep
it the three different designations it
is right now and then
um two options. One a project gets
proposed for that site.
Um another option is that the you know
go back to the table if we did do a
specific plan we would need to give
budget um to do such thing um or we
would wait for a project to come through
um so there's there's a different
options out there um for this. I'm sorry
that you feel rushed Larry don't want
you to feel rushed. Um,
I don't want you guys to feel rushed on
any of this. Um, I know it's a big deal.
I know that it's 20 years of planning uh
into the future that we know is we don't
know what that looks like in the next
six months. Uh, and I know that's really
hard. So, I recognize that. Um, so that
is what I heard. Um, I do have questions
around what that looks like just
because part of that change that um is
being proposed
that Sebastiani historic district is all
currently um zoned
um actually wine production. Um, and so
one of the changes that was being
proposed is to modify that wine
production on those lots to residential
low.
So I wanted to um clarify that keeping
that change is still
um good to go.
>> Just those specific homes,
» Just those specific homes,
those single those little single
residential homes
on
>> the Sebastian cottages.
» the Sebastian cottages.
>> Yeah, the little cottages. The
» Yeah, the little cottages. The
Sebastian, it's the residential historic
district.
Um,
so those would be
these little yellow ones right there.
>> Sorry, what what was it?
But they're consistent with all the load
that's below it.
» That density that density might be 15
units to the It might be 10 units to the
acre.
>> I think it's around the medium is
» I think it's around the medium is
between the low and the medium. Um but
it's reflective of the zoning that's
across the street.
So that's what that small change
that I just wanted to make sure that I
clarify. If that those little yellow
>> if if you're asking for opinions on
» if if you're asking for opinions on
that, I have no problem converting what
are currently residential uses to
residential zoning.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
>> that's just double checking. I just
» that's just double checking. I just
>> I would join in that.
» I would join in that.
>> Okay,
» Okay,
I am doing some cleanup. So those were
one of the things. So I just wanted to
clarify that that that would still
change. Um okay.
So I think that ends that discussion. I
do I know it's 9:24
but I do want the other two lots
discussed please if possible.
the other two lots,
>> the memo on the f the um request
» the memo on the f the um request
>> on Levelvel Valley and then also on
» on Levelvel Valley and then also on
Sonoma Highway.
» So, are we complete with this session?
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Okay.
» Five minute stretch.
At this yeah at this point I will call
for a fivem minute recess but a strict
fivem minute recess reconvene at 9:30
please.
Yes,
» we need to reconvene. It is uh about 30
seconds past my strict five minute
stretch break.
At this point, I'd like to thank the
remaining members of the the community
who are in the room still. And uh thank
you for your insight. Thank you for your
time. Thank you for your your care and
consideration and uh we're we're happy
and we're glad you're here and uh your
opinions and your comments help us to
formulate our opinions and move forward.
So again, thank you. And with that,
uh I believe we are still on item 5.2.
>> We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of
» We are still on item 5.2. Um in front of
you right now is the uh memo that was
written in regards to land use change
requests that have come in from specific
property owners um um in regards to
their own properties andor in
collaboration with the property owner.
So the first one is 577 um it's two
parcels 577 and 711 Level Valley Road.
Um the request is from agricultural to
rural residential. Um staff did
originally incorporate that into a draft
future land use map for consideration
um to incorporate it into the secret
process. The request came in late um and
knowing that we would still have
multiple opportunities to discuss um it
is um a request that would modify
those two parcels. one is both are
smaller than the 10 acre requirement um
which is a one dwelling unit per 10 acre
um on those agricultural parcels and
then the change of those land use um
property would allow two dwelling units
per acre. Uh I do recognize that that's
a big change um but rural residential
does allow continued agricultural um use
which is currently being done on the
larger of the two parcels.
Um so that is one. The other one um is
on 1934
zero and through 9360
Soma Highway. Um these two um the
request came in to do a mixeduse land
use designation.
Um there is mixed use on the property
just to the south that is um a little
smaller actually um in the commercial
component part of it. Um this is all
mixed use down here. Um this whole area
was identified um as housing
opportunity. I did double check these
lots specifically are not identified to
meet our regional housing needs
allocation. Um unlike the Montalo
property which was
um housing opportunity is uh 30 dwelling
units per acre maximum. A mixed use
under the proposed change would be 25
dwelling units per acre which would be a
reduction of about five um dwelling
units on these specific sites. Um and um
that request came in. Both of them have
uh letters attached and I do not see
owner of Levelville Valley, but I do see
um the director of the community health
center.
So with that, that concludes staff's
very brief presentation.
>> Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments
» Great. Okay. Any commissioner comments
or sorry questions? Commissioner
questions based on director's
recitation.
>> I do have a clarifying question for the
» I do have a clarifying question for the
the first one is 577. I just want to
make sure I understand the the image.
>> So when looking at it on the right side
» So when looking at it on the right side
is that 577 that property that has a
home on it and then the and that's 577.
Uhhuh. This whole thing to here.
>> What? Which one is 711?
» What? Which one is 711?
>> This one. This piece.
» This one. This piece.
>> Okay. So 711
» Okay. So 711
um
already has a home. It's a smaller lot.
So is is that it's but it's all on the
same lot. I'm just really confused about
>> it's two parcels.
» it's two parcels.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> The lot line is right here. Okay.
» The lot line is right here. Okay.
>> Right where you see those trees.
» Right where you see those trees.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> That's the lot line.
» That's the lot line.
>> And so the request is to change So,
» And so the request is to change So,
there's already a home on one of them.
>> There is one home on this one. And then
» There is one home on this one. And then
there's two small units over here on
this one.
>> And so, the proposal would be to change,
» And so, the proposal would be to change,
let's just talk about the 711 that
>> the proposal would be to change that
» the proposal would be to change that
potentially to the rural which would
allow another unit on that even though
it's not 10 acres. This is I'm kind of
really confused about this. Agriculture
is one per 10 acres.
>> Um the change of land use would allow
» Um the change of land use would allow
two units per acre. So these two parcels
are around nine acres of land.
>> That little parcel 711 is nine acres.
» That little parcel 711 is nine acres.
>> No, combined it's nine acres.
» Okay.
>> So So for a total of 18,
» So So for a total of 18,
>> no,
» no,
>> it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.
» it's nine acres total. line. Yeah.
>> No, no, no.
» No, no, no.
>> Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.
» Oh, yes, yes, yes. Sorry.
>> Total total potential
» Total total potential
>> total potential. Yeah.
» total potential. Yeah.
>> Units is 18.
» Units is 18.
>> Okay. And and and that's where I was
» Okay. And and and that's where I was
going. Thank you. But but obviously
those 18 would be on that open a space
because there's already home on part of
it, right? It would be on the space
where the lot line is going toward.
>> Yeah.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> On that note, do we know the intent of
» On that note, do we know the intent of
the um applicants? What their intention
is?
>> Well, he he says in his letter that he
» Well, he he says in his letter that he
wants to continue the agricultural use.
The the issue is is that if we change
the designation, some future owner of
the property then is governed by the new
designation, not the intention of use.
So what the present owner intends to do
is less significant than what the zoning
designation of the parcel is
historically.
I have a question. The
land to the south,
is that county or is that city?
>> County.
» County.
>> Okay. And what is the zoning?
» Okay. And what is the zoning?
>> It's uh their version of a rural
» It's uh their version of a rural
residential. It
>> varies. The density is
» varies. The density is
>> um
» um
>> attached to the counties.
» attached to the counties.
>> Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um
» Sorry, I was looking for Mr. Woods. Um
he knows
Um I can't remember off the top of my
head. Um what
>> one unit per two
» one unit per two
>> true something like that.
» true something like that.
>> So
» so it it typically two acre minimum
parcels
>> one unit but it's heavily controlled by
» one unit but it's heavily controlled by
not public sewer.
>> Okay. So the allowed densities in the
» Okay. So the allowed densities in the
county and their version of rural
residential would not be
not be equal, but it also not wholly
dissimilar from what they're asking for,
right?
» So the difference would be nine.
>> Does this have city water?
» Does this have city water?
>> I'd have to look to see if it's already
» I'd have to look to see if it's already
serviced or not. I don't I do not know
off the top of my head.
>> And it does not have city sewer.
» And it does not have city sewer.
>> I would have to look to see if it's been
» I would have to look to see if it's been
serviced or not. I mean, we do have lots
within our city that are still on city
water or sewer.
>> Well, I'm just looking from a future
» Well, I'm just looking from a future
development perspective. Um, it if it
has water and sewer and Yeah, I'd like
to know
>> it can have it.
» it can have it.
Where is it now? Where does it end? I
mean, that's could be cost prohibitive
if it's too far away.
>> And that's something I don't exactly
» And that's something I don't exactly
remember where it ends. I think it's
going to end probably at the development
if it hasn't already been extended.
It'll end at the development that's just
north of Sebastiani.
That's where currently it ends even
going up Fourth Street. It was just
extended to Brazil this year.
>> Any more questions for staff before we
» Any more questions for staff before we
open public comment?
Okay, this time I would open public
comment. Anybody wanting to come speak
on this matter?
» Good evening.
>> Evening.
» Evening.
>> Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of
» Uh I'm Sarah Brewer. I'm the CEO of
Sonoma Valley Community Health Center.
Very nice to meet you all and be here.
Um so we are um federally qualified
health center. We serve 6,500 patients a
year and we're also looking at the
trends of healthcare needs in the valley
and are interested in expanding and
providing more care and better serving
the needs of the community so we don't
have to leave go to other parts of the
county. Um we're also interested in
providing housing. One of the challenges
that we have is in recruiting and
retaining staff and especially
healthcare providers is housing. So
looking to see if we can use this as an
innovative way to retain staff and
continue to provide the healthcare in
the valley. That's our That's our hope.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> So, do you own these parcels? Is the the
» So, do you own these parcels? Is the the
health center owned the parcels in
question that are being considered for
this change?
>> No, we don't own them, but we are hoping
» No, we don't own them, but we are hoping
to acquire them.
>> Okay. So, um your intention is then to
» Okay. So, um your intention is then to
acquire them and with the change in in
uh the zoning designation
uh have the opportunity to construct
lowincome or workforce housing on this
parcel.
>> Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.
» Yeah. In in addition to the clinic.
>> How do you mean in addition to the
» How do you mean in addition to the
clinic?
>> Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't
» Well, the idea Yeah. Well, we haven't
designed it yet, but the idea is to have
there be housing and the the healthcare
provided there.
>> Oh, so you would move from the location
» Oh, so you would move from the location
that you were in.
>> No, keep that one as well. But this is
» No, keep that one as well. But this is
just a few parcels down.
>> Uhhuh. And so you would com you would
» Uhhuh. And so you would com you would
have both health serving use on the
parcels as well as housing.
>> Exactly. On this one on that the housing
» Exactly. On this one on that the housing
would not be on the one that's existing.
>> That's quite an ambitious plan.
» Yeah.
>> Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs
» Well, we have a lot of healthcare needs
that we need to
>> Well, I understand. in an era of federal
» Well, I understand. in an era of federal
government cuts to community health
>> centers.
» centers.
>> Um so you have a assume a robust
» Um so you have a assume a robust
fundraising plan in mind as well.
>> That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot
» That's the idea. Yeah. Along with a lot
of other
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> innovative strategies. Yeah.
» innovative strategies. Yeah.
>> Okay. Thank you.
» Okay. Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
» Yeah. Thank you.
>> Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
» Thank you very much. Appreciate it.
>> Any other members of the public?
» Any other members of the public?
>> Mr. Granny, come forward. State your
» Mr. Granny, come forward. State your
name.
Art Randy. Um
I go up and down Levelvel Valley Road
quite often walking, bike riding.
I don't think the possibility of having
that developed to the the rate of two
per acre for roughly 10 acre site and
that location uh suits the uh the scene.
So there are a lot of practical issues
as well which obviously everybody
already knows about water, sewage,
whatever lots of complications. Money
can solve some of those to some degree
but not at this time. Thank you.
Any other public comments?
Okay, I'll close public comment at this
time. Bring back to the commission for
commissioner comments.
Any comments? Commissioner Willers.
Um, for me it's all about edge condition
and and it's and it and it does link
back to our earlier discussion. Um,
one of the one of the reasons that's
stated in the letter is because we're
considering adding housing to the
Sebastian property. Well, we're not. We
don't know what we're going to add to
the Sebastian property at this point.
And so, you know, you create an edge
condition of growth
and the other edge, the edges around it
respond. It's California development.
It grows from the edge out. And and so
my I don't think that there's a reason
to reszone this land. There's a request
to reszone it. And I think the
implications of reszoning it in my
opinion are too great given the edge
condition
to to make it reasonable.
So I am not in favor of this request
for those reasons.
>> The other one, you know, it's it's
» The other one, you know, it's it's
intriguing. It's zoned housing
opportunity. Um I think the mixeduse
zone is almost equal.
Um I don't I have no issue with the
mixed use zone being applied on the
corridor here. It's the place where it
probably makes sense to do it. Um it is
also the area where we have opportunity
to have you know it's good to know that
it's not being used for reena numbers at
this point. Um
and it's current zoning is
what's it?
>> It's housing opportunity.
» It's housing opportunity.
>> It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't
» It's housing opportunity. So it doesn't
allow anything but multif family.
>> You know, it's currently a mixeduse
» You know, it's currently a mixeduse
corridor already as a corridor. So I
don't have any issues with that with
changing that. I don't think the density
the 30 dwelling units per acre is that
great of an impact on these parcels even
in their aggregate because
it's all about parking cars as you can
see next door to it. So
>> great. Thank you. Any other commissioner
» great. Thank you. Any other commissioner
comments? Commissioner D.
>> I will make a comment. Um I am also
» I will make a comment. Um I am also
supportive of um the um redesation um of
to mixed use in this parcel. I think
it's a reasonable plan. It it fits in
with the you know the zoning around
there and I'd love to support what your
efforts in trying to bring housing and
uh expanded healthcare to the community.
With regard to the other property, um I
I would agree. I I think that um I was
also um moved by the fact that this is a
zone where we need to have perk and we
need to to, you know, recharge our
aquifers. And I think we need to really
pay attention to that, especially here
in the south end where our aquifers are
really drying up the deep deep aquifers
and soon seawater will come in and that
will affect our ability to be
agricultural.
So I
I really don't support that change
because of the density that would be
impacted there. Um and not knowing about
the sewer or the water also um adds to
that. Um and thirdly, this idea that we
also have to really think about our
other water resources um and our
environmental resources
um I think are for me it's it's
not appropriate to approve.
» Commissioner O'Neal. Um, I'm in
agreement. Um, the Arnold Drive, that
sounds like a great opportunity. And
further up the street there is some of
the live work condos that, you know,
there's a mixed juice area there. So,
that just to me looks excellent. Um,
Levelville Valley, uh, as a runner going
up and down Level Valley, we call it
Lake Level, and if you ride your bike or
run out there right now, it's a very
large pond, and you have to time it to
get through before the spray you. Um,
that area definitely has some water
pooling issues and I think that there's
just too much that we don't understand
there to be able to jump and just say,
uh, yeah, let's go ahead and do this,
especially not understanding the intent
and what where it's going to go with it.
If we just go ahead and say, "Yeah, they
can develop this property, put two units
per acre, but we don't have the
infrastructure to deal with that water,
and we don't have what we need. that the
runoff goes somewhere because if it's
not going to go out into those vineyards
right now, where's it going to go? So,
I'm definitely not okay with making any
changes on that until we have a much
clearer picture of it.
>> Your comments?
» Um, I concur with the um
uh the um
what the hospital wants to do with those
properties. And yes, It makes it makes
all the sense in the world. It's already
there. Um, regarding Level Valley, um,
with a lack of intention,
I'm not compelled to, um, I and a lack
of information about what's going on
there. Um, I'm not compelled to
approve that. There's just I just don't
know enough.
>> Anybody else?
» Anybody else?
Okay, I'll just join in the comments of
my fellow commissioners. I don't have
much to add other than um I I join them
in their analysis of uh finding that a
reszone to to rural residential doesn't
quite meet the test um as far as you
know edge conditions and and um
I could see if we were entertaining the
idea of um housing on the adjacent site
then it might be a little bit more
applicable, but and by the consensus
tonight, it sounds like we are not. Um,
so for those reasons, I join in not
supporting the reszone for Level Valley,
but supporting uh the change to mixed
use on this other site.
And I will
>> Does it need to be? I
» Does it need to be? I
>> I didn't think so.
» I didn't think so.
Okay. Um
>> um
» um
question.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Um in the if there was anything in
» Um in the if there was anything in
regards to the elements, I mean in
instead of going through them unless
anybody had some very specific comments
um is it possible to move those uh edits
forward or do you want them I know or do
you want them
moved again to the March meeting because
we've moved them so
>> three meetings now. I think
» three meetings now. I think
>> I I would be willing to entertain what
» I I would be willing to entertain what
my colleagues have to say, but I would
prefer to move them forward to March. I
think that they're deserving of a little
bit more conversation we can have at
this point. And I I would like to hear
5.1 tonight, too. Um
so it would be my opinion to to continue
the the balance of 5.2 to forward to to
the March date
>> and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10
» and uh and to hear 5.1 before the 10
o'clock hour
» is there any
» so the only input that I would make is
that both of those both of those
elements have very minor edits from the
ad hoc because most of the um both most
of the elements are driven by
things we really don't have the
opportunity to have any input on. Right.
Um the safety element and the cultural
resource element are primarily directed
other than the way in which we're going
to implement the the cultural resource
are primarily directed by state law and
so our general plan is consuming state
law and putting it within it and
structuring it. So I think the
discussion would be relatively short
um around those two because the edits
are so minimal. In fact, one of them one
of them we didn't really even edit. The
cultural resource one we didn't even
have any comment on.
Okay. I I'd be willing to entertain a
poll of who would like to continue those
items within 5.2 to March versus uh
hearing them tonight. Um, I want to
understand if we do hear them tonight,
what happens with 5.1
» because I think that's a higher
priority. But, um,
>> so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go
» so I I don't know. I'm I'm willing to go
for another 20 minutes and we probably
in my opinion we could probably get done
and be done.
>> I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See
» I I suggest we deal with 5.1 first. See
how quickly we can get it out of the
way.
>> That is my suggestion.
» That is my suggestion.
>> Not that I want to rush.
» Not that I want to rush.
>> That is that is my suggestion.
» That is that is my suggestion.
>> And and then we'll do it.
» And and then we'll do it.
>> Wasn't one of those colors tonight.
» Wasn't one of those colors tonight.
Sloth.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Yeah.
» Yeah.
>> Where did that come from? I don't know,
» Where did that come from? I don't know,
but it was on one of the colors. It was
a sloth gray. And I was thinking of you
not wanting to rush. Not that you're a
sloth.
>> What color is your house?
» What color is your house?
>> Sloth.
» Sloth.
>> Okay. So, that said, we are going to
» Okay. So, that said, we are going to
table 5, the balance of 5.2,
and move on to uh item 5.1,
interpretation of multifamily dwelling.
And director dates, if you would please.
>> Sure. Um
» Sure. Um
and there it goes. Um so um before you
is an interpretation um for your
consideration tonight. So again, strict
adherence um it's about multif family
dwelling. Strict adherence to of the
definition in the land use tables um for
multif family dwelling would preclude
multifamily residential development from
including multiple structures being
plural containing one unit each on a
single lot because the definition of
multif family dwelling refers to a
structure being singular
in order to allow mix of residential
building typologies and a multif family
residential development. the existing
definition of multifamily development is
more accurate um as a land use type
rather than um multifamily dwelling.
So interpreting multif family dwelling
to allow mix um of building types also
um comports with our development codes
rules of interpretation in that a
development code provides structure that
should be interpreted as structures and
the term structure is defined as
buildings being plural. So there's two
different um ways to interpret that. In
addition, while not specifically listed
in the land use table, a multif family
development does meet the same intent as
a multifamily dwelling in the zoning
district and is substantially similar to
a multifamily dwelling in the sense that
it contains more than two dwelling units
on a single parcel.
And so recommendation is to approve the
resolution accepting the zoning code
interpretation. So that would be for
purposes of the use table under um our
section 191050.
Multifamily dwelling shall have the same
meaning as multifamily development which
already is defined in our code.
That concludes my presentation.
>> Amazing. Any questions of director
» Amazing. Any questions of director
Gates?
Do I
>> I need to open public comment.
» I need to open public comment.
Any members of the public wishing to
address the commission? I see none.
>> Also, don't you
» Also, don't you
>> bring it back to the commission for
» bring it back to the commission for
comment? Does anybody have comment?
>> Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?
» Okay. Neither do I. Is there a motion?
Motion to approve the recommendation to
change um the use tables under SM's E
section 1910
050.
>> Second.
» Roll call, please.
>> Commissioner Willers.
» Commissioner Willers.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Commissioner Barnett.
» Commissioner Barnett.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
» Commissioner Gorman Jenkins.
>> Hi.
» Hi.
>> Commissioner Donbach.
» Commissioner Donbach.
>> Commissioner O'Neal.
» Commissioner O'Neal.
>> Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick
» Yes. Vice Chair Nent I. Chair Hyrick
>> I.
» I.
>> Motion passes unanimously.
» Motion passes unanimously.
>> Okay. Can we continue the discussion on
» Okay. Can we continue the discussion on
the remaining points of 5.2? Is there
any objection?
>> I I have a question. Does that include
» I I have a question. Does that include
the land use element or just the because
the land use element is there. So that's
three.
>> So my recommendation is let's do
» So my recommendation is let's do
historic and safety. I'm fine with
continuing for the fourth time the land
use element or third time. I don't know.
I think we started in December. Um but
we'll get there. Um but these two I
think are really short and I think we
can get through them.
>> Is there any objection to hearing those
» Is there any objection to hearing those
two?
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> And the first being historic and
» And the first being historic and
cultural resources. Anybody have any
comments? Because this one's the
easiest. I did present it to the
Historic Preservation Commission last
Friday. They do have Obviously, there a
number of edits, so I will be
incorporating those in the edits that
will um go into that final version, and
it's more for clarification purposes and
and some key terms um around like
cultural landscapes and uh intangible
resources and and different things that
um aren't quite in here.
>> I just have one one comment. Sure. And
» I just have one one comment. Sure. And
and and it just um it was just a flag as
I was reviewing it and I don't have any
There was a reference in on page 138.
>> Can you give me the the
» Can you give me the the
>> Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in
» Oh, sorry. Um, it's the actions in
support of goal essay-2
item C.
Oh, back down.
>> I swear this is quick. It's just the way
» I swear this is quick. It's just the way
my brain is.
>> Wait, you're talking about safety or
» Wait, you're talking about safety or
housing?
>> No, I'm talking about I thought this was
» No, I'm talking about I thought this was
cultural. I thought this was historic.
>> Yeah. HC HC.
» Yeah. HC HC.
>> Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to
» Yeah. Two. Okay. Yeah. HC to
go down to goals.
It's just a point of clarification. Keep
going.
Yep. Next page.
See,
>> you have reference to Senate Bill 18.
» you have reference to Senate Bill 18.
There's no reference to Senate Bill 18
anywhere else in that section.
>> So, I just don't know what it is. I
» So, I just don't know what it is. I
thought maybe we wanted to explain it at
some point.
>> Okay.
» Okay.
>> So, I'm just making note that that's my
» So, I'm just making note that that's my
only comment.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> It's again, bills always kind of stand
» It's again, bills always kind of stand
out to me. So, but I couldn't find it
anywhere else in the in the draft. So, I
thought we might want to reference what
it is.
>> Okay, that's all.
» Okay, that's all.
>> Thank you.
» Thank you.
>> Sorry everybody.
» Any other questions?
related to this.
You want to do the other one,
» safety element. Um there were a few
edits comments. Um I will be adding more
around climate adaptation um based on
what we've done in our hazard ation
plan. I'm working with Sarah Tracy on
that right now. Um and then also after
the review of the hazard mitigation plan
plan by um Department of Emergency
Management and others, if we do have
another opportunity to modify that,
we're going to reverse also and and
incorporate some of the things that came
out of um the recent um evacuation
traffic study. some of those details
that are in there that don't belong in
the general plan but really go into that
hazard mitigation plan itself. So just
FYI on that. Um so
um just general if you anybody had any
specific questions or comments on the
safety element itself. Um there were a
few um comments um in this element. Um
just for also consistency sake with our
other element, we'll be reformatting
everything and and making sure that
there's consistency.
Um,
and so there's just been just small
little edits inside.
Anybody have any
questions?
>> Any questions?
» Any questions?
All right,
I think I have to reopen public comment
for anyone interested in commenting.
Okay, close public comment. Commission
comments.
hearing. Seeing none,
Director Gates, are you satisfied with
your feedback for those two elements?
>> I just want to note that it took two
» I just want to note that it took two
minutes.
>> I want to say the ad hoc rocks.
» I want to say the ad hoc rocks.
>> Yes.
» Yes.
>> Go ad hoc.
» Go ad hoc.
>> All right.
» All right.
>> Um,
» Um,
we have a 5.3.
No,
>> we do, but I can continue that one that
» we do, but I can continue that one that
really going to be that's really
connected to the land use element.
>> Okay. So,
» Okay. So,
>> so 5.3 is to be continued
» so 5.3 is to be continued
>> with the land use element.
» with the land use element.
>> With the land use element. No
» With the land use element. No
objections.
All right. Director comments and
announcements.
» I I can't think right now.
>> Commissioner reports and comments.
I will just quickly say that I think
Jennifer is doing an excellent job
marshalling this general plan process
through and it takes some serious
patience to deal with
planning commissions and all the various
other commissions under your purview and
um interface with the with a um to our
consultant and be an intermediary
between the city
the various powers to be to include the
city council on all your commissions.
So, we think you're doing a great job. I
think you're doing a great job.
>> I second that.
» I second that.
>> Um, thank you for your tireless efforts
» Um, thank you for your tireless efforts
and um, keep up the good work. Hannah,
you too, I guess.
» Um, and on that note,
>> motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.
» motion to motion to adjurnn. All right.
So, move